Just actually had a look at Lord Ashcroft's data tables for his poll that @HYUFD loves so much as it "shows that Green voters are against Independence" and I cannot actually stop laughing.
That is based on looking at the response of Green Constituency voters! If you look at the breakdown by Green vote on the List Green voters are, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly in favour of independence.
In case anyone doesn't understand what is going on, the Greens are only standing in 10 out of the 72 constituencies.
There is also the minor point that the Scottish Greens are openly in favour of independence. If you vote for the Scottish Greens you are voting for their manifesto which is for independence.
So of course HYUFD says Green voters don't back independence. The poor simpletons don't know what they are voting for. Which is why it is So Important not to give them any say at all over their own status. They're such children - let the grown ups in England take care of them.
People vote for parties for different reasons. It is certainly true that someone voting for the Tories, for example, probably doesn't support everything the Tories propose to do. Indeed, they probably do not know everything the Tories propose to do.
But imperfect as they are if a party stands under a manifesto and wins seats under it it is reasonable for that party to treat their supporters as having endorsed that manifesto to some degree. Particularly when it is such a major policy.
Particularly when thats the argument HYUFD uses for Tory voters. He is such a screaming hypocrite.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Just actually had a look at Lord Ashcroft's data tables for his poll that @HYUFD loves so much as it "shows that Green voters are against Independence" and I cannot actually stop laughing.
That is based on looking at the response of Green Constituency voters! If you look at the breakdown by Green vote on the List Green voters are, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly in favour of independence.
In case anyone doesn't understand what is going on, the Greens are only standing in 10 out of the 72 constituencies.
I gave up when HYUFD ignored my question on if that was the case why is a referendum part of the Green Party manifesto?
Because HYUFD is as usual talking bollox
If the Government does decide to respect Scottish democracy then I'm going to find it amusing how HYUFD reconciles that with his stated views.
Somehow I rather suspect he won't be quitting the party in protest. 😂
Just done a quick vaccine count calculation - by the end of May we'll reach 81-83% of adults with one dose and 50% of adults with two doses, that's with no increase in vaccine supply. Assuming the MHRA ever get around to approving Novavax that 81-83% becomes more like 87-89% leaving just 7-8% needing first doses (around one week of supply in June). By the time we hit June 21st everyone who wants a vaccine will have had a first dose and by the end of July every single person will have had both doses except a few unlucky people who get AZ in the next two to three weeks.
Surely those who get AZ in the next few weeks could have their 2nd dose early (though not really early versus the original plan) once there are no more first doses to give?
There are clinical reasons to delay the second AZ dose to 12 weeks. Someone who gets AZ at the end of May will need to wait until the middle of August for their second dose. However, it does seem like the MHRA are about to remove that option by limiting AZ for under 40s as well, I assume we will get Novavax approved around the same time which only needs a minimum 3 week gap for 96% efficacy.
Other countries are not using a 12 week gap for AZ. I entirely support the UK's decision to do so, but I think the primary driver was the laudible desire to get as many 1st doses given as quickly as possible*.
Hancock briefed him on it as an idea his department had come up with and he was considering. He asked Blair’s opinion.
Blair then ran and brief the media about his wonderful idea.
Hancock was so pissed off that he ceased all briefing of Blair
It was extraordinary poor behaviour by a former PM
I'm not sure about that. According to my new guru Alan Duncan there is no one on the Tory benches more duplicitous than Hancock. He said explicitly you can't believe a word he says. He will do anything for advancement. Tony Blair by contrast is a politician of great skill and distinction. The fact Hancock is prepared to concern himself with glory hunting in the middle of the pandemic rather bears out Duncan's judgement. Blair wouldn't need to bother.
To be more duplicitous than 360-odd politicians of any stripe is quite an achievement.
Asked 17 yo granddaughter if she was voting on Thurs. "Oh yeah - SNP yay! We all hate the English." She's really intelligent but this is like voting people off Love Island. Depressed me no end.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Just actually had a look at Lord Ashcroft's data tables for his poll that @HYUFD loves so much as it "shows that Green voters are against Independence" and I cannot actually stop laughing.
That is based on looking at the response of Green Constituency voters! If you look at the breakdown by Green vote on the List Green voters are, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly in favour of independence.
In case anyone doesn't understand what is going on, the Greens are only standing in 10 out of the 72 constituencies.
'Of those likely to vote SNP with their first vote, the vast majority (84%) were in favour of independence. By contrast, those likely to vote for the Scottish Conservatives were overwhelmingly against Scotland becoming an independent country, with 95% anti-independence. Among Scottish Labour, and Scottish Liberal Democrats supporters 75% and 79% respectively opposed separation from the UK. The picture was more mixed for Scottish Greens supporters with 43% pro-independence and 46% against.' https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-Scottish-Political-Research-April-2021.pdf (p19)
You cannot exclude Green voters on the constituency vote from what Green Party voters think on an independence referendum just as you dislike the result, indeed they are the most genuine Green voters in Scotland ie voting Green on the constituency and list votes.
Given the SNP will likely get less than 50% on the constituency vote that is clearly no mandate for indyref2 (they will get far less on the list vote but even there the SNP and Greens and Alba combined will likely not get much more than 50% and probably less on the list vote as well)
I the vague terms to trying to assume you are genuinely arguing in good faith - how many people do you think are voting Green on the Constituency vs on the List?
In 2016 the greens got 13,172 constituency votes and 150,426 (more than 10 times as much) on the List.
So for now I'm going to give Green voters SindyRef2 voting intentions based on list breakdowns 10 time as much attention as those base on constituency numbers
I can’t read that story because I’m not a subscriber. But remember all legal restrictions will go on 21 June according to the government’s own roadmap. Whether some venues keep glass screens, who knows?
Disturbing story briefed in the times. Suggests theatre and cinema goers will be forced to wear masks throughout screenings and performances. Distancing to be gone, but punters to wear masks when moving around. Sports venues may be capped to avoid pinch points. If things go as I expect with the vaccination rollout, cases will continue to fall, and hospitalisation and death will be minimal, yet I’ll still need to wear a mask to watch a film? Bye bye cinemas.
Who is briefing this? I think much of it is rampant speculation and kite flying trying to hold the public’s feet to the fire for the final weeks of lockdown. People have noticed that hardly anyone is now suffering from covid 19 in the UK.
They're preparing the ground for keeping masks and as "low cost" interventions over the long term. The public health chumps don't want to let their tools go.
The public health people should be experts on public health. They should 100% be advising that we've shown flu can be almost eliminated with the anti-Covid measures.
It's then for politicians, and the public more widely who elect those politicians, to have a debate about where the balance lies.
In terms of changes from the pre-pandemic status quo, I'd suggest that anyone with a cold, or feeling unwell, should be advised to work from home and not go out, and if they have to do so, then they should wear a mask.
I think those are reasonable changes to make, but no more than that.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
Except if a second independence referendum is happening, then that "Big Picture" remains something of HYUFD's fervered imagination and not something that actually happened.
It is not happening.
Sunak today says allowing indyref2 would wreck Scotland's recovery from Covid.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Debenhams went bust and shut all their stores. Moving stock around amongst the remaining stores as part of a phased closure programme is how they all do it.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Because Debenham has gone the way of the Norwegian Blue parrot and the liquidator's want to sell all the stock ASAP.
Which meant moving all stock in Scotland (which did not open on April 19th) to stores that were open.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
Question is, how much is "Boris doesn't take himself seriously" just a carefully manicured act by someone who takes himself very seriously indeed?
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
Im arriving at the point where it's clear that Referendum 2 is going to be inevitable.
The question is how do you get the awkward questions into public conversation in a way that doesn't allow everyone to vote for their unicorn independence
Stick to the facts, take away the emotion. Focus on Issues like currency, economic prosperity, future pension liabilities and the real downsides to Indy. Offer a vision that is not just more of the same. Learn from the failings of the inept remain campaign in the brexit referendum.
Remain was far too focussed on project fear, and the No campaign would be wise to appeal to the heart as well as the head. I am not sure it can though. Always keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse is not a great slogan.
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
The same way he told Northern Ireland there would be no Border.
The same way he told fisherman Brexit would be good for them.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
Im arriving at the point where it's clear that Referendum 2 is going to be inevitable.
The question is how do you get the awkward questions into public conversation in a way that doesn't allow everyone to vote for their unicorn independence
Stick to the facts, take away the emotion. Focus on Issues like currency, economic prosperity, future pension liabilities and the real downsides to Indy. Offer a vision that is not just more of the same. Learn from the failings of the inept remain campaign in the brexit referendum.
As remain found out it very hard to paint a brighter future when all you are offering is more of the same.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
Im arriving at the point where it's clear that Referendum 2 is going to be inevitable.
The question is how do you get the awkward questions into public conversation in a way that doesn't allow everyone to vote for their unicorn independence
Stick to the facts, take away the emotion. Focus on Issues like currency, economic prosperity, future pension liabilities and the real downsides to Indy. Offer a vision that is not just more of the same. Learn from the failings of the inept remain campaign in the brexit referendum.
Remain was far too focussed on project fear, and the No campaign would be wise to appeal to the heart as well as the head. I am not sure it can though. Always keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse is not a great slogan.
Doesn't help that the No campaign was such a massive liar anyway last time - on Brexit above all.
Asked 17 yo granddaughter if she was voting on Thurs. "Oh yeah - SNP yay! We all hate the English." She's really intelligent but this is like voting people off Love Island. Depressed me no end.
Depressing, but young enough to reap the whirlwind she is sowing.
And everytime I mention Scottish Nationalist hate politics even gently, the PB Nats have kittens.
Dr. Foxy, "Always keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse is not a great slogan."
Aye. It's one of the reasons the portents of doom from the likes of Osborne harmed rather than helped the pro-EU side.
"United against division" or suchlike would be a good theme for the pro-UK side. Doesn't just cover Scotland leaving, but all the internal division a lot of Scots are sick of.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
OK, thats a different argument to what you said. That the people who lost the Brexit referendum should front the No campaign because of the brilliant job they did in the Brexit campaign...
Remain was far too focussed on project fear, and the No campaign would be wise to appeal to the heart as well as the head. I am not sure it can though. Always keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse is not a great slogan.
Just actually had a look at Lord Ashcroft's data tables for his poll that @HYUFD loves so much as it "shows that Green voters are against Independence" and I cannot actually stop laughing.
That is based on looking at the response of Green Constituency voters! If you look at the breakdown by Green vote on the List Green voters are, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly in favour of independence.
In case anyone doesn't understand what is going on, the Greens are only standing in 10 out of the 72 constituencies.
Would you say that Green voters were voting tactically for the SNP in the constituencies, or SNP voters were voting tactically for the Greens on the list? Which is the more important reason for the difference?
Granted the subsample of Green constituency voters will be too small to make meaningful comments about what those voters think when it's based on only 10 constituencies, but I'm curious as to what you think the true level of Green support is?
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
Question is, how much is "Boris doesn't take himself seriously" just a carefully manicured act by someone who takes himself very seriously indeed?
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
Im arriving at the point where it's clear that Referendum 2 is going to be inevitable.
The question is how do you get the awkward questions into public conversation in a way that doesn't allow everyone to vote for their unicorn independence
Stick to the facts, take away the emotion. Focus on Issues like currency, economic prosperity, future pension liabilities and the real downsides to Indy. Offer a vision that is not just more of the same. Learn from the failings of the inept remain campaign in the brexit referendum.
Remain was far too focussed on project fear, and the No campaign would be wise to appeal to the heart as well as the head. I am not sure it can though. Always keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse is not a great slogan.
Completely agree. I remember vividly going to a Better Together event in Perth focusing on ex servicemen where I first came across Ruth Davidson. That room was seething that Better Together was unwilling to say anything positive about the UK because Labour politicians could not bring themselves to say anything positive about the coalition. Several members of the audience stood up and said how proud they were to be British and how disappointed they were that pride was not being manifested in the debate. I might even have made such a comment myself.
The economic arguments are compelling but they are not enough. Hearts need to be won too.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
Except if a second independence referendum is happening, then that "Big Picture" remains something of HYUFD's fervered imagination and not something that actually happened.
It is not happening.
Sunak today says allowing indyref2 would wreck Scotland's recovery from Covid.
Sunak saying that doesn't mean it won't happen. If Scottish voters agree with Sunak then they should vote accordingly, that is democracy. If Sunak's side lose the election in Scotland then if the Scottish voters vote to wreck their recovery then that is their choice.
Boris does not say that. The Dail Heil saying he "could" do that doesn't mean he "will". If he says he will then please provide a quotation, preferably on camera, of him saying that. Because its not true, you're not telling the truth.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
Im arriving at the point where it's clear that Referendum 2 is going to be inevitable.
The question is how do you get the awkward questions into public conversation in a way that doesn't allow everyone to vote for their unicorn independence
I do not want indyref2 but it is not going away and if the results on Thursday confirm majority support for indyref 2 then a way should be found for it to take place
I understand Sturgeon herself has said she does not want it before covid recovery and the Greens are not on board until the Westminster government have fronted the costs of decommissioning the oil rigs, etc which must be quite a long way away
From HMG point of view the best time to take on indyref 2 is the time that neither Sturgeon or the Greens really want it, and if we are playing high stakes politics, which this is, Boris calling Sturgeons bluff and allowing indyref 2 in early 2022 could be a very smart move
Without getting ahead of ourselves and completely distressing some posters on here, imagine if Boris won indyref2.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
OK, thats a different argument to what you said. That the people who lost the Brexit referendum should front the No campaign because of the brilliant job they did in the Brexit campaign...
The people who lost the Brexit referendum?
I don't think anyone is proposing to get Cameron etc back are they?
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
Gove is a cunning strategist, but Boris’s buffoonery just doesn’t travel much beyond mad dogs and Englishmen.
Remain was far too focussed on project fear, and the No campaign would be wise to appeal to the heart as well as the head. I am not sure it can though. Always keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse is not a great slogan.
Fantasy beat reality.
Not sure where we go from there
It always will.
The way to get past it would be to have the negotiations before rather than after the referendum, and to learn from the Brexit one.
Would the "Oven Ready Deal" have won if that was the proposal on the Brexit referendum in 2016? We shall never know, but I think not.
Just done a quick vaccine count calculation - by the end of May we'll reach 81-83% of adults with one dose and 50% of adults with two doses, that's with no increase in vaccine supply. Assuming the MHRA ever get around to approving Novavax that 81-83% becomes more like 87-89% leaving just 7-8% needing first doses (around one week of supply in June). By the time we hit June 21st everyone who wants a vaccine will have had a first dose and by the end of July every single person will have had both doses except a few unlucky people who get AZ in the next two to three weeks.
Surely those who get AZ in the next few weeks could have their 2nd dose early (though not really early versus the original plan) once there are no more first doses to give?
There are clinical reasons to delay the second AZ dose to 12 weeks. Someone who gets AZ at the end of May will need to wait until the middle of August for their second dose. However, it does seem like the MHRA are about to remove that option by limiting AZ for under 40s as well, I assume we will get Novavax approved around the same time which only needs a minimum 3 week gap for 96% efficacy.
Other countries are not using a 12 week gap for AZ. I entirely support the UK's decision to do so, but I think the primary driver was the laudible desire to get as many 1st doses given as quickly as possible*.
Hancock briefed him on it as an idea his department had come up with and he was considering. He asked Blair’s opinion.
Blair then ran and brief the media about his wonderful idea.
Hancock was so pissed off that he ceased all briefing of Blair
It was extraordinary poor behaviour by a former PM
I was teasing.
I am rather surprised Hancock spoke to Blair about the idea though. I would not have expected any contact at all between any member of the current cabinet and Blair.
All former PMs are entitled to briefing on Privy Counsellor terms & are expected to offer their advice
Interesting, and on the whole positive.
Wonder IF they could have a seance to brief and consult Sir Robert Walpole, Pitt Elder & Younger, Disraeli, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill, Atlee, Macmillan, Wilson, Thatcher?
Wot no Palmerston?
He could advise from beyond the grave for five hour stretches complete with memorable Latin quips.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Because Debenham has gone the way of the Norwegian Blue parrot and the liquidator's want to sell all the stock ASAP.
Which meant moving all stock in Scotland (which did not open on April 19th) to stores that were open.
Exactly. But, other than wanting to be different for the sake of it, why did Scotland not open until the 19th when we had a lower incidence of the disease and a lower death rate than England? Being different was more important to Nicola than staff getting a few more weeks work. How many more businesses are now failing because they can't sell drink inside? What the hell is the logic of that? Restaurants are going out of business. Its mad.
Indyref2 ain’t happening for years and years, but appreciate PB likes to speculate and every year folk expect it to be announced. Boris is a lot more astute than Cameron on referendums. It certainly doesn’t feel like a necessity now as perhaps it did in 2014.
Just actually had a look at Lord Ashcroft's data tables for his poll that @HYUFD loves so much as it "shows that Green voters are against Independence" and I cannot actually stop laughing.
That is based on looking at the response of Green Constituency voters! If you look at the breakdown by Green vote on the List Green voters are, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly in favour of independence.
In case anyone doesn't understand what is going on, the Greens are only standing in 10 out of the 72 constituencies.
Would you say that Green voters were voting tactically for the SNP in the constituencies, or SNP voters were voting tactically for the Greens on the list? Which is the more important reason for the difference?
Granted the subsample of Green constituency voters will be too small to make meaningful comments about what those voters think when it's based on only 10 constituencies, but I'm curious as to what you think the true level of Green support is?
Green voters are people who like Green policies. I know that might sound trite but it is.
Green get a bunch of List votes from Labour and Lib Dem Constituency voters as well as SNP Constituency voters.
So I think their List score is pretty reflective of their "true" support.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Because Debenham has gone the way of the Norwegian Blue parrot and the liquidator's want to sell all the stock ASAP.
Which meant moving all stock in Scotland (which did not open on April 19th) to stores that were open.
The likes of Hilco are well practised (sadly) at liquidation sales. They get stores shut on a rolling basis, pull the remaining stock out and transfer it into one of the remaining stores. And again. And again until eventually they are down to the remaining stock at 80 - 90% discounts in the final handful of stores.
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
......and the reply is that 40% of a 70% turnout doesn't demonstrate a desire for a Boris Johnson led government.
Except they are measuring different things
No one votes for a government for the UK. They vote for a local representative in the Commons. The government is lead by whoever can command a majority of those representatives
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
Im arriving at the point where it's clear that Referendum 2 is going to be inevitable.
The question is how do you get the awkward questions into public conversation in a way that doesn't allow everyone to vote for their unicorn independence
I do not want indyref2 but it is not going away and if the results on Thursday confirm majority support for indyref 2 then a way should be found for it to take place
I understand Sturgeon herself has said she does not want it before covid recovery and the Greens are not on board until the Westminster government have fronted the costs of decommissioning the oil rigs, etc which must be quite a long way away
From HMG point of view the best time to take on indyref 2 is the time that neither Sturgeon or the Greens really want it, and if we are playing high stakes politics, which this is, Boris calling Sturgeons bluff and allowing indyref 2 in early 2022 could be a very smart move
Without getting ahead of ourselves and completely distressing some posters on here, imagine if Boris won indyref2.
Stranger things have happened in politics
Except the rules have to be agreed by both parliaments, so that in itself is a damper on the more outre possibilities. (If they aren't, then that in itself is a huge problem.)
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
Correct and we Tories will refuse one regardless.
If necessary we are prepared to follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain when they were in government in 2017, so even if Sturgeon does win an SNP or nationalist majority at Holyrood on Thursday and hold such a non binding referendum we will tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result just as the Spanish government ignored the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017. As Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 the UK government can do so.
The Catalan government even went so far as to declare UDI, which Sturgeon unlike Salmond has said she will not do but if either of them did we would ignore such a UDI as well.
We may not go as far as our Spanish cousins and order the arrest of Sturgeon and Salmond for threatening the Unity of the State but otherwise we will do everything in our power to enforce the preservation of our Union and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum on independence which resulted in a 55% No vote
You don’t speak for the Conservative party. Less of the “we” please
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
The big way to 'game' it is change the question to Leave/Remain, a neutral question bumps ~4% off of the separatist share immediately. A second way to game it would be by getting a PM with a cleaner history in No.10. A Starmer/Badenoch/Truss etc figure would fall in the Cameron bucket of being disliked rather than the Boris bucket.
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
Correct and we Tories will refuse one regardless.
If necessary we are prepared to follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain when they were in government in 2017, so even if Sturgeon does win an SNP or nationalist majority at Holyrood on Thursday and hold such a non binding referendum we will tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result just as the Spanish government ignored the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017. As Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 the UK government can do so.
The Catalan government even went so far as to declare UDI, which Sturgeon unlike Salmond has said she will not do but if either of them did we would ignore such a UDI as well.
We may not go as far as our Spanish cousins and order the arrest of Sturgeon and Salmond for threatening the Unity of the State but otherwise we will do everything in our power to enforce the preservation of our Union and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum on independence which resulted in a 55% No vote
You don’t speak for the Conservative party. Less of the “we” please
In all this talk of indyref2, on the assumption Boris agrees to it, then surely it must be upto the HoC voting it through, and the HOC largely consists of anti indyref2 MPs
Can someone confirm or otherwise the actual process of granting a sec 30 order as that would be most helpful
Morning, BigG! THis might be worth a look. The Sec30 for indyref1 was laid before Pmt. But remember it also has to clear the Scottish Parliament, under the Sewell convention and indeed precedent - and trying to ignore that would be itself highly problematical for obvious reasons.
Thank you for that and it does look quite complex.
However, unless I am wrong the ultimate agreement to hold for indyref 2 rests with Westminster so I assume Westminster would have to vote it through
I must admit though I have no constitutional expertise
Pleasure to help. I'll be interested to see if they can find an Act which both parliaments would vote through (bearing in mind the Tories of HYUFD's persuasion, etc.)
I am sure you accept that there are many conservatives, myself included, that completely reject @HYUFD incendiary attitude to the Scots and Indyref2
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
The big way to 'game' it is change the question to Leave/Remain, a neutral question bumps ~4% off of the separatist share immediately. A second way to game it would be by getting a PM with a cleaner history in No.10. A Starmer/Badenoch/Truss etc figure would fall in the Cameron bucket of being disliked rather than the Boris bucket.
Or Baroness Davidson, having found a Westminster seat.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
OK, thats a different argument to what you said. That the people who lost the Brexit referendum should front the No campaign because of the brilliant job they did in the Brexit campaign...
The people who lost the Brexit referendum?
I don't think anyone is proposing to get Cameron etc back are they?
We're talking about Scotland. Boris / Gove lost and lost heavily north of the wall. David wants the same pair of losers to front the No campaign because they are winners.
They won. In England. And lost heavily in Scotland.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
Yes, give in to the Nationalists now before a generation has elapsed since 2014 and even if No narrowly win an indyref2 the hardliners in the Nationalists would force Sturgeon to push for indyref3 soon after
You have no answer to a very serious and complex problem which, handled diplomatically, could see the case for the union win, especially as covid recovery and brexit has made the argument for independence much more difficult to make
Just repeating a mantra, robot style will not resolve the issue
The real problem with HYUFD's position is that he takes a maximalist view of UK parliamentary sovereignty - "with a plurality of the vote, we can do literally anything we like" - and absolutely no respect to the views of anyone else. If that is truly the Tory line, it won't end happily.
Just actually had a look at Lord Ashcroft's data tables for his poll that @HYUFD loves so much as it "shows that Green voters are against Independence" and I cannot actually stop laughing.
That is based on looking at the response of Green Constituency voters! If you look at the breakdown by Green vote on the List Green voters are, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly in favour of independence.
In case anyone doesn't understand what is going on, the Greens are only standing in 10 out of the 72 constituencies.
Would you say that Green voters were voting tactically for the SNP in the constituencies, or SNP voters were voting tactically for the Greens on the list? Which is the more important reason for the difference?
Granted the subsample of Green constituency voters will be too small to make meaningful comments about what those voters think when it's based on only 10 constituencies, but I'm curious as to what you think the true level of Green support is?
Green voters are people who like Green policies. I know that might sound trite but it is.
Green get a bunch of List votes from Labour and Lib Dem Constituency voters as well as SNP Constituency voters.
So I think their List score is pretty reflective of their "true" support.
We see in PR elections like the Euro-elections, a lot more support for Green Party (and LD and BXP) than we do in FPTP votes, so I agree the list vote more accurately measures support, and these are Greens tactically voting SNP in constituencies.
In all this talk of indyref2, on the assumption Boris agrees to it, then surely it must be upto the HoC voting it through, and the HOC largely consists of anti indyref2 MPs
Can someone confirm or otherwise the actual process of granting a sec 30 order as that would be most helpful
Morning, BigG! THis might be worth a look. The Sec30 for indyref1 was laid before Pmt. But remember it also has to clear the Scottish Parliament, under the Sewell convention and indeed precedent - and trying to ignore that would be itself highly problematical for obvious reasons.
Thank you for that and it does look quite complex.
However, unless I am wrong the ultimate agreement to hold for indyref 2 rests with Westminster so I assume Westminster would have to vote it through
I must admit though I have no constitutional expertise
Pleasure to help. I'll be interested to see if they can find an Act which both parliaments would vote through (bearing in mind the Tories of HYUFD's persuasion, etc.)
I am sure you accept that there are many conservatives, myself included, that completely reject @HYUFD incendiary attitude to the Scots and Indyref2
Oh, I do understand that - sorry, I meant the subset of Tories of HYUFD's persuasion (and presumably some Labour and SLD types, and the DUP while we are at it).
It's also an interesting question whether Labour might vote down a bill that was seen as unreasonable.
Remember what happened with the Brexit legislation.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
Yes, give in to the Nationalists now before a generation has elapsed since 2014 and even if No narrowly win an indyref2 the hardliners in the Nationalists would force Sturgeon to push for indyref3 soon after
You have no answer to a very serious and complex problem which, handled diplomatically, could see the case for the union win, especially as covid recovery and brexit has made the argument for independence much more difficult to make
Just repeating a mantra, robot style will not resolve the issue
The real problem with HYUFD's position is that he takes a maximalist view of UK parliamentary sovereignty - "with a plurality of the vote, we can do literally anything we like" - and absolutely no respect to the views of anyone else. If that is truly the Tory line, it won't end happily.
Under FPTP it remains true however once we have a Tory majority as we do now, if we had PR or a hung parliament as from 2017-19 it would not be true I grant you but we don't
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
The big way to 'game' it is change the question to Leave/Remain, a neutral question bumps ~4% off of the separatist share immediately. A second way to game it would be by getting a PM with a cleaner history in No.10. A Starmer/Badenoch/Truss etc figure would fall in the Cameron bucket of being disliked rather than the Boris bucket.
Or Baroness Davidson, having found a Westminster seat.
Where? I would need to be in Scotland and it's irrelevant as she is off to the Lords
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Because Debenham has gone the way of the Norwegian Blue parrot and the liquidator's want to sell all the stock ASAP.
Which meant moving all stock in Scotland (which did not open on April 19th) to stores that were open.
Exactly. But, other than wanting to be different for the sake of it, why did Scotland not open until the 19th when we had a lower incidence of the disease and a lower death rate than England? Being different was more important to Nicola than staff getting a few more weeks work. How many more businesses are now failing because they can't sell drink inside? What the hell is the logic of that? Restaurants are going out of business. Its mad.
I spend the first 11 months of the plague in Teesside. Witnessed the stupidity of the early unlocks followed by the rapid tier 3 then tier 4 restrictions which went on forever. Then the Christmas massacre and the January spike. My borough was the literal Covid hotspot of the entire country at one point.
So the whole point about a slower more measured unlock programme is to squash Covid flat. As has happened up here. Aberdeenshire had 15 new cases last week. Not yesterday, the whole week. You get that by staying locked down longer. You can sit in Dundee and say "we wanted to be like Teesside" but no, you really didn't. It hasn't helped with shops and restaurants either.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
The big way to 'game' it is change the question to Leave/Remain, a neutral question bumps ~4% off of the separatist share immediately. A second way to game it would be by getting a PM with a cleaner history in No.10. A Starmer/Badenoch/Truss etc figure would fall in the Cameron bucket of being disliked rather than the Boris bucket.
Or Baroness Davidson, having found a Westminster seat.
Where? I would need to be in Scotland and it's irrelevant as she is off to the Lords
Well, if I was “ruling the U.K.”, I would put Ruth in the Cabinet as Minister for the Union, and find a Scottish seat for her toot suite.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
Except if a second independence referendum is happening, then that "Big Picture" remains something of HYUFD's fervered imagination and not something that actually happened.
It is not happening.
Sunak today says allowing indyref2 would wreck Scotland's recovery from Covid.
Sunak saying that doesn't mean it won't happen. If Scottish voters agree with Sunak then they should vote accordingly, that is democracy. If Sunak's side lose the election in Scotland then if the Scottish voters vote to wreck their recovery then that is their choice.
Boris does not say that. The Dail Heil saying he "could" do that doesn't mean he "will". If he says he will then please provide a quotation, preferably on camera, of him saying that. Because its not true, you're not telling the truth.
All the more e reason to get it out of the way ASAP - look how much better England has recovered from Covid compared to Scotland
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
Correct and we Tories will refuse one regardless.
If necessary we are prepared to follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain when they were in government in 2017, so even if Sturgeon does win an SNP or nationalist majority at Holyrood on Thursday and hold such a non binding referendum we will tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result just as the Spanish government ignored the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017. As Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 the UK government can do so.
The Catalan government even went so far as to declare UDI, which Sturgeon unlike Salmond has said she will not do but if either of them did we would ignore such a UDI as well.
We may not go as far as our Spanish cousins and order the arrest of Sturgeon and Salmond for threatening the Unity of the State but otherwise we will do everything in our power to enforce the preservation of our Union and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum on independence which resulted in a 55% No vote
You don’t speak for the Conservative party. Less of the “we” please
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
The big way to 'game' it is change the question to Leave/Remain, a neutral question bumps ~4% off of the separatist share immediately. A second way to game it would be by getting a PM with a cleaner history in No.10. A Starmer/Badenoch/Truss etc figure would fall in the Cameron bucket of being disliked rather than the Boris bucket.
Or Baroness Davidson, having found a Westminster seat.
Where? I would need to be in Scotland and it's irrelevant as she is off to the Lords
Not necessarily. The Tories have had SoSfS from English constituencies before. But the Lords bit is quite correct - thouigh, come to think of it, has Baroness-t-be Davidson actually taken ermine yet? I don't thin she has, has she? She gets very ratty if someone calls her Baroness. Is there some reason for the delay other than the pox?
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
Correct and we Tories will refuse one regardless.
If necessary we are prepared to follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain when they were in government in 2017, so even if Sturgeon does win an SNP or nationalist majority at Holyrood on Thursday and hold such a non binding referendum we will tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result just as the Spanish government ignored the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017. As Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 the UK government can do so.
The Catalan government even went so far as to declare UDI, which Sturgeon unlike Salmond has said she will not do but if either of them did we would ignore such a UDI as well.
We may not go as far as our Spanish cousins and order the arrest of Sturgeon and Salmond for threatening the Unity of the State but otherwise we will do everything in our power to enforce the preservation of our Union and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum on independence which resulted in a 55% No vote
You don’t speak for the Conservative party. Less of the “we” please
He speaks for Henry VIII?
Edward Ironside?
Didn't establish the C of E. Or invade Scotland to show how much he loved the Scots. Edit: still called the Rough Wooing round here.
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
Correct and we Tories will refuse one regardless.
If necessary we are prepared to follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain when they were in government in 2017, so even if Sturgeon does win an SNP or nationalist majority at Holyrood on Thursday and hold such a non binding referendum we will tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result just as the Spanish government ignored the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017. As Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 the UK government can do so.
The Catalan government even went so far as to declare UDI, which Sturgeon unlike Salmond has said she will not do but if either of them did we would ignore such a UDI as well.
We may not go as far as our Spanish cousins and order the arrest of Sturgeon and Salmond for threatening the Unity of the State but otherwise we will do everything in our power to enforce the preservation of our Union and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum on independence which resulted in a 55% No vote
You don’t speak for the Conservative party. Less of the “we” please
He speaks for Henry VIII?
Edward Ironside?
Didn't establish the C of E. Or invade Scotland to show how much he loved the Scots. Edit: still called the Rough Wooing round here.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
Im arriving at the point where it's clear that Referendum 2 is going to be inevitable.
The question is how do you get the awkward questions into public conversation in a way that doesn't allow everyone to vote for their unicorn independence
I do not want indyref2 but it is not going away and if the results on Thursday confirm majority support for indyref 2 then a way should be found for it to take place
I understand Sturgeon herself has said she does not want it before covid recovery and the Greens are not on board until the Westminster government have fronted the costs of decommissioning the oil rigs, etc which must be quite a long way away
From HMG point of view the best time to take on indyref 2 is the time that neither Sturgeon or the Greens really want it, and if we are playing high stakes politics, which this is, Boris calling Sturgeons bluff and allowing indyref 2 in early 2022 could be a very smart move
Without getting ahead of ourselves and completely distressing some posters on here, imagine if Boris won indyref2.
Stranger things have happened in politics
Except the rules have to be agreed by both parliaments, so that in itself is a damper on the more outre possibilities. (If they aren't, then that in itself is a huge problem.)
It is very complicated but a way to address the issue does need to be found
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
......and the reply is that 40% of a 70% turnout doesn't demonstrate a desire for a Boris Johnson led government.
Works for me!!
I'm sure you had no issues with 35% of 61% in 2005, though. In fact I'm sure it was a "feature" of our system.
Nope, I thought it was ridiculous. I have always been a supporter of PR.
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
Correct and we Tories will refuse one regardless.
If necessary we are prepared to follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain when they were in government in 2017, so even if Sturgeon does win an SNP or nationalist majority at Holyrood on Thursday and hold such a non binding referendum we will tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result just as the Spanish government ignored the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017. As Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 the UK government can do so.
The Catalan government even went so far as to declare UDI, which Sturgeon unlike Salmond has said she will not do but if either of them did we would ignore such a UDI as well.
We may not go as far as our Spanish cousins and order the arrest of Sturgeon and Salmond for threatening the Unity of the State but otherwise we will do everything in our power to enforce the preservation of our Union and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum on independence which resulted in a 55% No vote
You don’t speak for the Conservative party. Less of the “we” please
He speaks for Henry VIII?
Edward Ironside?
Didn't establish the C of E. Or invade Scotland to show how much he loved the Scots. Edit: still called the Rough Wooing round here.
I meant Edward Longshanks...
Edward of the unfortunate conference in Berwick railway station waiting room? Couldn't possibly comment. But I don't think he founded the C of E.
Surely the obvious UK government line is that 50% of a 50% turnout does not demonstrate an overwhelming desire in Scotland for another independence referendum.
Correct and we Tories will refuse one regardless.
If necessary we are prepared to follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain when they were in government in 2017, so even if Sturgeon does win an SNP or nationalist majority at Holyrood on Thursday and hold such a non binding referendum we will tell Unionists to boycott it and ignore the result just as the Spanish government ignored the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017. As Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 the UK government can do so.
The Catalan government even went so far as to declare UDI, which Sturgeon unlike Salmond has said she will not do but if either of them did we would ignore such a UDI as well.
We may not go as far as our Spanish cousins and order the arrest of Sturgeon and Salmond for threatening the Unity of the State but otherwise we will do everything in our power to enforce the preservation of our Union and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum on independence which resulted in a 55% No vote
You don’t speak for the Conservative party. Less of the “we” please
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
The SNP going into feuding decline would almost certainly mean a major Labour comeback in Scotland. I doubt the Tories would want that. The current state of affairs suits them fine as they get to play their English nationalism off against the SNP's Scottish nationalism. Both parties need each other.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
The big way to 'game' it is change the question to Leave/Remain, a neutral question bumps ~4% off of the separatist share immediately. A second way to game it would be by getting a PM with a cleaner history in No.10. A Starmer/Badenoch/Truss etc figure would fall in the Cameron bucket of being disliked rather than the Boris bucket.
Or Baroness Davidson, having found a Westminster seat.
Where? I would need to be in Scotland and it's irrelevant as she is off to the Lords
Not necessarily. The Tories have had SoSfS from English constituencies before. But the Lords bit is quite correct - thouigh, come to think of it, has Baroness-t-be Davidson actually taken ermine yet? I don't thin she has, has she? She gets very ratty if someone calls her Baroness. Is there some reason for the delay other than the pox?
PS again: foujnd the overt reason: waiting till the Holyrood election, which is fair enough EXCEPT that it is irrelevant to Holyrood, which has had peers as MSPs. But the sensitivity remains. Not a good look if an unelected pol leads.
In all this talk of indyref2, on the assumption Boris agrees to it, then surely it must be upto the HoC voting it through, and the HOC largely consists of anti indyref2 MPs
Can someone confirm or otherwise the actual process of granting a sec 30 order as that would be most helpful
Morning, BigG! THis might be worth a look. The Sec30 for indyref1 was laid before Pmt. But remember it also has to clear the Scottish Parliament, under the Sewell convention and indeed precedent - and trying to ignore that would be itself highly problematical for obvious reasons.
Thank you for that and it does look quite complex.
However, unless I am wrong the ultimate agreement to hold for indyref 2 rests with Westminster so I assume Westminster would have to vote it through
I must admit though I have no constitutional expertise
Pleasure to help. I'll be interested to see if they can find an Act which both parliaments would vote through (bearing in mind the Tories of HYUFD's persuasion, etc.)
I am sure you accept that there are many conservatives, myself included, that completely reject @HYUFD incendiary attitude to the Scots and Indyref2
Oh, I do understand that - sorry, I meant the subset of Tories of HYUFD's persuasion (and presumably some Labour and SLD types, and the DUP while we are at it).
It's also an interesting question whether Labour might vote down a bill that was seen as unreasonable.
Remember what happened with the Brexit legislation.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
I think that the perception that Boris does not take himself seriously chimes with people (whether it is true or not) who, by and large, do not take politicians seriously at all. SKS seems to me an intelligent man who means well but has little sense of the absurd and a minimal sense of humour. We saw at the weekend how uncomfortable he looked doing the John Lewis gimmick, its just not him.
You can make the case that someone who takes the job seriously is exactly what we need and having a buffoon/clown/Bozo/ whatever today's epithet is, is never a good idea; let alone in serious times like this. I am not completely unsympathetic to that view myself but I think that the weight of the evidence shows that being a bit of a laugh and an entertainer wins far more votes than it probably should.
Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe Widely circulating coronavirus variants and persistent hesitancy about vaccines will keep the goal out of reach. The virus is here to stay, but vaccinating the most vulnerable may be enough to restore normalcy.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
Johnson has the personality of someone who has never had to work that hard for anything in his life. Starmer, for obvious reasons, doesn't.
I have a real conflict with this round of elections. We have County and PCC elections only. The LD is a paper candidate for the County and it is a normally a very safe Conservative held seat. However those of you who are familiar with Guildford will know the Conservatives got a real spanking in the Borough elections because of the local plan and various bits of corruption. if you look at the media it would appear that the LDs were the main beneficiaries, but that is only because the Residents didn't put up a full slate. They actually made the big gains where they stood and from nothing. The Resident candidate standing here is a good guy. I happen to know he is standing as a paper candidate and doesn't want to win, but I suspect he actually stands a good chance of winning. I think I will vote for him and cross my fingers if elected he will do a good job. I think he will.
PCC is the only election I have boycotted in the past. I didn't even want my vote counted in the turnout if I spoiled it. Because we have a local election at the same time that tactic seems pointless so it is a toss up between LD (who is good but won't get elected) and spoiling my paper. Don't know what to do.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Because Debenham has gone the way of the Norwegian Blue parrot and the liquidator's want to sell all the stock ASAP.
Which meant moving all stock in Scotland (which did not open on April 19th) to stores that were open.
Exactly. But, other than wanting to be different for the sake of it, why did Scotland not open until the 19th when we had a lower incidence of the disease and a lower death rate than England? Being different was more important to Nicola than staff getting a few more weeks work. How many more businesses are now failing because they can't sell drink inside? What the hell is the logic of that? Restaurants are going out of business. Its mad.
I spend the first 11 months of the plague in Teesside. Witnessed the stupidity of the early unlocks followed by the rapid tier 3 then tier 4 restrictions which went on forever. Then the Christmas massacre and the January spike. My borough was the literal Covid hotspot of the entire country at one point.
So the whole point about a slower more measured unlock programme is to squash Covid flat. As has happened up here. Aberdeenshire had 15 new cases last week. Not yesterday, the whole week. You get that by staying locked down longer. You can sit in Dundee and say "we wanted to be like Teesside" but no, you really didn't. It hasn't helped with shops and restaurants either.
Lockdown v economic freedom is a trade off. I don't think Sturgeon has got it right. Lockdown is not a cost free option, very far from it. And we had our own nonsense of different bands up here too, btw.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
I think that the perception that Boris does not take himself seriously chimes with people (whether it is true or not) who, by and large, do not take politicians seriously at all. SKS seems to me an intelligent man who means well but has little sense of the absurd and a minimal sense of humour. We saw at the weekend how uncomfortable he looked doing the John Lewis gimmick, its just not him.
You can make the case that someone who takes the job seriously is exactly what we need and having a buffoon/clown/Bozo/ whatever today's epithet needed is never a good idea; let alone in serious times like this. I am not completely unsympathetic to that view myself but I think that the weight of the evidence shows that being a bit of a laugh and an entertainer wins far more votes than it probably should.
Ms Davidson is of course another example of the 'bit of laugh and entertainer' approach - very much aware of her media image, jokey photo opportunities etc. Her SLD oppo also tries that but he seems to end up with copulating farm animals in the background of the photo ...
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
OK, thats a different argument to what you said. That the people who lost the Brexit referendum should front the No campaign because of the brilliant job they did in the Brexit campaign...
The people who lost the Brexit referendum?
I don't think anyone is proposing to get Cameron etc back are they?
We're talking about Scotland. Boris / Gove lost and lost heavily north of the wall. David wants the same pair of losers to front the No campaign because they are winners.
They won. In England. And lost heavily in Scotland.
The winner of an election is the one who can identify and get a majority of eligible voters to back them. Gove and Boris did that. Any talk of them "losing" the referendum is pure sophistry.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
I think that the perception that Boris does not take himself seriously chimes with people (whether it is true or not) who, by and large, do not take politicians seriously at all. SKS seems to me an intelligent man who means well but has little sense of the absurd and a minimal sense of humour. We saw at the weekend how uncomfortable he looked doing the John Lewis gimmick, its just not him.
You can make the case that someone who takes the job seriously is exactly what we need and having a buffoon/clown/Bozo/ whatever today's epithet needed is never a good idea; let alone in serious times like this. I am not completely unsympathetic to that view myself but I think that the weight of the evidence shows that being a bit of a laugh and an entertainer wins far more votes than it probably should.
Fair enough for vote-winning purposes, sadly. I just happen to think that being PM is a very serious and important job and that the postholder should take him/herself seriously and demonstrate gravitas. Not a party political point - T. May and Starmer are both serious, BJ isn't.
A survey commissioned by These Islands has revealed widespread fact denial within the Scottish electorate and deep confusion over the SNP’s independence plans, particularly with respect to currency. Survation surveyed 1,047 people aged 16+ living in Scotland. Fieldwork was conducted 21st - 23rd April 2021.
57% of Scottish independence supporters agree with the statement “The figures used to calculate Scotland’s deficit (the GERS figures) are made up by Westminster to hide Scotland's true wealth” and 90% of those considered the statement to be “important” or “very important” to their opinion on Scottish independence. The reality of Scotland’s deficit position is shown in the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures published by the Scottish Government. These figures qualify as National Statistics and are compiled by the Scottish Government’s own statisticians and economists. It should be deeply shocking that most independence supporters agree with the statement above – the figures are demonstrably not “made up by Westminster” and it is fantastical to believe that an SNP Government would choose to publish figures which “hide Scotland’s true wealth”. The First Minister is a gifted communicator, but is strangely reluctant to nail this corrosive myth.
Wendy Alexander had, and still has, the correct response to the SNP wanting a referendum.
"Bring it on"
Imagine the world where a minority SNP government has passed the IndyRef legislation in 2007, referendum in 2009 after the GFC with the UK propping up "Scotland's" banks?
Yes would have struggled to get 35%
Brown wouldn't just have saved the world but the UK as well.
And its the same now. Shying away from a ref doesn't work for Unionists.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
I think that the perception that Boris does not take himself seriously chimes with people (whether it is true or not) who, by and large, do not take politicians seriously at all. SKS seems to me an intelligent man who means well but has little sense of the absurd and a minimal sense of humour. We saw at the weekend how uncomfortable he looked doing the John Lewis gimmick, its just not him.
You can make the case that someone who takes the job seriously is exactly what we need and having a buffoon/clown/Bozo/ whatever today's epithet needed is never a good idea; let alone in serious times like this. I am not completely unsympathetic to that view myself but I think that the weight of the evidence shows that being a bit of a laugh and an entertainer wins far more votes than it probably should.
Ms Davidson is of course another example of the 'bit of laugh and entertainer' approach - very much aware of her media image, jokey photo opportunities etc. Her SLD oppo also tries that but he seems to end up with copulating farm animals in the background of the photo ...
True. For 2 politicians who really don't seem to like each other very much they have a lot in common in terms of style. And I have several friends who are Labour through and through who cut her a lot of slack as a result. It works.
Asked 17 yo granddaughter if she was voting on Thurs. "Oh yeah - SNP yay! We all hate the English." She's really intelligent but this is like voting people off Love Island. Depressed me no end.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
OK, thats a different argument to what you said. That the people who lost the Brexit referendum should front the No campaign because of the brilliant job they did in the Brexit campaign...
The people who lost the Brexit referendum?
I don't think anyone is proposing to get Cameron etc back are they?
We're talking about Scotland. Boris / Gove lost and lost heavily north of the wall. David wants the same pair of losers to front the No campaign because they are winners.
They won. In England. And lost heavily in Scotland.
The winner of an election is the one who can identify and get a majority of eligible voters to back them. Gove and Boris did that. Any talk of them "losing" the referendum is pure sophistry.
That was the point - in Scotland Boris and Gove failed to do so.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
I think that the perception that Boris does not take himself seriously chimes with people (whether it is true or not) who, by and large, do not take politicians seriously at all. SKS seems to me an intelligent man who means well but has little sense of the absurd and a minimal sense of humour. We saw at the weekend how uncomfortable he looked doing the John Lewis gimmick, its just not him.
You can make the case that someone who takes the job seriously is exactly what we need and having a buffoon/clown/Bozo/ whatever today's epithet is, is never a good idea; let alone in serious times like this. I am not completely unsympathetic to that view myself but I think that the weight of the evidence shows that being a bit of a laugh and an entertainer wins far more votes than it probably should.
I agree with this. It's why I thought Johnson would get away with all his grift and dishonesty around the decorating, the holidays, the childcare, the personal trainers etc. I still think he will, but he needs to keep getting away with it. Should people come to believe that it's all an act and that in reality Johnson is just a venal charlatan it will all fall to pieces very quickly.
The only option which finds favour with the electorate is “keep the pound indefinitely”, which is inconsistent with Scotland becoming independent.
If the SNP accepts that joining the EU means committing to joining the euro, that outcome is the option least popular with voters, with only 25% in favour.
Just done a quick vaccine count calculation - by the end of May we'll reach 81-83% of adults with one dose and 50% of adults with two doses, that's with no increase in vaccine supply. Assuming the MHRA ever get around to approving Novavax that 81-83% becomes more like 87-89% leaving just 7-8% needing first doses (around one week of supply in June). By the time we hit June 21st everyone who wants a vaccine will have had a first dose and by the end of July every single person will have had both doses except a few unlucky people who get AZ in the next two to three weeks.
Surely those who get AZ in the next few weeks could have their 2nd dose early (though not really early versus the original plan) once there are no more first doses to give?
There are clinical reasons to delay the second AZ dose to 12 weeks. Someone who gets AZ at the end of May will need to wait until the middle of August for their second dose. However, it does seem like the MHRA are about to remove that option by limiting AZ for under 40s as well, I assume we will get Novavax approved around the same time which only needs a minimum 3 week gap for 96% efficacy.
Other countries are not using a 12 week gap for AZ. I entirely support the UK's decision to do so, but I think the primary driver was the laudible desire to get as many 1st doses given as quickly as possible*.
Hancock briefed him on it as an idea his department had come up with and he was considering. He asked Blair’s opinion.
Blair then ran and brief the media about his wonderful idea.
Hancock was so pissed off that he ceased all briefing of Blair
It was extraordinary poor behaviour by a former PM
I was teasing.
I am rather surprised Hancock spoke to Blair about the idea though. I would not have expected any contact at all between any member of the current cabinet and Blair.
All former PMs are entitled to briefing on Privy Counsellor terms & are expected to offer their advice
Interesting, and on the whole positive.
Wonder IF they could have a seance to brief and consult Sir Robert Walpole, Pitt Elder & Younger, Disraeli, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill, Atlee, Macmillan, Wilson, Thatcher?
Wot no Palmerston?
He could advise from beyond the grave for five hour stretches complete with memorable Latin quips.
He might be able to help with the Schleswig-Holstein question
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
The SNP going into feuding decline would almost certainly mean a major Labour comeback in Scotland. I doubt the Tories would want that. The current state of affairs suits them fine as they get to play their English nationalism off against the SNP's Scottish nationalism. Both parties need each other.
Ain´t that the truth.
However I do detect a growing weariness with the polarising nastiness on offer. I will make a modest prediction therefore that the Tories and the SNP will be down a bit overall and Labour and the Lib Dems will both make gains.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
I think that the perception that Boris does not take himself seriously chimes with people (whether it is true or not) who, by and large, do not take politicians seriously at all. SKS seems to me an intelligent man who means well but has little sense of the absurd and a minimal sense of humour. We saw at the weekend how uncomfortable he looked doing the John Lewis gimmick, its just not him.
You can make the case that someone who takes the job seriously is exactly what we need and having a buffoon/clown/Bozo/ whatever today's epithet needed is never a good idea; let alone in serious times like this. I am not completely unsympathetic to that view myself but I think that the weight of the evidence shows that being a bit of a laugh and an entertainer wins far more votes than it probably should.
Fair enough for vote-winning purposes, sadly. I just happen to think that being PM is a very serious and important job and that the postholder should take him/herself seriously and demonstrate gravitas. Not a party political point - T. May and Starmer are both serious, BJ isn't.
Yes but T May was one of the worst PMs in the last century. There is more to the job than being serious although that is clearly an important part.
This popped up uninvited on my FB. Perhaps an idea for the PB Jeg owners, particularly for campaigning in Indy ref II? Might sway the new Polish Scots..
A survey commissioned by These Islands has revealed widespread fact denial within the Scottish electorate and deep confusion over the SNP’s independence plans, particularly with respect to currency. Survation surveyed 1,047 people aged 16+ living in Scotland. Fieldwork was conducted 21st - 23rd April 2021.
57% of Scottish independence supporters agree with the statement “The figures used to calculate Scotland’s deficit (the GERS figures) are made up by Westminster to hide Scotland's true wealth” and 90% of those considered the statement to be “important” or “very important” to their opinion on Scottish independence. The reality of Scotland’s deficit position is shown in the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures published by the Scottish Government. These figures qualify as National Statistics and are compiled by the Scottish Government’s own statisticians and economists. It should be deeply shocking that most independence supporters agree with the statement above – the figures are demonstrably not “made up by Westminster” and it is fantastical to believe that an SNP Government would choose to publish figures which “hide Scotland’s true wealth”. The First Minister is a gifted communicator, but is strangely reluctant to nail this corrosive myth.
Harris: When he wasn’t “chillaxing”, Cameron tried to cover his lack of substance with a performative gravitas that sometimes verged on camp. Johnson, by contrast, seizes every opportunity to reduce politics to the absurd, and thereby makes the vacuum beneath him even more glaring. Without convictions or consistency you get a government based on serial lurching, from U-turn to U-turn and crisis to crisis, which sooner or later has massive consequences.
Moreover, because that dominance symbolises a very English mixture of nostalgia, deference and recklessness, it is part of the reason why the UK is now pulling apart; indeed, the fact that Johnson has been so hare-brained about arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vivid case study in the perils of entrusting matters of the utmost fragility to people whose basic unseriousness is not just toxic, but extremely dangerous.
Part of the English disease is our readiness to ascribe our national disasters to questions of personal character. But the vanities of posh men and their habit of dragging us into catastrophe have much deeper roots. They centre on an ancient system that trains a narrow caste of people to run our affairs, but also ensures they have almost none of the attributes actually required. If this country is to belatedly move into the 21st century, this is what we will finally have to confront: a great tower of failings that, to use a very topical word, are truly institutional.
That seems like a lot of words to say this is all about class. But are other places really hugely varied in their leadership?
I think that the point is that the cult of the Public schoolboy gentleman amateur still dominates English life. Certainly other countries have ruling cliques, but the English one eschews intellectual study and preparation. It seems an unshakeable fixation in the land.
So we have two recent Etonian Prime Ministers playing their games with our lives. Cameron then Johnson, entitled amateurism first as tragedy, then as farce.
Sounds like bollocks to me. Or, gasp, English exceptionalism.
Unless I am to believe that when people in other countries complain about their ruling cliques they are doing so on the basis they are too well prepared, intelligent and competent, how dare they. Which is the unavoidable implication of suggesting our clique, uniquely, eschews study and preparation.
It also seems like a way of blaming people for who they are choosing whilst still making that choice the fault of the person chosen.
It’s a particularly English ailment, though, to create a ruling clique whose defining feature is insouciance.
Is it? Boris has that, but a lack of seriousness from him is striking because it is uncommon. Part of his brand is being distinct from most of the clique, for better or worse depending on your stance.
Insouciance doesn't have to have a lack of seriousness, it can be born of arrogance and a slightly distorted sense of "duty". Boris is unusual in that he doesn't take politics, life or himself entirely seriously. It may partly be an affectation but it is one of his more redeeming features. In contrast SKS takes himself way too seriously.
But as you've just said, Boris is unusual. He isn't emblematic of some common trend in British politics. Indeed, the fear that he will become emblematic of it is one thing that worries people.
So the premise still fails.
I really cannot see politicians not taking themselves seriously catching on. To want to be PM or even a minister you need to be vain, arrogant and genuinely believe that you are the answer to the questions being asked. It will be a while before another Boris comes along.
But you said in an earlier post: "SKS takes himself way too seriously" which is, it seems, a criticism. I'm curious why you think this - you're either serious or you're not. How do you think SKS should take himself less seriously - tell more jokes? Lighten up a bit? Do you think the contrast with BJ is too sharp? Or is it just that you've got to find something to be critical of SKS?
I think that the perception that Boris does not take himself seriously chimes with people (whether it is true or not) who, by and large, do not take politicians seriously at all. SKS seems to me an intelligent man who means well but has little sense of the absurd and a minimal sense of humour. We saw at the weekend how uncomfortable he looked doing the John Lewis gimmick, its just not him.
You can make the case that someone who takes the job seriously is exactly what we need and having a buffoon/clown/Bozo/ whatever today's epithet needed is never a good idea; let alone in serious times like this. I am not completely unsympathetic to that view myself but I think that the weight of the evidence shows that being a bit of a laugh and an entertainer wins far more votes than it probably should.
Fair enough for vote-winning purposes, sadly. I just happen to think that being PM is a very serious and important job and that the postholder should take him/herself seriously and demonstrate gravitas. Not a party political point - T. May and Starmer are both serious, BJ isn't.
Are you seriously trying to hold up T. May as the living embodiment of a successful PM? Does she seriously have the characteristics of what a PM should be?
I think having a PM who is "too serious" is a problem not a good thing. The only successful PM I can think of who was widely considered to be completely serious is Margaret Thatcher. Other than Thatcher, the most successful PMs have tended to be those who are more than capable of not being too serious at times. Even excluding Boris, you've got Cameron and his "chillaxing", Blair and where do we start.
Or go to the apex and look at Churchill and his drinking. "Winston you're drunk, and what's more you're disgustingly drunk". "My dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly."
Overall its probably not healthy to have a PM who is too serious, apart from Thatcher.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
I respect those arguments. The problem is that so many people remember all of the other disastrous decisions made by Johnson during the pandemic and the much better decisions made by Sturgeon. And Johnson refusing to answer questions and Sturgeon doing so every day.
Then we have the Big Picture. England - "we have you vaccines and furlough, what are you complaining about?" Scotland - "I am a prisoner, you let me vote but refuse to accept what I vote for" England - "bloody jocks, shut up and do what we tell you"
I don't think Sturgeon made better decisions. We are still much more locked down than England despite a vanishingly low level of infection. She has consistently overdone lockdown with a casual indifference to its economic cost just to be different and show how much she "cares". Our disaster on residential homes was at least as bad as that in England, arguably worse, the education of our children has been handled even more badly than by Williamson, a truly astounding achievement and our vaccine roll out has been slower and more bureaucratic.
I also don't understand your second point. We will, sadly, have yet another SNP administration looking to pick arguments, focused on short term freebies, indifferent to Scotland's actual needs unless they are relevant to the great god independence, and all too often not even then because they are too thick to see it.
Markedly different death rates in the later stages of the pandemic. That counts for a lot.
So why does Debehnams in Dundee have a large sign on its door explaining that they moved all their stock to England where they were allowed to sell it and the Dundee store will not be opening its doors again? The fact that we had a lower death rate was largely because Kent didn't get such a grip here but it meant that we had more room for maneuver, not less.
Because Debenham has gone the way of the Norwegian Blue parrot and the liquidator's want to sell all the stock ASAP.
Which meant moving all stock in Scotland (which did not open on April 19th) to stores that were open.
Exactly. But, other than wanting to be different for the sake of it, why did Scotland not open until the 19th when we had a lower incidence of the disease and a lower death rate than England? Being different was more important to Nicola than staff getting a few more weeks work. How many more businesses are now failing because they can't sell drink inside? What the hell is the logic of that? Restaurants are going out of business. Its mad.
I spend the first 11 months of the plague in Teesside. Witnessed the stupidity of the early unlocks followed by the rapid tier 3 then tier 4 restrictions which went on forever. Then the Christmas massacre and the January spike. My borough was the literal Covid hotspot of the entire country at one point.
So the whole point about a slower more measured unlock programme is to squash Covid flat. As has happened up here. Aberdeenshire had 15 new cases last week. Not yesterday, the whole week. You get that by staying locked down longer. You can sit in Dundee and say "we wanted to be like Teesside" but no, you really didn't. It hasn't helped with shops and restaurants either.
Lockdown v economic freedom is a trade off. I don't think Sturgeon has got it right. Lockdown is not a cost free option, very far from it. And we had our own nonsense of different bands up here too, btw.
I know! The trade-off though that you were so dismissive of is a whole swathe of your neighbours sick and dying. Which is what I put up with.
Dundee is twice as big as Stockton on Tees. In the January peak you had a quarter of the cases than we did. If you don't think Sturgeon got it right I can tell you that Johnson got it even less right. Unless the aim was to have the bodies pile high - he was good at that.
This popped up uninvited on my FB. Perhaps an idea for the PB Jeg owners, particularly for campaigning in Indy ref II? Might sway the new Polish Scots..
The only option which finds favour with the electorate is “keep the pound indefinitely”, which is inconsistent with Scotland becoming independent.
If the SNP accepts that joining the EU means committing to joining the euro, that outcome is the option least popular with voters, with only 25% in favour.
Yes, but in that question just a proxy for Unionism?
What we're the preferred choices for pro-indy voters?
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
OK, thats a different argument to what you said. That the people who lost the Brexit referendum should front the No campaign because of the brilliant job they did in the Brexit campaign...
The people who lost the Brexit referendum?
I don't think anyone is proposing to get Cameron etc back are they?
We're talking about Scotland. Boris / Gove lost and lost heavily north of the wall. David wants the same pair of losers to front the No campaign because they are winners.
They won. In England. And lost heavily in Scotland.
The winner of an election is the one who can identify and get a majority of eligible voters to back them. Gove and Boris did that. Any talk of them "losing" the referendum is pure sophistry.
That was the point - in Scotland Boris and Gove failed to do so.
No its not the point.
They didn't "fail" to do so, since that wasn't the challenge or target. That's like saying that Man City have failed to win the League this season, because they had less possession than another club in a random game.
The target was to win a majority in the UK. They set out their stall to do so and succeeded. The referendum was lost by Cameron etc, there is no booby prize for succeeding in one subset of the nation while losing overall.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
OK, thats a different argument to what you said. That the people who lost the Brexit referendum should front the No campaign because of the brilliant job they did in the Brexit campaign...
The people who lost the Brexit referendum?
I don't think anyone is proposing to get Cameron etc back are they?
We're talking about Scotland. Boris / Gove lost and lost heavily north of the wall. David wants the same pair of losers to front the No campaign because they are winners.
They won. In England. And lost heavily in Scotland.
The winner of an election is the one who can identify and get a majority of eligible voters to back them. Gove and Boris did that. Any talk of them "losing" the referendum is pure sophistry.
Jesus. We aren't rerunning a UK-wide referendum, we're running a Scotland-only referendum. In Scotland it was 62% remain. In Scotland they did not "identify and get a majority of eligible voters", they lost. Heavily.
It isn't sophistry to take only the result in Scotland when talking about their success in Scotland with regards to whether they should lead a Scottish No campaign. Unless you want Yes to win of course...
Just done a quick vaccine count calculation - by the end of May we'll reach 81-83% of adults with one dose and 50% of adults with two doses, that's with no increase in vaccine supply. Assuming the MHRA ever get around to approving Novavax that 81-83% becomes more like 87-89% leaving just 7-8% needing first doses (around one week of supply in June). By the time we hit June 21st everyone who wants a vaccine will have had a first dose and by the end of July every single person will have had both doses except a few unlucky people who get AZ in the next two to three weeks.
Surely those who get AZ in the next few weeks could have their 2nd dose early (though not really early versus the original plan) once there are no more first doses to give?
There are clinical reasons to delay the second AZ dose to 12 weeks. Someone who gets AZ at the end of May will need to wait until the middle of August for their second dose. However, it does seem like the MHRA are about to remove that option by limiting AZ for under 40s as well, I assume we will get Novavax approved around the same time which only needs a minimum 3 week gap for 96% efficacy.
Other countries are not using a 12 week gap for AZ. I entirely support the UK's decision to do so, but I think the primary driver was the laudible desire to get as many 1st doses given as quickly as possible*.
Hancock briefed him on it as an idea his department had come up with and he was considering. He asked Blair’s opinion.
Blair then ran and brief the media about his wonderful idea.
Hancock was so pissed off that he ceased all briefing of Blair
It was extraordinary poor behaviour by a former PM
I was teasing.
I am rather surprised Hancock spoke to Blair about the idea though. I would not have expected any contact at all between any member of the current cabinet and Blair.
All former PMs are entitled to briefing on Privy Counsellor terms & are expected to offer their advice
Interesting, and on the whole positive.
Wonder IF they could have a seance to brief and consult Sir Robert Walpole, Pitt Elder & Younger, Disraeli, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill, Atlee, Macmillan, Wilson, Thatcher?
Wot no Palmerston?
He could advise from beyond the grave for five hour stretches complete with memorable Latin quips.
He might be able to help with the Schleswig-Holstein question
Had he not, rather famously, forgotten all about it?
A survey commissioned by These Islands has revealed widespread fact denial within the Scottish electorate and deep confusion over the SNP’s independence plans, particularly with respect to currency. Survation surveyed 1,047 people aged 16+ living in Scotland. Fieldwork was conducted 21st - 23rd April 2021.
57% of Scottish independence supporters agree with the statement “The figures used to calculate Scotland’s deficit (the GERS figures) are made up by Westminster to hide Scotland's true wealth” and 90% of those considered the statement to be “important” or “very important” to their opinion on Scottish independence. The reality of Scotland’s deficit position is shown in the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures published by the Scottish Government. These figures qualify as National Statistics and are compiled by the Scottish Government’s own statisticians and economists. It should be deeply shocking that most independence supporters agree with the statement above – the figures are demonstrably not “made up by Westminster” and it is fantastical to believe that an SNP Government would choose to publish figures which “hide Scotland’s true wealth”. The First Minister is a gifted communicator, but is strangely reluctant to nail this corrosive myth.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
I don't think Johnson could resist. Like Trump, the only bits he enjoys about politics are the adoring crowds while campaigning, the groupies and the trappings of power. He is bored by the day job. Johnson is incapable of resisting that heffalump trap.
Like @DavidL I think a further defeat would be the last referendum in a long time, and the SNP would go into feuding decline, as it did post 1978. Obviously a successful indyvote would open a whole new can of worms, but like Brexit would be unstoppable, even though similarly nearly evenly split.
The SNP going into feuding decline would almost certainly mean a major Labour comeback in Scotland. I doubt the Tories would want that. The current state of affairs suits them fine as they get to play their English nationalism off against the SNP's Scottish nationalism. Both parties need each other.
Ain´t that the truth.
However I do detect a growing weariness with the polarising nastiness on offer. I will make a modest prediction therefore that the Tories and the SNP will be down a bit overall and Labour and the Lib Dems will both make gains.
And on that last point I am off out to finish a final LD leaflet round.
This popped up uninvited on my FB. Perhaps an idea for the PB Jeg owners, particularly for campaigning in Indy ref II? Might sway the new Polish Scots..
Hyufd or Dura Ace?
Pretty sure DA would rather be water boarded than be seen in a Jeg.
In all this talk of indyref2, on the assumption Boris agrees to it, then surely it must be upto the HoC voting it through, and the HOC largely consists of anti indyref2 MPs
Can someone confirm or otherwise the actual process of granting a sec 30 order as that would be most helpful
Morning, BigG! THis might be worth a look. The Sec30 for indyref1 was laid before Pmt. But remember it also has to clear the Scottish Parliament, under the Sewell convention and indeed precedent - and trying to ignore that would be itself highly problematical for obvious reasons.
Thank you for that and it does look quite complex.
However, unless I am wrong the ultimate agreement to hold for indyref 2 rests with Westminster so I assume Westminster would have to vote it through
I must admit though I have no constitutional expertise
Pleasure to help. I'll be interested to see if they can find an Act which both parliaments would vote through (bearing in mind the Tories of HYUFD's persuasion, etc.)
I am sure you accept that there are many conservatives, myself included, that completely reject @HYUFD incendiary attitude to the Scots and Indyref2
Though for now at least, HYUFD appears to be the one more in tune with the leadership.
I don't know Scott, its almost as if he is gearing up to fight Indyref2 already. This is going to be an anxious week.
I am more and more convinced he is going to allow Indyref2 solely because he thinks he can win it.
That has crossed my mind more than once. The problem is that Nicola will play for a repeat of the Neverendum of 2012-2014 and the damage done to an already damaged Scottish economy will be immense.
I was chatting to someone who worked on the last Indyref and he's convinced that Gove is pulling the strings on this and will game the referendum a bit.
Such as allowing Scots in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland a vote in Indyref2, that sort of stuff.
The huge downside in all of this is the Prime Minister, I've mentioned on here that Yes tried to portray the 2014 as a battle of good v. evil but whilst the majority of Scots didn't agree with the politics of David Cameron they didn't see him as some malignant force, just a nice family man they disagreed with.
Now it is possible the majority of Scots do see Boris Johnson as some malignant force.
Or they just might see him as the man who has saved the lives of thousands of Scots by rolling out a truly amazing vaccine program and the jobs of tens of thousands of Scots with furlough money, grants and QE beyond the aspirations of an independent Scotland. The answers to what has the Union done for me are stronger right now than they have been in decades and I think Boris (and Gove) are very well aware of that and want to take advantage.
Do you really want Gove and Johnson front and centre of an Indyref2 campaign?
Gove the living embodiment of the scorpion in the story of The Scorpion and the frog and Boris Johnson who might be facing legal and tax problems relating to his finances.
You know things like pile the bodies high stuff will be there.
The short answer is yes. It is a mixed package but they are excellent campaigners as the Brexit campaign showed very clearly. Cameron and Osborne really kept out of 2014 too much not wanting to overshadow or undermine Darling. The UK government should be much more vigorous in support of the Union than it was in 2014. Especially now.
But they LOST the Brexit campaign in Scotland. North of the wall people voted to stay in the EU by a large margin. You want the people who lost the referendum in Scotland to lead the referendum campaign for No?
I want the UK government to be an active player in the debate. To explain what it does for Scotland, to explain how much we gain from the Union, to make it clear that rUK actually cares and is vested in the result. I think that they can do much more than Cameron did and that under Boris they will.
OK, thats a different argument to what you said. That the people who lost the Brexit referendum should front the No campaign because of the brilliant job they did in the Brexit campaign...
The people who lost the Brexit referendum?
I don't think anyone is proposing to get Cameron etc back are they?
We're talking about Scotland. Boris / Gove lost and lost heavily north of the wall. David wants the same pair of losers to front the No campaign because they are winners.
They won. In England. And lost heavily in Scotland.
The winner of an election is the one who can identify and get a majority of eligible voters to back them. Gove and Boris did that. Any talk of them "losing" the referendum is pure sophistry.
Jesus. We aren't rerunning a UK-wide referendum, we're running a Scotland-only referendum. In Scotland it was 62% remain. In Scotland they did not "identify and get a majority of eligible voters", they lost. Heavily.
It isn't sophistry to take only the result in Scotland when talking about their success in Scotland with regards to whether they should lead a Scottish No campaign. Unless you want Yes to win of course...
Bollocks. They weren't running a Scotland-only referendum, they were running a UK-wide referendum, which they won against the odds.
Had it been a Scotland-only referendum then the referendum would have been fought differently.
This popped up uninvited on my FB. Perhaps an idea for the PB Jeg owners, particularly for campaigning in Indy ref II? Might sway the new Polish Scots..
Fuck me. That's uglier than Alok Sharma's cum face.
In all this talk of indyref2, on the assumption Boris agrees to it, then surely it must be upto the HoC voting it through, and the HOC largely consists of anti indyref2 MPs
Can someone confirm or otherwise the actual process of granting a sec 30 order as that would be most helpful
Morning, BigG! THis might be worth a look. The Sec30 for indyref1 was laid before Pmt. But remember it also has to clear the Scottish Parliament, under the Sewell convention and indeed precedent - and trying to ignore that would be itself highly problematical for obvious reasons.
Thank you for that and it does look quite complex.
However, unless I am wrong the ultimate agreement to hold for indyref 2 rests with Westminster so I assume Westminster would have to vote it through
I must admit though I have no constitutional expertise
Pleasure to help. I'll be interested to see if they can find an Act which both parliaments would vote through (bearing in mind the Tories of HYUFD's persuasion, etc.)
I am sure you accept that there are many conservatives, myself included, that completely reject @HYUFD incendiary attitude to the Scots and Indyref2
Though for now at least, HYUFD appears to be the one more in tune with the leadership.
Nonsense.
If the leadership had the attitude of HYUFD they wouldn't be campaigning on the fact that a vote for the SNP is a vote for another referendum. If the leadership had the attitude of HYUFD they'd just be saying "once in a generation" whenever the subject was brought up then talking about other issues.
The fact that the leadership are engaging, shows they're not thinking like HYUFD. Because they're not insane.
Comments
Somehow I rather suspect he won't be quitting the party in protest. 😂
Depressed me no end.
In 2016 the greens got 13,172 constituency votes and 150,426 (more than 10 times as much) on the List.
So for now I'm going to give Green voters SindyRef2 voting intentions based on list breakdowns 10 time as much attention as those base on constituency numbers
It's then for politicians, and the public more widely who elect those politicians, to have a debate about where the balance lies.
In terms of changes from the pre-pandemic status quo, I'd suggest that anyone with a cold, or feeling unwell, should be advised to work from home and not go out, and if they have to do so, then they should wear a mask.
I think those are reasonable changes to make, but no more than that.
Sunak today says allowing indyref2 would wreck Scotland's recovery from Covid.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1388967702002294787?s=20
Boris says he will take the SNP to the Supreme Court to stop an indyref2 even if it wins the elections at Holyrood this week
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1388606941971292161?s=20
Which meant moving all stock in Scotland (which did not open on April 19th) to stores that were open.
The same way he told fisherman Brexit would be good for them.
Bring it on, as they say...
And everytime I mention Scottish Nationalist hate politics even gently, the PB Nats have kittens.
Aye. It's one of the reasons the portents of doom from the likes of Osborne harmed rather than helped the pro-EU side.
"United against division" or suchlike would be a good theme for the pro-UK side. Doesn't just cover Scotland leaving, but all the internal division a lot of Scots are sick of.
Not sure where we go from there
Granted the subsample of Green constituency voters will be too small to make meaningful comments about what those voters think when it's based on only 10 constituencies, but I'm curious as to what you think the true level of Green support is?
The economic arguments are compelling but they are not enough. Hearts need to be won too.
Boris does not say that. The Dail Heil saying he "could" do that doesn't mean he "will". If he says he will then please provide a quotation, preferably on camera, of him saying that. Because its not true, you're not telling the truth.
I understand Sturgeon herself has said she does not want it before covid recovery and the Greens are not on board until the Westminster government have fronted the costs of decommissioning the oil rigs, etc which must be quite a long way away
From HMG point of view the best time to take on indyref 2 is the time that neither Sturgeon or the Greens really want it, and if we are playing high stakes politics, which this is, Boris calling Sturgeons bluff and allowing indyref 2 in early 2022 could be a very smart move
Without getting ahead of ourselves and completely distressing some posters on here, imagine if Boris won indyref2.
Stranger things have happened in politics
I don't think anyone is proposing to get Cameron etc back are they?
The way to get past it would be to have the negotiations before rather than after the referendum, and to learn from the Brexit one.
Would the "Oven Ready Deal" have won if that was the proposal on the Brexit referendum in 2016? We shall never know, but I think not.
Green get a bunch of List votes from Labour and Lib Dem Constituency voters as well as SNP Constituency voters.
So I think their List score is pretty reflective of their "true" support.
No one votes for a government for the UK. They vote for a local representative in the Commons. The government is lead by whoever can command a majority of those representatives
They won. In England. And lost heavily in Scotland.
If that is truly the Tory line, it won't end happily.
It's also an interesting question whether Labour might vote down a bill that was seen as unreasonable.
Remember what happened with the Brexit legislation.
So the whole point about a slower more measured unlock programme is to squash Covid flat. As has happened up here. Aberdeenshire had 15 new cases last week. Not yesterday, the whole week. You get that by staying locked down longer. You can sit in Dundee and say "we wanted to be like Teesside" but no, you really didn't. It hasn't helped with shops and restaurants either.
Edit: PS example of sensitivity on the issue
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18699666.dont-call-baroness-davidson-furious-bbc-description/
You can make the case that someone who takes the job seriously is exactly what we need and having a buffoon/clown/Bozo/ whatever today's epithet is, is never a good idea; let alone in serious times like this. I am not completely unsympathetic to that view myself but I think that the weight of the evidence shows that being a bit of a laugh and an entertainer wins far more votes than it probably should.
Widely circulating coronavirus variants and persistent hesitancy about vaccines will keep the goal out of reach. The virus is here to stay, but vaccinating the most vulnerable may be enough to restore normalcy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-heard-immunity-vaccine.html
PCC is the only election I have boycotted in the past. I didn't even want my vote counted in the turnout if I spoiled it. Because we have a local election at the same time that tactic seems pointless so it is a toss up between LD (who is good but won't get elected) and spoiling my paper. Don't know what to do.
57% of Scottish independence supporters agree with the statement “The figures used to calculate Scotland’s deficit (the GERS figures) are made up by Westminster to hide Scotland's true wealth” and 90% of those considered the statement to be “important” or “very important” to their opinion on Scottish independence.
The reality of Scotland’s deficit position is shown in the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures published by the Scottish Government. These figures qualify as National Statistics and are compiled by the Scottish Government’s own statisticians and economists. It should be deeply shocking that most independence supporters agree with the statement above – the figures are demonstrably not “made up by Westminster” and it is fantastical to believe that an SNP Government would choose to publish figures which “hide Scotland’s true wealth”. The First Minister is a gifted communicator, but is strangely reluctant to nail this corrosive myth.
https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i374/scottish_politics_in_the_grip_of_a_fact_denial_epidemic.aspx
"Bring it on"
Imagine the world where a minority SNP government has passed the IndyRef legislation in 2007, referendum in 2009 after the GFC with the UK propping up "Scotland's" banks?
Yes would have struggled to get 35%
Brown wouldn't just have saved the world but the UK as well.
And its the same now. Shying away from a ref doesn't work for Unionists.
The only option which finds favour with the electorate is “keep the pound indefinitely”, which is inconsistent with Scotland becoming independent.
If the SNP accepts that joining the EU means committing to joining the euro, that outcome is the option least popular with voters, with only 25% in favour.
However I do detect a growing weariness with the polarising nastiness on offer. I will make a modest prediction therefore that the Tories and the SNP will be down a bit overall and Labour and the Lib Dems will both make gains.
I think having a PM who is "too serious" is a problem not a good thing. The only successful PM I can think of who was widely considered to be completely serious is Margaret Thatcher. Other than Thatcher, the most successful PMs have tended to be those who are more than capable of not being too serious at times. Even excluding Boris, you've got Cameron and his "chillaxing", Blair and where do we start.
Or go to the apex and look at Churchill and his drinking. "Winston you're drunk, and what's more you're disgustingly drunk". "My dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly."
Overall its probably not healthy to have a PM who is too serious, apart from Thatcher.
Dundee is twice as big as Stockton on Tees. In the January peak you had a quarter of the cases than we did. If you don't think Sturgeon got it right I can tell you that Johnson got it even less right. Unless the aim was to have the bodies pile high - he was good at that.
What we're the preferred choices for pro-indy voters?
They didn't "fail" to do so, since that wasn't the challenge or target. That's like saying that Man City have failed to win the League this season, because they had less possession than another club in a random game.
The target was to win a majority in the UK. They set out their stall to do so and succeeded. The referendum was lost by Cameron etc, there is no booby prize for succeeding in one subset of the nation while losing overall.
It isn't sophistry to take only the result in Scotland when talking about their success in Scotland with regards to whether they should lead a Scottish No campaign. Unless you want Yes to win of course...
Had it been a Scotland-only referendum then the referendum would have been fought differently.
If the leadership had the attitude of HYUFD they wouldn't be campaigning on the fact that a vote for the SNP is a vote for another referendum. If the leadership had the attitude of HYUFD they'd just be saying "once in a generation" whenever the subject was brought up then talking about other issues.
The fact that the leadership are engaging, shows they're not thinking like HYUFD. Because they're not insane.