@squareroot2 I use "Ms X" in every professional correspondence with a woman who has not first indicated otherwise because I have no idea if they're married or not. Just seems more appropriate, and also seems weird that a woman would be defined by their marital status in any case.
I believe Mademoiselle is seen as antiquated in France also, for the same reason.
An advantage for using first names instead of surnames unless you have a good reason not to.
Can't go wrong with calling someone "Jane" instead of "Miss Smith", "Mrs Smith" or "Ms. Smith" then.
Except some people dont like strangers referring to them by first name, especially in formal communications or first meeting.
An old fashioned view, to be sure, but you can in fact go wrong. See also using a diminutive they do not like.
If it's an email and I'm uncertain I might just open with Hello, and see how they sign off a response.
In email communications I almost always use first names. I find getting called Mr Thompson to be strange nowadays.
It does seem to vary by industry though. Lawyers seem to want to use surnames.
Just heard a rumble of thunder here in South East London. One of those cold spring showers with only one solitary rumble though, not a hot summer one repeated with thunder and lightning filling the air.
On council elections, I think the Greens may well have one of their better nights and land quite a few more councillors. They're doing well on the NOTA front at the moment.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
Without wishing to be all holier than thou, the use of the word 'gay' in a pejorative sense (i.e. virtually always) remains a significant source of bullying in many schools because of the effect it has on its recipients. The recipients of the label are either a) gay boys, b) boys who are 'effeminate' or even just sensitive/not macho, and c) boys who are excessively studious, also known as boffins. The impact it can have on all three groups is not insignificant, and it's undoubtedly used in a homophobic way, whether or not the target is gay. The female equivalent (used largely, but not solely, by boys) is 'lez'.
Good schools have driven out this form of bullying, weaker schools haven't.
Went to the gym this morning and in the male changing room afterwards someone, a sports coach, not a gym staff member, remarked quite casually that most of the senior local women's football team were lesbians. And this was received without comment by the half-dozen or so mostly middle-aged men present.
Is that code for "I asked them out and they said no... must be lesbians"?
Doubt it; I don't know him that well, but I see him about with wife and family.
To be fair, there are quite a lot of lesbians in women's football, and a fair number of wholly or largely lesbian teams.
The simple way to stop Scotland's nonsense is to explain to the idiots up here that unless they vote Tory they will be punished or ignored. That will stop them.
@squareroot2 I use "Ms X" in every professional correspondence with a woman who has not first indicated otherwise because I have no idea if they're married or not. Just seems more appropriate, and also seems weird that a woman would be defined by their marital status in any case.
I believe Mademoiselle is seen as antiquated in France also, for the same reason.
An advantage for using first names instead of surnames unless you have a good reason not to.
Can't go wrong with calling someone "Jane" instead of "Miss Smith", "Mrs Smith" or "Ms. Smith" then.
Except some people dont like strangers referring to them by first name, especially in formal communications or first meeting.
An old fashioned view, to be sure, but you can in fact go wrong. See also using a diminutive they do not like.
If it's an email and I'm uncertain I might just open with Hello, and see how they sign off a response.
I definitely don't like a cold caller ringing me and calling me by my first name. That is over-familiar.
I get most cross with sleazy young estate agents calling me by my first name without asking first - 'it's Mr, actually'.
My first name is most unusual, and my surname could be a first name. I therefore sometimes get them reversed, with which I can cope, but I do get annoyed when people assume my second name, which has a commonly accepted diminutive, is my first, and the diminutive is used by 'sleazy young estate agents' or similar.
I get regular emails from people called Boris and Priti. They call me David which seems a little presumptuous when we have not been properly introduced. Especially when they are asking for money.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
All of which may be true. But the No campaign can't say "you can't leave because walking away from the single market will be Bad"...
They can say that the decision to leave has to weigh the economic costs against the non-economic gains, and that, while somewhat analogous to Brexit, the economic costs of Sindy for Scotland will be relatively higher than those costs of Brexit for the UK, and so people should really consider whether the non-economic benefits of Sindy are worth it.
I know that a bowl of ice cream is bad for my diet, but I might just come to the conclusion that the pleasure will be worth it. The same might not be true for a whole gallon of ice cream.
The simple way to stop Scotland's nonsense is to explain to the idiots up here that unless they vote Tory they will be punished or ignored. That will stop them.
If only it was that easy. Scots are contrary by nature, sadly.
Being used to reading Scottish blogs, It’s been refreshing to read an intelligent discussion about gender/sex. Please don’t tell the Rev. Wings or his acolytes about it!
The simple way to stop Scotland's nonsense is to explain to the idiots up here that unless they vote Tory they will be punished or ignored. That will stop them.
I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.
As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.
There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.
I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.
The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.
I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.
So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.
If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.
If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.
It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.
Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.
If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.
There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.
So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?
What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.
The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.
It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.
The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.
As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?
As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.
Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit
Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote
Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?
I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030
That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
Without wishing to be all holier than thou, the use of the word 'gay' in a pejorative sense (i.e. virtually always) remains a significant source of bullying in many schools because of the effect it has on its recipients. The recipients of the label are either a) gay boys, b) boys who are 'effeminate' or even just sensitive/not macho, and c) boys who are excessively studious, also known as boffins. The impact it can have on all three groups is not insignificant, and it's undoubtedly used in a homophobic way, whether or not the target is gay. The female equivalent (used largely, but not solely, by boys) is 'lez'.
Good schools have driven out this form of bullying, weaker schools haven't.
Went to the gym this morning and in the male changing room afterwards someone, a sports coach, not a gym staff member, remarked quite casually that most of the senior local women's football team were lesbians. And this was received without comment by the half-dozen or so mostly middle-aged men present.
It would only have been worthy of comment if the coach had remarked they were not.
A study by the Centre for Economic Performance (LSE) estimates that trade costs between Scotland and the rest of the UK can increase by 15-30%, if Scotland becomes independent. This is likely to increase if Scotland rejoins the EU. It has concluded that the negative impact of independence on Scotland’s economy is two or three times greater than the costs of Brexit to Scotland, given the greater share of RUK in Scottish trade compared to the EU.
Rejoining the EU would do little to mitigate the costs of Scottish independence. Border problems stemming from Scotland leaving the UK were likely to result in Scottish incomes being between 6.3-8.7% lower in the long term
@squareroot2 I use "Ms X" in every professional correspondence with a woman who has not first indicated otherwise because I have no idea if they're married or not. Just seems more appropriate, and also seems weird that a woman would be defined by their marital status in any case.
I believe Mademoiselle is seen as antiquated in France also, for the same reason.
An advantage for using first names instead of surnames unless you have a good reason not to.
Can't go wrong with calling someone "Jane" instead of "Miss Smith", "Mrs Smith" or "Ms. Smith" then.
Except some people dont like strangers referring to them by first name, especially in formal communications or first meeting.
An old fashioned view, to be sure, but you can in fact go wrong. See also using a diminutive they do not like.
If it's an email and I'm uncertain I might just open with Hello, and see how they sign off a response.
I definitely don't like a cold caller ringing me and calling me by my first name. That is over-familiar.
I get most cross with sleazy young estate agents calling me by my first name without asking first - 'it's Mr, actually'.
My first name is most unusual, and my surname could be a first name. I therefore sometimes get them reversed, with which I can cope, but I do get annoyed when people assume my second name, which has a commonly accepted diminutive, is my first, and the diminutive is used by 'sleazy young estate agents' or similar.
I get regular emails from people called Boris and Priti. They call me David which seems a little presumptuous when we have not been properly introduced. Especially when they are asking for money.
As a constituent of Ms Patel, who has met her on occasion, when I write to her I get little handwritten notes about 'good wishes'. I never get asked for money, though. She's either suffering from the misapprehension that's I'm a Tory member, or she realises I'm a lost cause.
I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.
As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.
There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.
I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.
The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.
I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.
So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.
If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.
If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.
It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.
Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.
If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.
There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.
So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?
What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.
The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.
It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.
The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.
As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?
As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.
Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit
Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote
Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?
I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030
That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
They have a different system. Quebec has the right to declare a vote whenever it likes. Holyrood does not. It needs Westminster's approval
Being used to reading Scottish blogs, It’s been refreshing to read an intelligent discussion about gender/sex. Please don’t tell the Rev. Wings or his acolytes about it!
It's weird seeing a computer games journalist from my youth reinvented as a seriouscredible batshit political commentator.
The simple way to stop Scotland's nonsense is to explain to the idiots up here that unless they vote Tory they will be punished or ignored. That will stop them.
DRoss has been trying that tactic for months. So far it hasn’t worked.
@squareroot2 I use "Ms X" in every professional correspondence with a woman who has not first indicated otherwise because I have no idea if they're married or not. Just seems more appropriate, and also seems weird that a woman would be defined by their marital status in any case.
I believe Mademoiselle is seen as antiquated in France also, for the same reason.
An advantage for using first names instead of surnames unless you have a good reason not to.
Can't go wrong with calling someone "Jane" instead of "Miss Smith", "Mrs Smith" or "Ms. Smith" then.
Except some people dont like strangers referring to them by first name, especially in formal communications or first meeting.
An old fashioned view, to be sure, but you can in fact go wrong. See also using a diminutive they do not like.
If it's an email and I'm uncertain I might just open with Hello, and see how they sign off a response.
I definitely don't like a cold caller ringing me and calling me by my first name. That is over-familiar.
I get most cross with sleazy young estate agents calling me by my first name without asking first - 'it's Mr, actually'.
My first name is most unusual, and my surname could be a first name. I therefore sometimes get them reversed, with which I can cope, but I do get annoyed when people assume my second name, which has a commonly accepted diminutive, is my first, and the diminutive is used by 'sleazy young estate agents' or similar.
I get regular emails from people called Boris and Priti. They call me David which seems a little presumptuous when we have not been properly introduced. Especially when they are asking for money.
You dont need introduction, you are brothers and sisters of the creed.
Without wishing to be all holier than thou, the use of the word 'gay' in a pejorative sense (i.e. virtually always) remains a significant source of bullying in many schools because of the effect it has on its recipients. The recipients of the label are either a) gay boys, b) boys who are 'effeminate' or even just sensitive/not macho, and c) boys who are excessively studious, also known as boffins. The impact it can have on all three groups is not insignificant, and it's undoubtedly used in a homophobic way, whether or not the target is gay. The female equivalent (used largely, but not solely, by boys) is 'lez'.
Good schools have driven out this form of bullying, weaker schools haven't.
Went to the gym this morning and in the male changing room afterwards someone, a sports coach, not a gym staff member, remarked quite casually that most of the senior local women's football team were lesbians. And this was received without comment by the half-dozen or so mostly middle-aged men present.
It would only have been worthy of comment if the coach had remarked they were not.
One of my granddaughters has, at 15 been introduced to Womens Rugby. Her father remarked that some of the boys at her school, after watching a girls game remarked that they really tackled hard.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
All of which may be true. But the No campaign can't say "you can't leave because walking away from the single market will be Bad"...
I am not sure whether you have noticed but the recent polls have shown quite a move away from independence notwithstanding the SNP winning tomorrow
I believe in the Scots as they are very 'canny' and I expect this trend to continue
I am quite happy for indyref2 to happen as I believe the Scots will remain in the union
You are a lib dem who believes in the union, but you post actively seeking to support the SNP as some punishment for the UK's brexit
Scottish croft tenants have the right to force their landlord to sell the croft to them. The cannier ones realise it is more profitable not to exercise this right but to have it permanently in the background when negotiating rents and so on with the landlord. There is a parallel here.
Everybody wants a new break away super league these days.
I'd have thought it would be very simple for the R&A, USGA, and the PGA of America to ban anyone who plays on that from competing at their major championships.
TBH, the pga tour already owns a significant stake in european tour, I am surprised they haven't moved to a "world tour" aka super league or very least made a subset of tournaments from both tours the equivalent of the super league of golf.
They could then leverage the big bucks from the large us tournaments with the money the european tour has got from deals with middle east and china.
I think the 4 World Golf Championship (WGC) tournaments which stand as official money list events for both tours play this purpose already. And of course, the majors as well.
So that's 8 tournaments that are effectively the super-league now. No reason why this concept couldn't be extended further.
The basic purse for a bog-standard European Tour event is way less than the equivalent on the PGA Tour though - a run of the mill European Tour event will have a purse of around 1.5 millions euros.
Two other points:
- CBS and NBC are paying the mega bucks to fund the US Tour - and they obviously want all events in the US so they are in the correct TV time slot - ie ending at approx 6pm ET. Staging an event in Europe or Asia is hopeless for CBS / NBC. Obviously The Open is different but that is a one-off exception.
- Other regular US Tour events have substantial history and thus meaning - eg Bay Hill (Arnold), Memorial (Jack), Colonial (Hogan) etc - if you replace with new tournaments you lose all that meaning.
"There is a grand deal to be done with Brussels to keep Scotland in the union. European leaders are no fans of separatism. From Catalonia to Flanders and Transylvania to the Basques, most have separatist movements of their own they are keen to quash. As they did during the 2014 independence campaign, senior EU figures have quietly suggested to our ministers that they are prepared to be very helpful on an independent Scotland’s ambitions to rejoin the EU: a rejection that would kill Sturgeon’s project dead.
But the EU has a price: an agreement to heal the festering sore that is the Northern Ireland Protocol once and for all. It wants the UK to align to a thinned-down book of EU standards on food and agriculture, a move that would slash the need for the lion’s share of disruptive and costly border checks on imports into the province from the British mainland in a stroke. Some ministers in Johnson’s Cabinet also want closer alignment on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (as they’re technically known), and have pressed Brexit negotiator Lord Frost on it. And I understand this is now happening.
Frost and his opposite number in the EU, Commission vice president Maroš Šefčovič, are inching towards agreeing a set of common standards on agri-food. It won’t be called alignment (No10 prefers the terms “equivalence”). It may even involve the option to diverge if the UK feels it must, to avoid the incandescent rage of hardline Brexiteers who insist the UK must never again be beholden to Brussels on anything. But it amounts to the same thing."
There’s a huge difference between “alignment” and “equivalence” relating to future standards. Basically, the U.K. doesn’t trust the EU not to “evolve” their “standards” in a way that deliberately targets U.K. exports to the EU.
If they can solve that issue, with a classic piece of NI fudge, then we have progress.
As that is just paranoia as a result of the EU having to be the big bad, they'll get past it. I don't care what they call it, lets go back to the sensible solution of the UK standards remaining as they are. As the EU standards are also as they are, we can remove overnight the game ending barriers that we have had to postpone.
We aren't (so they say) going to lower food standards, we're going to enhance them. So there is no problem staying aligned / equivalenced to the EU standards. We will have the right to have babies without having the ability to have babies. Huzzah!
There is no issue with equivalence, there is an issue with alignment.
The UK has always been OK with equivalence AFAIK, it is the EU that has been demanding alignment. If you've got no qualms with either then lets hope the EU catch up and we can agree to equivalence and move on.
Alignment - following EU rules. Equivalence - having UK rules that are accepted as having parity with EU rules. Whatever. Our rules are their rules are our rules because nether side have changed the sodding rules. Drop the barriers and worry about future divergence as and when it happens. As we both say we will be moving in the same direction on standards there won't be a problem.
Good you've caught up with us. What you're talking about is equivalence, which is what we want. We can't make the EU grant that yet though, but if they do it will be sensible.
Its the same bloody thing. We left the EU but kept UK standards which are also UK standards. We have the right to change our standards but have pledged to only increase them and not decrease them to allow weevil-invested american food in.
So why have we demanded and implemented 3rd country status to give us the ability to do things we aren't going to do? We have shagged our own food sector and now are going to unshag it having gained literally nothing. Petulant posturing from a government who haven't a clue how any of this works.
Its not the same bloody thing, its two very different things. I find it amusing that you can understand the self-determination concept for Scots and explain it quite well, but pretend not to understand it for Brexiteers which you yourself voted for.
We've demanded and implemented 3rd country status to determine our own standards. Those standards probably will remain equivalent to European ones, which they should recognise hopefully, but that's our choice.
@squareroot2 I use "Ms X" in every professional correspondence with a woman who has not first indicated otherwise because I have no idea if they're married or not. Just seems more appropriate, and also seems weird that a woman would be defined by their marital status in any case.
I believe Mademoiselle is seen as antiquated in France also, for the same reason.
An advantage for using first names instead of surnames unless you have a good reason not to.
Can't go wrong with calling someone "Jane" instead of "Miss Smith", "Mrs Smith" or "Ms. Smith" then.
Except some people dont like strangers referring to them by first name, especially in formal communications or first meeting.
An old fashioned view, to be sure, but you can in fact go wrong. See also using a diminutive they do not like.
If it's an email and I'm uncertain I might just open with Hello, and see how they sign off a response.
I definitely don't like a cold caller ringing me and calling me by my first name. That is over-familiar.
I get most cross with sleazy young estate agents calling me by my first name without asking first - 'it's Mr, actually'.
My first name is most unusual, and my surname could be a first name. I therefore sometimes get them reversed, with which I can cope, but I do get annoyed when people assume my second name, which has a commonly accepted diminutive, is my first, and the diminutive is used by 'sleazy young estate agents' or similar.
I get regular emails from people called Boris and Priti. They call me David which seems a little presumptuous when we have not been properly introduced. Especially when they are asking for money.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
All of which may be true. But the No campaign can't say "you can't leave because walking away from the single market will be Bad"...
I am not sure whether you have noticed but the recent polls have shown quite a move away from independence notwithstanding the SNP winning tomorrow
I believe in the Scots as they are very 'canny' and I expect this trend to continue
I am quite happy for indyref2 to happen as I believe the Scots will remain in the union
You are a lib dem who believes in the union, but you post actively seeking to support the SNP as some punishment for the UK's brexit
I am a LibDem who has walked his arse off trying to secure votes for the LibDems. What I am not is blind to the fact that nationalists will win a thumping majority. Opinion polls give us people's opinions in-between elections. That you want to set aside the election result in favour of an opinion poll is bonkers.
When the SNP / Greens / Alba (possibly) win <80 seats between them, that is the scottish people knowingly voting to support another referendum. Perhaps they will vote no when it happens, but as they want it to be held then it must be held.
Otherwise what is this country? Not a democracy as your vote is no longer counted. Its a colony.
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
All of which may be true. But the No campaign can't say "you can't leave because walking away from the single market will be Bad"...
I am not sure whether you have noticed but the recent polls have shown quite a move away from independence notwithstanding the SNP winning tomorrow
I believe in the Scots as they are very 'canny' and I expect this trend to continue
I am quite happy for indyref2 to happen as I believe the Scots will remain in the union
You are a lib dem who believes in the union, but you post actively seeking to support the SNP as some punishment for the UK's brexit
Scottish croft tenants have the right to force their landlord to sell the croft to them. The cannier ones realise it is more profitable not to exercise this right but to have it permanently in the background when negotiating rents and so on with the landlord. There is a parallel here.
Excellent analogy. The same happened in Quebec, The squeaky wheel gets special oil
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I imagine many of the old wokies in their late 20s / early 30s will more than likely have aped The Inbetweeners memes when they were teenagers.
I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.
As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.
There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.
I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.
The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.
I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.
So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.
If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.
If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.
It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.
Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.
If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.
There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.
So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?
What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.
The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.
It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.
The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.
As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?
As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.
Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit
Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote
Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?
I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030
That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
They have a different system. Quebec has the right to declare a vote whenever it likes. Holyrood does not. It needs Westminster's approval
This isn't difficult
The Quebec system is an evolution of the Westminster one. The Canadian principles of self-determination have flowed from the British ones.
I for one think that we should keep the good British principle, that the Canadians and others have adopted, of self-determination.
You may think we should throw away everything we stand for. In which case I'm not sure what the point of the union even is that you're seeking to save anymore, if you don't even believe in what this country represents?
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
Ok, but we had @rcs1000 say the other day that all his kids friends identify as non-binary. So does one of my colleagues daughters and her friends (she's 17) so may there's a difference between Gen Z and Y?
I have several friends who are 18, they don't "identify" as anything, some are gay, some aren't. It has never, ever come up in conversation.
My view is that you spend too much time on Twitter.
I hardly ever go on Twitter anymore; I deleted the app from my phone in March. I've tweeted, like, three times in the last 3 months.
Quite frankly, I could say the same thing about you: you were engaging (regularly) in constructive and productive debate on here prior to February and were an interesting poster to read.
Since then, you've become hyper-partisan, and rather boring really.
"There is a grand deal to be done with Brussels to keep Scotland in the union. European leaders are no fans of separatism. From Catalonia to Flanders and Transylvania to the Basques, most have separatist movements of their own they are keen to quash. As they did during the 2014 independence campaign, senior EU figures have quietly suggested to our ministers that they are prepared to be very helpful on an independent Scotland’s ambitions to rejoin the EU: a rejection that would kill Sturgeon’s project dead.
But the EU has a price: an agreement to heal the festering sore that is the Northern Ireland Protocol once and for all. It wants the UK to align to a thinned-down book of EU standards on food and agriculture, a move that would slash the need for the lion’s share of disruptive and costly border checks on imports into the province from the British mainland in a stroke. Some ministers in Johnson’s Cabinet also want closer alignment on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (as they’re technically known), and have pressed Brexit negotiator Lord Frost on it. And I understand this is now happening.
Frost and his opposite number in the EU, Commission vice president Maroš Šefčovič, are inching towards agreeing a set of common standards on agri-food. It won’t be called alignment (No10 prefers the terms “equivalence”). It may even involve the option to diverge if the UK feels it must, to avoid the incandescent rage of hardline Brexiteers who insist the UK must never again be beholden to Brussels on anything. But it amounts to the same thing."
There’s a huge difference between “alignment” and “equivalence” relating to future standards. Basically, the U.K. doesn’t trust the EU not to “evolve” their “standards” in a way that deliberately targets U.K. exports to the EU.
If they can solve that issue, with a classic piece of NI fudge, then we have progress.
As that is just paranoia as a result of the EU having to be the big bad, they'll get past it. I don't care what they call it, lets go back to the sensible solution of the UK standards remaining as they are. As the EU standards are also as they are, we can remove overnight the game ending barriers that we have had to postpone.
We aren't (so they say) going to lower food standards, we're going to enhance them. So there is no problem staying aligned / equivalenced to the EU standards. We will have the right to have babies without having the ability to have babies. Huzzah!
There is no issue with equivalence, there is an issue with alignment.
The UK has always been OK with equivalence AFAIK, it is the EU that has been demanding alignment. If you've got no qualms with either then lets hope the EU catch up and we can agree to equivalence and move on.
Alignment - following EU rules. Equivalence - having UK rules that are accepted as having parity with EU rules. Whatever. Our rules are their rules are our rules because nether side have changed the sodding rules. Drop the barriers and worry about future divergence as and when it happens. As we both say we will be moving in the same direction on standards there won't be a problem.
Good you've caught up with us. What you're talking about is equivalence, which is what we want. We can't make the EU grant that yet though, but if they do it will be sensible.
Its the same bloody thing. We left the EU but kept UK standards which are also UK standards. We have the right to change our standards but have pledged to only increase them and not decrease them to allow weevil-invested american food in.
So why have we demanded and implemented 3rd country status to give us the ability to do things we aren't going to do? We have shagged our own food sector and now are going to unshag it having gained literally nothing. Petulant posturing from a government who haven't a clue how any of this works.
Its not the same bloody thing, its two very different things. I find it amusing that you can understand the self-determination concept for Scots and explain it quite well, but pretend not to understand it for Brexiteers which you yourself voted for.
We've demanded and implemented 3rd country status to determine our own standards. Those standards probably will remain equivalent to European ones, which they should recognise hopefully, but that's our choice.
Great! We are choosing to keep the same standards as the Europeans at least for now. Can we remove the paperwork and SPS checks we insisted on now? We wanted to determine our own standards and having done so we've decided to keep their standards. Huzzah!
"There is a grand deal to be done with Brussels to keep Scotland in the union. European leaders are no fans of separatism. From Catalonia to Flanders and Transylvania to the Basques, most have separatist movements of their own they are keen to quash. As they did during the 2014 independence campaign, senior EU figures have quietly suggested to our ministers that they are prepared to be very helpful on an independent Scotland’s ambitions to rejoin the EU: a rejection that would kill Sturgeon’s project dead.
But the EU has a price: an agreement to heal the festering sore that is the Northern Ireland Protocol once and for all. It wants the UK to align to a thinned-down book of EU standards on food and agriculture, a move that would slash the need for the lion’s share of disruptive and costly border checks on imports into the province from the British mainland in a stroke. Some ministers in Johnson’s Cabinet also want closer alignment on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (as they’re technically known), and have pressed Brexit negotiator Lord Frost on it. And I understand this is now happening.
Frost and his opposite number in the EU, Commission vice president Maroš Šefčovič, are inching towards agreeing a set of common standards on agri-food. It won’t be called alignment (No10 prefers the terms “equivalence”). It may even involve the option to diverge if the UK feels it must, to avoid the incandescent rage of hardline Brexiteers who insist the UK must never again be beholden to Brussels on anything. But it amounts to the same thing."
There’s a huge difference between “alignment” and “equivalence” relating to future standards. Basically, the U.K. doesn’t trust the EU not to “evolve” their “standards” in a way that deliberately targets U.K. exports to the EU.
If they can solve that issue, with a classic piece of NI fudge, then we have progress.
As that is just paranoia as a result of the EU having to be the big bad, they'll get past it. I don't care what they call it, lets go back to the sensible solution of the UK standards remaining as they are. As the EU standards are also as they are, we can remove overnight the game ending barriers that we have had to postpone.
We aren't (so they say) going to lower food standards, we're going to enhance them. So there is no problem staying aligned / equivalenced to the EU standards. We will have the right to have babies without having the ability to have babies. Huzzah!
There is no issue with equivalence, there is an issue with alignment.
The UK has always been OK with equivalence AFAIK, it is the EU that has been demanding alignment. If you've got no qualms with either then lets hope the EU catch up and we can agree to equivalence and move on.
Alignment - following EU rules. Equivalence - having UK rules that are accepted as having parity with EU rules. Whatever. Our rules are their rules are our rules because nether side have changed the sodding rules. Drop the barriers and worry about future divergence as and when it happens. As we both say we will be moving in the same direction on standards there won't be a problem.
Good you've caught up with us. What you're talking about is equivalence, which is what we want. We can't make the EU grant that yet though, but if they do it will be sensible.
Its the same bloody thing. We left the EU but kept UK standards which are also UK standards. We have the right to change our standards but have pledged to only increase them and not decrease them to allow weevil-invested american food in.
So why have we demanded and implemented 3rd country status to give us the ability to do things we aren't going to do? We have shagged our own food sector and now are going to unshag it having gained literally nothing. Petulant posturing from a government who haven't a clue how any of this works.
Its not the same bloody thing, its two very different things. I find it amusing that you can understand the self-determination concept for Scots and explain it quite well, but pretend not to understand it for Brexiteers which you yourself voted for.
We've demanded and implemented 3rd country status to determine our own standards. Those standards probably will remain equivalent to European ones, which they should recognise hopefully, but that's our choice.
Great! We are choosing to keep the same standards as the Europeans at least for now. Can we remove the paperwork and SPS checks we insisted on now? We wanted to determine our own standards and having done so we've decided to keep their standards. Huzzah!
No we can't since the EU are the ones refusing to grant equivalence. If they choose to grant equivalence, then the paperwork can be removed. If they don't, then we can keep the paperwork and SPS checks forever.
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I cringe when I think of some of the 'jokes' at which I laughed, or even told, in my student, or even 'just after' days. The late 50'/mid 60's were a very different time. Even the 70's.
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I imagine many of the old wokies in their late 20s / early 30s will more than likely have aped The Inbetweeners memes when they were teenagers.
It could go in various directions. They might get critiqued by their kids when they hit their 40s/50s for being "old", "out of date" and "unWoke" - even @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate will age - or, their kids will rebel in the other direction and gasp in astonishment at how their parents ever thought intersectionality and formalising racial stratification, except in reverse, was a good idea.
The only constant is the young generation will think the older ones out of touch! Applies through history.
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I cringe when I think of some of the 'jokes' at which I laughed, or even told, in my student, or even 'just after' days. The late 50'/mid 60's were a very different time. Even the 70's.
Even the 00s. And that will continue long into the future as well..
"When the SNP / Greens / Alba (possibly) win <80 seats between them, that is the scottish people knowingly voting to support another referendum. Perhaps they will vote no when it happens, but as they want it to be held then it must be held.
Otherwise what is this country? Not a democracy as your vote is no longer counted. Its a colony."
+++++
Drivel. It would be a colony if it was governed from the metropole with no representation in the imperial parliament. That is a colony. It is subjugated, and without a voice where it matters.
There were no MPs for Calcutta in the House of Commons in 1880. India was a colony of the British Empire
Scotland, by contrast, is in a full and consensual UNION with England, Wales and NI, and enjoys equal representation in the House of Commons. MPs for Glasgow sit next to MPs for Gateshead, and Gwynedd
Your ludicrous interruptions on this issue make you look like a tad hysterical
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I cringe when I think of some of the 'jokes' at which I laughed, or even told, in my student, or even 'just after' days. The late 50'/mid 60's were a very different time. Even the 70's.
Even the 00s. And that will continue long into the future as well..
That's my point.
I agree, but I also think, TBH, that the last 70 or so years have seen a faster change than many similar periods in earlier times.
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I imagine many of the old wokies in their late 20s / early 30s will more than likely have aped The Inbetweeners memes when they were teenagers.
It could go in various directions. They might get critiqued by their kids when they hit their 40s/50s for being "old", "out of date" and "unWoke" - even @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate will age - or, their kids will rebel in the other direction and gasp in astonishment at how their parents ever thought intersectionality and formalising racial stratification, except in reverse, was a good idea.
The only constant is the young generation will think the older ones out of touch! Applies through history.
I am 99% certain we will look back - quite soon - on the advent of Critical Race Theory and the recolorisation of everything as aberrant - and abhorrent.
"What, you obsessed about people's skin colour??""
But Dr Ramanan Laxminarayan, the director of the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics and Policy, tells BBC World News there are even more cases in rural areas.
"70% of India's population lives in rural India, and there are no hospital facilities there," he says. "You won't see long lines outside hospitals simply because there aren't very many at all to begin with."
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I cringe when I think of some of the 'jokes' at which I laughed, or even told, in my student, or even 'just after' days. The late 50'/mid 60's were a very different time. Even the 70's.
Partly it depends on context. What you might laugh at from a stand up comedian, or make jokes about to people who you know will take it in good part, is quite different to what jokes you would tell in mixed company, The Auschwitz watchtower joke being an excellent example.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
Are those the guys who just lost £5bn with Greensill ?
Perhaps they are the guys who realise that their loss would have been £5.5bn but for the generosity or blundering naivety of the Scottish government in giving out guarantees.
Clouds as black as the Devil's Arse. Hail, rain and storms. 10C, and a bitter wind
May 5th
Pleasant, sunny and warm in South Manchester. Delightfully May-like. I am waiting for Tesco and then I will go out for a quick bike ride to enjoy it.
London really does seem to have had a rubbish Spring.
Don't know about London, but Essex has. And when we've had rain it's been hard and fast, and brief; not the soaking the farmers and gardeners will tell you the land needs. However, we can buy fresh asparagus from a local farm, only slightly later than usual and, in our nest box, Mrs Bluetit is 'busily' incubating a small clutch of eggs. A few days and we should see some chicks.
Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.
Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence
When I went to bed on EU Referendum night, that was the figure Remain were on.
I don't think it tells us much other than what punters think, which isn't the accurate statistic, I once thought it was.
That said, I have said comfortable Tory gain all along. Check my posts.
I have as well. But I am having doubts now.
If you look at what same polling firms consistently report last few months and contrast with what they are saying this week, it’s quite some late surge to Labour. Sort of reminds me of Tory surge ‘92.
I think If it wasn’t for Jab Factor Labour would win Super Thursday, but the fly in the ointment is underestimating how unpopular Boris is, and can suppress his party’s support.
Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons.
Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence
Except we still haven't had an answer to the West Lothian Question. By Leon's definition of a colony, England is a colony of Scotland. (I don't know how W and NI fit into this.)
'It’s not as though the Prime Minister’s personal phone number could just be floating out there on the internet, is it? It would be absolutely insane if it was tacked on to the bottom of an old press release that he dished out freely while MP for Henley, and Shadow Minister for Higher Education.
A press releases which – feasibly – could still exist online. And which any old email newsletter could start p1ssing about with…'
Bailey now level with the 29% Norris got in 2004 in the first round and just 2% behind the 42% Steve Norris got in the second round of the 2000 London Mayoral election.
He may avoid being the worst Tory London Mayoral candidate yet
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I imagine many of the old wokies in their late 20s / early 30s will more than likely have aped The Inbetweeners memes when they were teenagers.
It could go in various directions. They might get critiqued by their kids when they hit their 40s/50s for being "old", "out of date" and "unWoke" - even @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate will age - or, their kids will rebel in the other direction and gasp in astonishment at how their parents ever thought intersectionality and formalising racial stratification, except in reverse, was a good idea.
The only constant is the young generation will think the older ones out of touch! Applies through history.
I am 99% certain we will look back - quite soon - on the advent of Critical Race Theory and the recolorisation of everything as aberrant - and abhorrent.
"What, you obsessed about people's skin colour??""
It's a terrible wrong turning
Let's hope so. There's something very Emperor's New Clothes about CRT.
'It’s not as though the Prime Minister’s personal phone number could just be floating out there on the internet, is it? It would be absolutely insane if it was tacked on to the bottom of an old press release that he dished out freely while MP for Henley, and Shadow Minister for Higher Education.
A press releases which – feasibly – could still exist online. And which any old email newsletter could start p1ssing about with…'
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I imagine many of the old wokies in their late 20s / early 30s will more than likely have aped The Inbetweeners memes when they were teenagers.
It could go in various directions. They might get critiqued by their kids when they hit their 40s/50s for being "old", "out of date" and "unWoke" - even @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate will age - or, their kids will rebel in the other direction and gasp in astonishment at how their parents ever thought intersectionality and formalising racial stratification, except in reverse, was a good idea.
The only constant is the young generation will think the older ones out of touch! Applies through history.
I am 99% certain we will look back - quite soon - on the advent of Critical Race Theory and the recolorisation of everything as aberrant - and abhorrent.
"What, you obsessed about people's skin colour??""
This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.
That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.
Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.
Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?
You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.
Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:
1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.
2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.
3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.
I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.
My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.
They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.
Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.
In some respects, I don't blame them.
If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.
You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.
Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.
Astute
It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way
They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.
And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age
Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight
I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK
Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however
When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.
None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.
Times change.
A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"
It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really
I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible
Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.
If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.
I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.
I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.
Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I imagine many of the old wokies in their late 20s / early 30s will more than likely have aped The Inbetweeners memes when they were teenagers.
It could go in various directions. They might get critiqued by their kids when they hit their 40s/50s for being "old", "out of date" and "unWoke" - even @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate will age - or, their kids will rebel in the other direction and gasp in astonishment at how their parents ever thought intersectionality and formalising racial stratification, except in reverse, was a good idea.
The only constant is the young generation will think the older ones out of touch! Applies through history.
I am 99% certain we will look back - quite soon - on the advent of Critical Race Theory and the recolorisation of everything as aberrant - and abhorrent.
"What, you obsessed about people's skin colour??""
It's a terrible wrong turning
It's so fucking obvious, it shouldn't even need saying.
Clouds as black as the Devil's Arse. Hail, rain and storms. 10C, and a bitter wind
May 5th
Pleasant, sunny and warm in South Manchester. Delightfully May-like. I am waiting for Tesco and then I will go out for a quick bike ride to enjoy it.
London really does seem to have had a rubbish Spring.
Yes, it has. North-easterly winds - which have prevailed for many weeks - are the worst for London. Straight off a cold North Sea.
My fam in Cornwall have had a much nicer time
On a happier note, it looks like this northerly block, which is bedevilling all of northwest Europe, will finally shift at the weekend. Please God
Because the rain is now slashing down, it is monsoonal, and very cold. 8C
Yes. Pattern change this weekend, as I assured you many days ago and you accused me of 'hope casting'. I wasn't, I was simply analysing the models, rather than doomcasting, which is your speciality.
NEW: @NYGovCuomo says the state has teamed up with the Yankees and the Mets to allow fans to get a vaccine at the game. If you get a vaccine, you also get a free ticket to a game.
Lots of Manchester City fans all of a sudden claim to be very vaccine hesitant...not sure about getting it, but are prepared to travel as far as Turkey to get it.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
Are those the guys who just lost £5bn with Greensill ?
Perhaps they are the guys who realise that their loss would have been £5.5bn but for the generosity or blundering naivety of the Scottish government in giving out guarantees.
Perhaps they are. But they are not the most convincing witnesses for the fiscal unreliability or otherwise of a putative independent Scotland.
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
Are those the guys who just lost £5bn with Greensill ?
Perhaps they are the guys who realise that their loss would have been £5.5bn but for the generosity or blundering naivety of the Scottish government in giving out guarantees.
Perhaps they are. But they are not the most convincing witnesses for the fiscal unreliability or otherwise of a putative independent Scotland.
Their statement seemed a banal statement of the obvious to me. But perhaps playing the man is more fun than the ball?
Absolutely crappy weather here. Pissing it down. Am off to have supper with a friend and can't bloody wait. The place has blankets and hot water bottles apparently.
NEW: @NYGovCuomo says the state has teamed up with the Yankees and the Mets to allow fans to get a vaccine at the game. If you get a vaccine, you also get a free ticket to a game.
Lots of Manchester City fans all of a sudden claim to be very vaccine hesitant...not sure about getting it, but are prepared to travel as far as Turkey to get it.
Israel and UAE are both reportedly in discussions over summer vaccine tourism.
It’s a low season anyway in the Middle East, too hot to do much outside, so a good opportunity to both attract foreign money and get more jabs in arms.
"When the SNP / Greens / Alba (possibly) win ~80 seats between them, that is the scottish people knowingly voting to support another referendum. Perhaps they will vote no when it happens, but as they want it to be held then it must be held.
Otherwise what is this country? Not a democracy as your vote is no longer counted. Its a colony."
+++++
Drivel. It would be a colony if it was governed from the metropole with no representation in the imperial parliament. That is a colony. It is subjugated, and without a voice where it matters.
There were no MPs for Calcutta in the House of Commons in 1880. India was a colony of the British Empire
Scotland, by contrast, is in a full and consensual UNION with England, Wales and NI, and enjoys equal representation in the House of Commons. MPs for Glasgow sit next to MPs for Gateshead, and Gwynedd
Your ludicrous interruptions on this issue make you look like a tad hysterical
"Consensual"?
If the Scots vote tomorrow to have a referendum to end the union and get told that they're not permitted to, then the union ceases to be consensual.
That's like a woman asking for divorce and being told that she can't for a generation without the man's consent, and the man is allowed to insist upon coitus whenever he wants and she doesn't get a say.
Your ludicrous interruptions on this issue make you look like a tad hysterical
You think?
God, that's brilliant
Is that like a whole pot kettle black meme thing?
I get it. That's a black pot-like vessel in the picture, so that implies I'm like a black pot looking at that black pot, in your picture, and calling him - it, in the picture - black, whereas I myself, a kettle, or a pot, am also black, tho that is a pot there not a kettle, so I'm a..... black kettle? Looking at a black pot, or cauldron type thing, but this is confusing, because this is apparently suggesting I am a kettle calling the pot black, implying that the kettle is black and therefore cannot call out other vessels for being black in a similar way. But are they? Are kettles black? I don't think so. Therefore this is just a pot. A picture of a fucking pot you stupid lame-ass pensionable Scottish dwarf
Your ludicrous interruptions on this issue make you look like a tad hysterical
You think?
God, that's brilliant
Is that like a whole pot kettle black meme thing?
I get it. That's a black pot-like vessel in the picture, so that implies I'm like a black pot looking at that black pot, in your picture, and calling him - it, in the picture - black, whereas I myself, a kettle, or a pot, am also black, tho that is a pot there not a kettle, so I'm a..... black kettle? Looking at a black pot, or cauldron type thing, but this is confusing, because this is apparently suggesting I am a kettle calling the pot black, implying that the kettle is black and therefore cannot call out other vessels for being black in a similar way. But are they? Are kettles black? I don't think so. Therefore this is just a pot. A picture of a fucking pot you stupid lame-ass pensionable Scottish dwarf
If you look at campaign polling in 92 and the final result it’s hard to explain why they don’t match. I am feeling a similar vibe in favour of Labour. Late movement.
This week I think it complicated picture, many things to look out for to guess degree they are playing.
England and Hartlepool jab factor + Tories Starmer not Corbyn + Labour Vote Tory to guarantee lots of nice investment + Tories Brexit delivered + Tories Hapless comedian Boris - Tories Media narrative during campaign (cash for curtains versus Starmers easy ride) + Labour
Scotland and Wales have their own internal narratives where Tories should make progress in both based on this weeks polls.
Your ludicrous interruptions on this issue make you look like a tad hysterical
You think?
God, that's brilliant
Is that like a whole pot kettle black meme thing?
I get it. That's a black pot-like vessel in the picture, so that implies I'm like a black pot looking at that black pot, in your picture, and calling him - it, in the picture - black, whereas I myself, a kettle, or a pot, am also black, tho that is a pot there not a kettle, so I'm a..... black kettle? Looking at a black pot, or cauldron type thing, but this is confusing, because this is apparently suggesting I am a kettle calling the pot black, implying that the kettle is black and therefore cannot call out other vessels for being black in a similar way. But are they? Are kettles black? I don't think so. Therefore this is just a pot. A picture of a fucking pot you stupid lame-ass pensionable Scottish dwarf
Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.
Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence
With the respect due to you, whatever you say on this subject is the same old baseless shit. And despite you saying "we Tories" endlessly it isn't the position held by the leader of the Scottish Tories.
Clouds as black as the Devil's Arse. Hail, rain and storms. 10C, and a bitter wind
May 5th
Pleasant, sunny and warm in South Manchester. Delightfully May-like. I am waiting for Tesco and then I will go out for a quick bike ride to enjoy it.
London really does seem to have had a rubbish Spring.
Yes, it has. North-easterly winds - which have prevailed for many weeks - are the worst for London. Straight off a cold North Sea.
My fam in Cornwall have had a much nicer time
On a happier note, it looks like this northerly block, which is bedevilling all of northwest Europe, will finally shift at the weekend. Please God
Because the rain is now slashing down, it is monsoonal, and very cold. 8C
Yes. Pattern change this weekend, as I assured you many days ago and you accused me of 'hope casting'. I wasn't, I was simply analysing the models, rather than doomcasting, which is your speciality.
Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.
Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence
The other major historical difference was that the Scots were not the colonised and oppressed but the colonisers and the oppressors. They loved it! The British Empire was disproportionately Scottish. Their universities turned out huge numbers of enthusiastic colonialists and their regiments provided the muscle. For them to now claim they were the oppressed like Ireland is an insult to every non-Unionist Irishman
Under full fiscal autonomy or independence, the deficit would be the Scottish government’s responsibility and there will be a loss of risk sharing with the rest of the UK. While Scotland could benefit from tax revenues from North Sea oil reserves, these are likely to be a less predictable source of revenue compared to transfers from the British Treasury. An independent Scotland is likely to inherit a large hole in its public finances and significant tax rises or spending cuts would be needed to reduce the deficit. The Covid-19 pandemic, falling oil prices and Brexit have made transitioning to stable public finances even more challenging for Scotland, compared to 2014.
Scotland would need credible macroeconomic policies in order to attract investors to finance its deficit. The question of how an independent Scotland would negotiate a share of the UK national debt and liabilities is also highly uncertain.
Moreover Scotland is an open economy and is highly dependent on international trade at around 58% of GDP. This is above the 35% for the UK as a whole. Scotland is particularly dependent on trade with the Rest of the UK (RUK), and currently benefits from being in the UK Single Market and Customs Union, hence facing neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers, and sharing the UK common currency. 60% of Scotland’s exports and 67% of its imports are to and from the rest of the UK (RUK), while 19% of Scottish exports were to the EU. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is around four times larger than its EU trade.
Scottish independence is likely to create a new international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK and lead to higher trade costs and frictions, especially if Scotland decides to rejoin the EU.
All of which may be true. But the No campaign can't say "you can't leave because walking away from the single market will be Bad"...
I am not sure whether you have noticed but the recent polls have shown quite a move away from independence notwithstanding the SNP winning tomorrow
I believe in the Scots as they are very 'canny' and I expect this trend to continue
I am quite happy for indyref2 to happen as I believe the Scots will remain in the union
You are a lib dem who believes in the union, but you post actively seeking to support the SNP as some punishment for the UK's brexit
Scottish croft tenants have the right to force their landlord to sell the croft to them. The cannier ones realise it is more profitable not to exercise this right but to have it permanently in the background when negotiating rents and so on with the landlord. There is a parallel here.
This is the traditional Quebec approach. As currently represented by Premier François Legault (a former Parti Québécois politico) and his Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ).
CAQ is (for the most part) in classic Quebec nationalist "Bleu" position, which holds that Quebec is a distinct nation but also Canadian, indeed the REAL Canada, and entitled as such to VERY wide degree of autonomy. In contrast to the separatists who favor complete independence.
Bleus of Quebec have aligned themselves with the Conservative Party in federal politics, since the historic alliance between John Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier, memorialized (sort of) by the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway (Highway 401).
Which is a bit ironic, given the "Aye, Ready, Aye!" heritage of the Conservative Party in Anglo Canada. But a very logical logical inconsitency!
Starmer urging people on social media to 'vote with their heart' now is pretty desperate stuff. No thanks I'll vote with my head. What's wrong with suggesting a few good policies? At least Corbyn had some interesting ideas rather than just begging rhetoric.
"There is a grand deal to be done with Brussels to keep Scotland in the union. European leaders are no fans of separatism. From Catalonia to Flanders and Transylvania to the Basques, most have separatist movements of their own they are keen to quash. As they did during the 2014 independence campaign, senior EU figures have quietly suggested to our ministers that they are prepared to be very helpful on an independent Scotland’s ambitions to rejoin the EU: a rejection that would kill Sturgeon’s project dead.
But the EU has a price: an agreement to heal the festering sore that is the Northern Ireland Protocol once and for all. It wants the UK to align to a thinned-down book of EU standards on food and agriculture, a move that would slash the need for the lion’s share of disruptive and costly border checks on imports into the province from the British mainland in a stroke. Some ministers in Johnson’s Cabinet also want closer alignment on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (as they’re technically known), and have pressed Brexit negotiator Lord Frost on it. And I understand this is now happening.
Frost and his opposite number in the EU, Commission vice president Maroš Šefčovič, are inching towards agreeing a set of common standards on agri-food. It won’t be called alignment (No10 prefers the terms “equivalence”). It may even involve the option to diverge if the UK feels it must, to avoid the incandescent rage of hardline Brexiteers who insist the UK must never again be beholden to Brussels on anything. But it amounts to the same thing."
There’s a huge difference between “alignment” and “equivalence” relating to future standards. Basically, the U.K. doesn’t trust the EU not to “evolve” their “standards” in a way that deliberately targets U.K. exports to the EU.
If they can solve that issue, with a classic piece of NI fudge, then we have progress.
As that is just paranoia as a result of the EU having to be the big bad, they'll get past it. I don't care what they call it, lets go back to the sensible solution of the UK standards remaining as they are. As the EU standards are also as they are, we can remove overnight the game ending barriers that we have had to postpone.
We aren't (so they say) going to lower food standards, we're going to enhance them. So there is no problem staying aligned / equivalenced to the EU standards. We will have the right to have babies without having the ability to have babies. Huzzah!
There is no issue with equivalence, there is an issue with alignment.
The UK has always been OK with equivalence AFAIK, it is the EU that has been demanding alignment. If you've got no qualms with either then lets hope the EU catch up and we can agree to equivalence and move on.
Alignment - following EU rules. Equivalence - having UK rules that are accepted as having parity with EU rules. Whatever. Our rules are their rules are our rules because nether side have changed the sodding rules. Drop the barriers and worry about future divergence as and when it happens. As we both say we will be moving in the same direction on standards there won't be a problem.
Good you've caught up with us. What you're talking about is equivalence, which is what we want. We can't make the EU grant that yet though, but if they do it will be sensible.
Its the same bloody thing. We left the EU but kept UK standards which are also UK standards. We have the right to change our standards but have pledged to only increase them and not decrease them to allow weevil-invested american food in.
So why have we demanded and implemented 3rd country status to give us the ability to do things we aren't going to do? We have shagged our own food sector and now are going to unshag it having gained literally nothing. Petulant posturing from a government who haven't a clue how any of this works.
Its not the same bloody thing, its two very different things. I find it amusing that you can understand the self-determination concept for Scots and explain it quite well, but pretend not to understand it for Brexiteers which you yourself voted for.
We've demanded and implemented 3rd country status to determine our own standards. Those standards probably will remain equivalent to European ones, which they should recognise hopefully, but that's our choice.
Great! We are choosing to keep the same standards as the Europeans at least for now. Can we remove the paperwork and SPS checks we insisted on now? We wanted to determine our own standards and having done so we've decided to keep their standards. Huzzah!
No we can't since the EU are the ones refusing to grant equivalence. If they choose to grant equivalence, then the paperwork can be removed. If they don't, then we can keep the paperwork and SPS checks forever.
There is an entertaining blame game because you need the UK to be seen to win. Whatever. The UK could fix this tomorrow. And won't. I have no doubt the EU have stopped wasting their time trying to work with our increasingly stupid positions.
Meanwhile, in reality, there remains no difference between our respective food standards. You can blame them, I can blame us, they can blame each other. Not only does it get us nowhere, it also achieves nothing. Equivalence is alignment is equivalence when our equivalent rules remain aligned to their rules and will continue to be.
Comments
It does seem to vary by industry though. Lawyers seem to want to use surnames.
On council elections, I think the Greens may well have one of their better nights and land quite a few more councillors. They're doing well on the NOTA front at the moment.
Edit: and another rumble.
I believe in the Scots as they are very 'canny' and I expect this trend to continue
I am quite happy for indyref2 to happen as I believe the Scots will remain in the union
You are a lib dem who believes in the union, but you post actively seeking to support the SNP as some punishment for the UK's brexit
I know that a bowl of ice cream is bad for my diet, but I might just come to the conclusion that the pleasure will be worth it. The same might not be true for a whole gallon of ice cream.
The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.
A study by the Centre for Economic Performance (LSE) estimates that trade costs between Scotland and the rest of the UK can increase by 15-30%, if Scotland becomes independent. This is likely to increase if Scotland rejoins the EU. It has concluded that the negative impact of independence on Scotland’s economy is two or three times greater than the costs of Brexit to Scotland, given the greater share of RUK in Scottish trade compared to the EU.
Rejoining the EU would do little to mitigate the costs of Scottish independence. Border problems stemming from Scotland leaving the UK were likely to result in Scottish incomes being between 6.3-8.7% lower in the long term
This isn't difficult
seriouscrediblebatshit political commentator.I don't think it tells us much other than what punters think, which isn't the accurate statistic, I once thought it was.
That said, I have said comfortable Tory gain all along. Check my posts.
- CBS and NBC are paying the mega bucks to fund the US Tour - and they obviously want all events in the US so they are in the correct TV time slot - ie ending at approx 6pm ET. Staging an event in Europe or Asia is hopeless for CBS / NBC. Obviously The Open is different but that is a one-off exception.
- Other regular US Tour events have substantial history and thus meaning - eg Bay Hill (Arnold), Memorial (Jack), Colonial (Hogan) etc - if you replace with new tournaments you lose all that meaning.
We've demanded and implemented 3rd country status to determine our own standards. Those standards probably will remain equivalent to European ones, which they should recognise hopefully, but that's our choice.
When the SNP / Greens / Alba (possibly) win <80 seats between them, that is the scottish people knowingly voting to support another referendum. Perhaps they will vote no when it happens, but as they want it to be held then it must be held.
Otherwise what is this country? Not a democracy as your vote is no longer counted. Its a colony.
Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.
Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.
I for one think that we should keep the good British principle, that the Canadians and others have adopted, of self-determination.
You may think we should throw away everything we stand for. In which case I'm not sure what the point of the union even is that you're seeking to save anymore, if you don't even believe in what this country represents?
Quite frankly, I could say the same thing about you: you were engaging (regularly) in constructive and productive debate on here prior to February and were an interesting poster to read.
Since then, you've become hyper-partisan, and rather boring really.
AWAP = Abolish Welsh Assembly Party
The late 50'/mid 60's were a very different time. Even the 70's.
The only constant is the young generation will think the older ones out of touch! Applies through history.
That's my point.
"When the SNP / Greens / Alba (possibly) win <80 seats between them, that is the scottish people knowingly voting to support another referendum. Perhaps they will vote no when it happens, but as they want it to be held then it must be held.
Otherwise what is this country? Not a democracy as your vote is no longer counted. Its a colony."
+++++
Drivel. It would be a colony if it was governed from the metropole with no representation in the imperial parliament. That is a colony. It is subjugated, and without a voice where it matters.
There were no MPs for Calcutta in the House of Commons in 1880. India was a colony of the British Empire
Scotland, by contrast, is in a full and consensual UNION with England, Wales and NI, and enjoys equal representation in the House of Commons. MPs for Glasgow sit next to MPs for Gateshead, and Gwynedd
Your ludicrous interruptions on this issue make you look like a tad hysterical
London really does seem to have had a rubbish Spring.
"What, you obsessed about people's skin colour??""
It's a terrible wrong turning
"70% of India's population lives in rural India, and there are no hospital facilities there," he says. "You won't see long lines outside hospitals simply because there aren't very many at all to begin with."
Now.. about that ComRes in Scotland..
My fam in Cornwall have had a much nicer time
On a happier note, it looks like this northerly block, which is bedevilling all of northwest Europe, will finally shift at the weekend. Please God
Because the rain is now slashing down, it is monsoonal, and very cold. 8C
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1389957213763117062?s=20
However, we can buy fresh asparagus from a local farm, only slightly later than usual and, in our nest box, Mrs Bluetit is 'busily' incubating a small clutch of eggs. A few days and we should see some chicks.
Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence
If you look at what same polling firms consistently report last few months and contrast with what they are saying this week, it’s quite some late surge to Labour. Sort of reminds me of Tory surge ‘92.
I think If it wasn’t for Jab Factor Labour would win Super Thursday, but the fly in the ointment is underestimating how unpopular Boris is, and can suppress his party’s support.
By Leon's definition of a colony, England is a colony of Scotland.
(I don't know how W and NI fit into this.)
A press releases which – feasibly – could still exist online. And which any old email newsletter could start p1ssing about with…'
https://popbitch.com/latest-email/
Why do they even bother?
He may avoid being the worst Tory London Mayoral candidate yet
(Please.)
@NYGovCuomo
says the state has teamed up with the Yankees and the Mets to allow fans to get a vaccine at the game. If you get a vaccine, you also get a free ticket to a game.
Lots of Manchester City fans all of a sudden claim to be very vaccine hesitant...not sure about getting it, but are prepared to travel as far as Turkey to get it.
But they are not the most convincing witnesses for the fiscal unreliability or otherwise of a putative independent Scotland.
It’s a low season anyway in the Middle East, too hot to do much outside, so a good opportunity to both attract foreign money and get more jabs in arms.
(Crap weather here today though, sandstormy).
If the Scots vote tomorrow to have a referendum to end the union and get told that they're not permitted to, then the union ceases to be consensual.
That's like a woman asking for divorce and being told that she can't for a generation without the man's consent, and the man is allowed to insist upon coitus whenever he wants and she doesn't get a say.
Is that like a whole pot kettle black meme thing?
I get it. That's a black pot-like vessel in the picture, so that implies I'm like a black pot looking at that black pot, in your picture, and calling him - it, in the picture - black, whereas I myself, a kettle, or a pot, am also black, tho that is a pot there not a kettle, so I'm a..... black kettle? Looking at a black pot, or cauldron type thing, but this is confusing, because this is apparently suggesting I am a kettle calling the pot black, implying that the kettle is black and therefore cannot call out other vessels for being black in a similar way. But are they? Are kettles black? I don't think so. Therefore this is just a pot. A picture of a fucking pot you stupid lame-ass pensionable Scottish dwarf
I think it needs work
If you look at campaign polling in 92 and the final result it’s hard to explain why they don’t match. I am feeling a similar vibe in favour of Labour. Late movement.
This week I think it complicated picture, many things to look out for to guess degree they are playing.
England and Hartlepool
jab factor + Tories
Starmer not Corbyn + Labour
Vote Tory to guarantee lots of nice investment + Tories
Brexit delivered + Tories
Hapless comedian Boris - Tories
Media narrative during campaign (cash for curtains versus Starmers easy ride) + Labour
Scotland and Wales have their own internal narratives where Tories should make progress in both based on this weeks polls.
CAQ is (for the most part) in classic Quebec nationalist "Bleu" position, which holds that Quebec is a distinct nation but also Canadian, indeed the REAL Canada, and entitled as such to VERY wide degree of autonomy. In contrast to the separatists who favor complete independence.
Bleus of Quebec have aligned themselves with the Conservative Party in federal politics, since the historic alliance between John Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier, memorialized (sort of) by the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway (Highway 401).
Which is a bit ironic, given the "Aye, Ready, Aye!" heritage of the Conservative Party in Anglo Canada. But a very logical logical inconsitency!
Meanwhile, in reality, there remains no difference between our respective food standards. You can blame them, I can blame us, they can blame each other. Not only does it get us nowhere, it also achieves nothing. Equivalence is alignment is equivalence when our equivalent rules remain aligned to their rules and will continue to be.
NEW: Peter Madelson says if the Tories win Hartlepool he will go into “meltdown”
Via @TimesRadio
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1389976712939704322?s=20