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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
What ever happened to the man who claimed he was “a fighter and not a quitter”?
Bless him. He was fighter not a quitter until he quit and took a lavishly expensed job. I have some younger Labour friends who have been very excited at working alongside the Lord Mandelson on this by-election campaign.
I would be too! Learning how not to do something is a valuable lesson. I don't they have the same perspective though.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
No, I understand that nationalists don't overtly burn books now, they just change the curriculum. God help your beautiful country!
Laura K on PM "Hartlepool has been red forever." FFS.
It has been 100% red since the seat was created yes.
Hartlepool constituency is successor to previous one called "The Hartlepools" (Like Walla Walla, so nice they named it twice?)
That seat was held by Labour continuously from 1945 to 1974, except for 1959-64 when it was won & held by Conservatives. However, unlike Hartlepool (singular) it was quite marginal.
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
I think it needs work
I see your watery hopes of last week that a SLab revival was going to rescue your Union were somewhat misplaced. Chill oot, lots of twists and turns and hysteria to go yet.
Who knew that about 5 months after Brexit the French would be blockading a British island and trying to starve the people into submission, in a row about scallops?
Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant
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.
Curious approach if true. Would seem to suggest people think the smart thing to do is vote Tory, but they should not do the smart thing. Why not have people think it is the right thing with heart and head?
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.
Man Predicts British Weather Might Change Shocker
Looks showery and changeable at least well into next week, to me. No sign of any spring heatwave, at all.
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.
My wife calls dinner supper too. She knows it mildly irritates. Isn''t supper a snackette in front of the telly with a hot drink and slippers type thing? Is this a class thing?
Mind you, in my family we always used to call lunch dinner, so who am I to judge?
Here in Seattle the Pink Elephant car wash just north of downtown featured a big, revolving . . . wait for it . . . pink elephant lite up with flashing neon. A beloved civic icon and useful landmark.
Until recently, that is, when the fuqqing land pirates took it down - the baaaastards!
Who knew that about 5 months after Brexit the French would be blockading a British island and trying to starve the people into submission, in a row about scallops?
Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant
I seem to recall a paragraph on p495 of Project Doom that forecast that very thing. Sure there was.
What is less clear is whether this was included in the 0.1% a year difference that Brexit apparently made to our growth rate or not.
"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.
The UK can't fix this since the UK can't make the EU grant equivalence.
@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.
Why don't you reply saying you should Call Me Dave?
Who knew that about 5 months after Brexit the French would be blockading a British island and trying to starve the people into submission, in a row about scallops?
Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant
UK and US almost went to war in 1859 over a pig, in the San Juan Islands between Washington Territory and the Colony of Vancouver Island.
"On June 15, 1859, exactly thirteen years after the adoption of the Oregon Treaty, the ambiguity led to direct conflict. Lyman Cutlar, an American farmer who had moved onto San Juan Island claiming rights to live there under the Donation Land Claim Act, found a Large Black pig rooting in his garden[2][6][10] and eating his tubers. This was not the first occurrence. Cutlar was so upset that he took aim and shot the pig, killing it.
It turned out that the pig was owned by an Irishman, Charles Griffin, who was employed by the Hudson's Bay Company to run the sheep ranch on the island.[2][6][10] He also owned several pigs that he allowed to roam freely. The two had lived in peace until this incident. Cutlar offered $10 (equivalent to $280 in 2019) to Griffin to compensate for the pig, but Griffin was unsatisfied with this offer and demanded $100 (equivalent to $2,800 in 2019). Following this reply, Cutlar believed he should not have to pay for the pig because the pig had been trespassing on his land. One likely apocryphal account has Cutlar saying to Griffin, "It was eating my potatoes"; and Griffin replying, "It is up to you to keep your potatoes out of my pig."[10] When British authorities threatened to arrest Cutlar, American settlers called for military protection.
We kept the pig, and the islands. For once, justice triumphed.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
The way I've just heard it in a history podcast is that the first plantation was instituted by James VI when he tried to send Lowland Scots to the island of Lewis, before he became James I of England.
Perhaps all countries need a few lies about their past. It's often easier that way. But is fostering a sense of grievance and victimhood about your neighbour really the best set of lies to choose?
They'd be better off with exaggerating in the other direction, and arguing that Britain was only great when Scots were running the place, and now that the English don't want the benefits of their leadership it's time for Scotland to plow their own furrow.
It's still cobblers, though I'd argue less so, but at least it's positive cobblers.
On topic, I think Michael is right to highlight the threat to the LibDems from the Greens. This is the first time since the early 1990s that the Greens are making a real push in the local elections, and they are helped by the fact that there is very little traditional canvassing this year.
I suspect that this is going to make the LDs job very difficult this year.
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.
Johnson is the Tory Party! Despite the choppy seas last week, all is now good.
LauraK. on PM was calling just about everything outside Scotland and London for the 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.
Man Predicts British Weather Might Change Shocker
Looks showery and changeable at least well into next week, to me. No sign of any spring heatwave, at all.
I think there's a change from cold northerly showers to milder south-westerly showers.
If that comes to pass, Drakeford has dodged a bullet....unless he loses his seat in the mayhem. I think you are right, over the months, Paul Davies and Andrew RT Davies have been immensely helpful to Labour.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
The way I've just heard it in a history podcast is that the first plantation was instituted by James VI when he tried to send Lowland Scots to the island of Lewis, before he became James I of England.
Perhaps all countries need a few lies about their past. It's often easier that way. But is fostering a sense of grievance and victimhood about your neighbour really the best set of lies to choose?
They'd be better off with exaggerating in the other direction, and arguing that Britain was only great when Scots were running the place, and now that the English don't want the benefits of their leadership it's time for Scotland to plow their own furrow.
It's still cobblers, though I'd argue less so, but at least it's positive cobblers.
The first plantations in Ireland were certainly English and predated Jamie Sext's efforts on Lewis, however the C17th venture might be said to be the first truly British project.
'In 1603 James VI of Scotland also became James I of England, uniting these two crowns and also gaining possession of the Kingdom of Ireland, at that time an English Crown possession. The Plantation of Ulster was promoted to him as a joint "British", i.e. English and Scottish, venture to pacify and civilise Ulster.'
NEWS FLASH - Admiral of the Blue H.Y.U.F.D Nelson is organizing a hot press of "volunteers" in the Cinque Ports to come to the defense of the beleaguered Channel Islanders.
"We won't let a bunch of scallop-eating Frogs usurp our British birthright" said the admiral as he hurried aboard his personal dingy to direct operations at sea.
"The world is watching!" proclaimed the fighting seadog, "including those turbulent Jock traitors now infesting North Britain!! Once we've secured Jersey for ourselves and our posterity, if need be we'll to the same for our beloved Bute!!!"
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
Quite right, we shouldn't be obsessed about skin colour or race. Does that apply to the two frequent posters on here (of whom you are one) who seem to be so obsessed?
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
I find it weird that Labour's results in the Senedd have been:
28 30 26 30 29
and now might be 26, and that one of the lesser predictions. It's so consistent, yet just cannot quite manage a majority. Even with the system in place, the consistency seems odd.
In fact really there's not been much change, other than (proportionally), the LDs and the rise of UKIP.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
Surprisingly little comment on the TND article I posted from the Standard earlier that showed the EU is ready to do a deal to ease SPS standards and the GB-NI border *and* go public on rejecting straightforward ascension of Scotland to the EU.
The EU and Frost are already talking about it.
That means it will happen, and it's just a question of when. So this should be factored into betting.
The only reason a silly argument was had was that the EU were refusing to ratify the TCA, and threatening to not ratify it or vote it down.
Stalling their diplomatic status until they did the right thing and ratified the agreement may be petulant, but it's how diplomacy works. These diplomatic slights get attention while allowing citizens lives to be entirely unaffected.
I know this is amazing, but I suspect the brouhaha over the EU Ambassador, and his status at the court of St James, was not played out with the central aim of pleasing, or boring, obscure businessman Robert Smithson, over in Los Angeles
Surprisingly little comment on the TND article I posted from the Standard earlier that showed the EU is ready to do a deal to ease SPS standards and the GB-NI border *and* go public on rejecting straightforward ascension of Scotland to the EU.
The EU and Frost are already talking about it.
That means it will happen, and it's just a question of when. So this should be factored into betting.
Given the last few years the sensible course is generally to ignore any whispers coming out of discussions between the UK and the EU, until things actually materialise out of it.
The net effect of this, regardless of what happens?
Long-term, we'll simply tap the Channel Island grid into the UK grid.
And redirect some of the power we buy from France?
Jersey gets 95% of its power from France. The UK imports barely 6%, and under 1.5% from France. If there was ever an "issue" with that we'd simply turn on some more CCGT plants or manage demand through the grid.
Surprisingly little comment on the TND article I posted from the Standard earlier that showed the EU is ready to do a deal to ease SPS standards and the GB-NI border *and* go public on rejecting straightforward ascension of Scotland to the EU.
The EU and Frost are already talking about it.
That means it will happen, and it's just a question of when. So this should be factored into betting.
I think there's little doubt an independent Scotland could join if it wanted to. May be faster/slower than some are predicting, but I strongly doubt there would be a refusal.
Surprisingly little comment on the TND article I posted from the Standard earlier that showed the EU is ready to do a deal to ease SPS standards and the GB-NI border *and* go public on rejecting straightforward ascension of Scotland to the EU.
The EU and Frost are already talking about it.
That means it will happen, and it's just a question of when. So this should be factored into betting.
Given the last few years the sensible course is generally to ignore any whispers coming out of discussions between the UK and the EU, until things actually materialise out of it.
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.
My wife calls dinner supper too. She knows it mildly irritates. Isn''t supper a snackette in front of the telly with a hot drink and slippers type thing? Is this a class thing?
Mind you, in my family we always used to call lunch dinner, so who am I to judge?
Dinner, tea and supper. In that order. 12:00. 17:00. 21:30
However, a 'pie and pea supper', staple of many a Labour Party social event*, should be consumed slightly earlier in the evening.
*Probably not in North London - more likely to be wine & cheese (with Good Brie).
Surprisingly little comment on the TND article I posted from the Standard earlier that showed the EU is ready to do a deal to ease SPS standards and the GB-NI border *and* go public on rejecting straightforward ascension of Scotland to the EU.
The EU and Frost are already talking about it.
That means it will happen, and it's just a question of when. So this should be factored into betting.
I think there's little doubt an independent Scotland could join if it wanted to. May be faster/slower than some are predicting, but I strongly doubt there would be a refusal.
That's why I said straightforward accession - it'd be standard terms: Maastricht convergence, 3% deficit, independent sustainable currency, acquis, clear treaty debated by all existing members over several years, obligation to join the Euro etc. Could take 6-8 years. Not instant etc. Stuff like that.
The EU would love that, because they could convince themselves they'd got UK concessions on trade whilst also saying new member sates - like Scotland - couldn't "cherrypick" how they join as an EU member, or what that membership entails, which is one of their favourite plays.
On topic, I think Michael is right to highlight the threat to the LibDems from the Greens. This is the first time since the early 1990s that the Greens are making a real push in the local elections, and they are helped by the fact that there is very little traditional canvassing this year.
I suspect that this is going to make the LDs job very difficult this year.
The smart LDs and Greens are working together.
That's happening both above the radar (one party standing down) and below the radar (not bothering to campaign) here in Oxfordshire. But I've seen signs of it elsewhere - I've just seen a northern Green candidate approvingly tweet an interview with his supposed LD rival in an LD/Labour marginal.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
Who knew that about 5 months after Brexit the French would be blockading a British island and trying to starve the people into submission, in a row about scallops?
Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant
UK and US almost went to war in 1859 over a pig, in the San Juan Islands between Washington Territory and the Colony of Vancouver Island.
"On June 15, 1859, exactly thirteen years after the adoption of the Oregon Treaty, the ambiguity led to direct conflict. Lyman Cutlar, an American farmer who had moved onto San Juan Island claiming rights to live there under the Donation Land Claim Act, found a Large Black pig rooting in his garden[2][6][10] and eating his tubers. This was not the first occurrence. Cutlar was so upset that he took aim and shot the pig, killing it.
It turned out that the pig was owned by an Irishman, Charles Griffin, who was employed by the Hudson's Bay Company to run the sheep ranch on the island.[2][6][10] He also owned several pigs that he allowed to roam freely. The two had lived in peace until this incident. Cutlar offered $10 (equivalent to $280 in 2019) to Griffin to compensate for the pig, but Griffin was unsatisfied with this offer and demanded $100 (equivalent to $2,800 in 2019). Following this reply, Cutlar believed he should not have to pay for the pig because the pig had been trespassing on his land. One likely apocryphal account has Cutlar saying to Griffin, "It was eating my potatoes"; and Griffin replying, "It is up to you to keep your potatoes out of my pig."[10] When British authorities threatened to arrest Cutlar, American settlers called for military protection.
We kept the pig, and the islands. For once, justice triumphed.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
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.
The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
You know it's all about 'civic nationalism' when they keeping invoking William Wallace.
The Nats are trying to contextualise it, by saying Oh it was probably part of a play, or an assembly, about Wallace
Not understanding that even then it is wholly unacceptable, when the Scottish nation is bitterly divided over this incendiary issue. You don't make kids chant "Scottish independence!" again and again on a stage, at the rest of the school.
They are imposing a false narrative of Scottish victimisation at the hands of the English, inculcating it into the kids from the age of about 6
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
The way I've just heard it in a history podcast is that the first plantation was instituted by James VI when he tried to send Lowland Scots to the island of Lewis, before he became James I of England.
Perhaps all countries need a few lies about their past. It's often easier that way. But is fostering a sense of grievance and victimhood about your neighbour really the best set of lies to choose?
They'd be better off with exaggerating in the other direction, and arguing that Britain was only great when Scots were running the place, and now that the English don't want the benefits of their leadership it's time for Scotland to plow their own furrow.
It's still cobblers, though I'd argue less so, but at least it's positive cobblers.
The first plantations in Ireland were certainly English and predated Jamie Sext's efforts on Lewis, however the C17th venture might be said to be the first truly British project.
'In 1603 James VI of Scotland also became James I of England, uniting these two crowns and also gaining possession of the Kingdom of Ireland, at that time an English Crown possession. The Plantation of Ulster was promoted to him as a joint "British", i.e. English and Scottish, venture to pacify and civilise Ulster.'
Thank you for that. Perhaps you can mention to your mate malcolmg and tell him to shove that piece of real history right up his fake-grievance mongering hate-filled nationalistic "place where the sun never shines" (and I don't mean Glasgow!). Scotland never has been a "colony" of the English.
Watching the Welsh news just now, they were interviewing people about tomorrow's vote and a young man turned to the camera and when asked how he would vote said
'No- there is too much politics going on'
My wife and I launched into the giggles for some reason
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
You know it's all about 'civic nationalism' when they keeping invoking William Wallace.
The Nats are trying to contextualise it, by saying Oh it was probably part of a play, or an assembly, about Wallace
Not understanding that even then it is wholly unacceptable, when the Scottish nation is bitterly divided over this incendiary issue. You don't make kids chant "Scottish independence!" again and again on a stage, at the rest of the school.
They are imposing a false narrative of Scottish victimisation at the hands of the English, inculcating it into the kids from the age of about 6
Yuk
They chant "William Wallace" because he defeated an English army at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, but was ultimately executed by the English (as was portrayed by Mel Gibson in the historical abomination that is "Braveheart") and this is all about riling up the passions, and anti-Englishness sentiment more broadly.
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
Thirty seconds of unaccredited audio, without context, without imagery, that may or may not have come from a school supposedly. It's absolutely meaningless fluff.
Sounds like something snipped from kids putting on a play. Kids theatre may be odd at times but not grotesque.
Calling Rear-Adm HYUFD to get HMS Epping Forest out of dry-dock!
HMS Victory could be pressed back into service, with a bit of refurbishment. A Johnson administration speciality IIRC.
HMS Victory never left service. She is still under commission and is the flagship of the First Sea Lord.
I hope other countries do the same, and we can put it out to sea against whatever Admiral Yi's flagship was called for sport.
The US Navy would have an advantage as their oldest commissioned warship, the USS Constitution, is still afloat.
Written when US government was considering decomissioning and scrapping USS Constitution:
OLD IRONSIDES Oliver Wendell Holmes
Aye tear her tattered ensign down Long has it waved on high, And many an eye has danced to see That banner in the sky; Beneath it rung the battle shout, And burst the cannon's roar;— The meteor of the ocean air Shall sweep the clouds no more.
Her deck, once red with heroes' blood, Where knelt the vanquished foe, When winds were hurrying o'er the flood, And waves were white below, No more shall feel the victor's tread, Or know the conquered knee;— The harpies of the shore shall pluck The eagle of the sea!
Oh, better that her shattered hulk Should sink beneath the wave; Her thunders shook the mighty deep, And there should be her grave; Nail to the mast her holy flag, Set every threadbare sail, And give her to the god of storms, The lightning and the gale!
This poem caused such a ruckus that the politicos reconsidered - and the harpies went hungry.
Who knew that about 5 months after Brexit the French would be blockading a British island and trying to starve the people into submission, in a row about scallops?
Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant
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
That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.
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.
The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.
That's how our system works and always has done. Those who lose the election will continue to oppose and point out, rightly, that not everyone who voted for the winner will support every single thing the winner was proposing. Not even the winners support every single thing they propose in their manifestoes.
Nevertheless, a party puts up a platform, and people go in knowing that if that party wins they will, rightly, regard it as a mandate to proceed with the things they said they would do in that platform.
People may still not like them pushing ahead with that platform, but it is not at all unreasonable fort a party to do so if they win, particularly when it is such a major part of what they are offering. People either support that policy, or they do not oppose it enough to vote for someone promising not to do it.
If the SNP win they can pretty reasonably seek to advance their agenda. If they do not get a majority but can get a majority of the Parliament to seek to advance their agenda they can pretty reasonably do that.
On topic, I think Michael is right to highlight the threat to the LibDems from the Greens. This is the first time since the early 1990s that the Greens are making a real push in the local elections, and they are helped by the fact that there is very little traditional canvassing this year.
I suspect that this is going to make the LDs job very difficult this year.
The smart LDs and Greens are working together.
That's happening both above the radar (one party standing down) and below the radar (not bothering to campaign) here in Oxfordshire. But I've seen signs of it elsewhere - I've just seen a northern Green candidate approvingly tweet an interview with his supposed LD rival in an LD/Labour marginal.
The parties should merge, and the Greens should publicly absorb the LDs so their brand is retained. While activists are often scathing about them, the average voter considers them lightweights but not objectionable in the main - hence them picking up votes in leafy Solihull and urban Labour areas in various places. The Greens could be the main protest vote party again, the Lib Dems may never be able to cleanse the brand to do so.
Have some Lib Dem MPs resign in protest and the remainder get little to no formal leadership roles in the new Green Party. Then over 6 months the 'Independent Lib Dems' can one by one defect to them or enter into pacts for their constituency, so the Greens are seen to have taken over the party rather than mixing the brands. The Lib Dems are pretty Green already, and the Greens could do with some people less committed to left-wing economics to ensure the party doesn't become toxic to disaffected Tories.
What the Greens would benefit from the is Lib Dem voter data and local government strength, which even now far exceeds theirs. It might be difficult to keep all the local parties on board, but if it could be done amicably it would be the best path forwards for both sides.
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.
The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.
That is why in democracies parties put up manifestos. You don't get to vote for a party but say "I don't give them a mandate for this section of the manifesto". You either swallow it all, or you don't.
If voters are vehemently against a section of the manifesto they either vote for a different party, or swallow their pride.
I opposed David Cameron wanting to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands, but I had to accept it was government policy since they won the election and I voted for the party.
Comments
"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats
I would be too! Learning how not to do something is a valuable lesson. I don't they have the same perspective though.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-town-builds-giant-squid-with-covid-19-relief-funds-2021-05-05/?fbclid=IwAR12M-Np75QH3ZD-fm_2ajzZw_zcJkdOfkJwRgEEur4xRQZnvBRB13Tx51U
That seat was held by Labour continuously from 1945 to 1974, except for 1959-64 when it was won & held by Conservatives. However, unlike Hartlepool (singular) it was quite marginal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hartlepools_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
I see your watery hopes of last week that a SLab revival was going to rescue your Union were somewhat misplaced. Chill oot, lots of twists and turns and hysteria to go yet.
Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant
Mind you, in my family we always used to call lunch dinner, so who am I to judge?
Here in Seattle the Pink Elephant car wash just north of downtown featured a big, revolving . . . wait for it . . . pink elephant lite up with flashing neon. A beloved civic icon and useful landmark.
Until recently, that is, when the fuqqing land pirates took it down - the baaaastards!
What is less clear is whether this was included in the 0.1% a year difference that Brexit apparently made to our growth rate or not.
Yes.
And will have another soon.
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045
| NEW: John Bercow is on Question Time tomorrow
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1389977923864698888?s=20
Trailed 3 days ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/02/uk-hints-it-will-give-full-diplomatic-status-to-eu-ambassador
So any screeching tyres only among those not paying attention....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)
"On June 15, 1859, exactly thirteen years after the adoption of the Oregon Treaty, the ambiguity led to direct conflict. Lyman Cutlar, an American farmer who had moved onto San Juan Island claiming rights to live there under the Donation Land Claim Act, found a Large Black pig rooting in his garden[2][6][10] and eating his tubers. This was not the first occurrence. Cutlar was so upset that he took aim and shot the pig, killing it.
It turned out that the pig was owned by an Irishman, Charles Griffin, who was employed by the Hudson's Bay Company to run the sheep ranch on the island.[2][6][10] He also owned several pigs that he allowed to roam freely. The two had lived in peace until this incident. Cutlar offered $10 (equivalent to $280 in 2019) to Griffin to compensate for the pig, but Griffin was unsatisfied with this offer and demanded $100 (equivalent to $2,800 in 2019). Following this reply, Cutlar believed he should not have to pay for the pig because the pig had been trespassing on his land. One likely apocryphal account has Cutlar saying to Griffin, "It was eating my potatoes"; and Griffin replying, "It is up to you to keep your potatoes out of my pig."[10] When British authorities threatened to arrest Cutlar, American settlers called for military protection.
We kept the pig, and the islands. For once, justice triumphed.
Perhaps all countries need a few lies about their past. It's often easier that way. But is fostering a sense of grievance and victimhood about your neighbour really the best set of lies to choose?
They'd be better off with exaggerating in the other direction, and arguing that Britain was only great when Scots were running the place, and now that the English don't want the benefits of their leadership it's time for Scotland to plow their own furrow.
It's still cobblers, though I'd argue less so, but at least it's positive cobblers.
I suspect that this is going to make the LDs job very difficult this year.
Johnson is the Tory Party! Despite the choppy seas last week, all is now good.
LauraK. on PM was calling just about everything outside Scotland and London for the Tories
Many an internet feud has been fought over less.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1389960827462197249?s=19
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lib-dems-would-boycott-wildcat-24041469?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Interestingly, the Trump administration bumped up the the status of the EU Ambassador to the US to full country status in 2019.
'In 1603 James VI of Scotland also became James I of England, uniting these two crowns and also gaining possession of the Kingdom of Ireland, at that time an English Crown possession. The Plantation of Ulster was promoted to him as a joint "British", i.e. English and Scottish, venture to pacify and civilise Ulster.'
The not granting diplomatic status was a petty tit-for-tat for them not ratifying the TCA.
Now they've ratified the TCA, we're granting diplomatic status.
That's how diplomacy works. They remove their tit, we withdraw our tat.
Long-term, we'll simply tap the Channel Island grid into the UK grid.
"We won't let a bunch of scallop-eating Frogs usurp our British birthright" said the admiral as he hurried aboard his personal dingy to direct operations at sea.
"The world is watching!" proclaimed the fighting seadog, "including those turbulent Jock traitors now infesting North Britain!! Once we've secured Jersey for ourselves and our posterity, if need be we'll to the same for our beloved Bute!!!"
https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1389919525731250183?s=20
28
30
26
30
29
and now might be 26, and that one of the lesser predictions. It's so consistent, yet just cannot quite manage a majority. Even with the system in place, the consistency seems odd.
In fact really there's not been much change, other than (proportionally), the LDs and the rise of UKIP.
PC have gone
17
12
15
11
12
Con
9
11
12
14
11
LD
6
6
6
5
1
The EU and Frost are already talking about it.
That means it will happen, and it's just a question of when. So this should be factored into betting.
Stalling their diplomatic status until they did the right thing and ratified the agreement may be petulant, but it's how diplomacy works. These diplomatic slights get attention while allowing citizens lives to be entirely unaffected.
It's not a credible threat.
However, a 'pie and pea supper', staple of many a Labour Party social event*, should be consumed slightly earlier in the evening.
*Probably not in North London - more likely to be wine & cheese (with Good Brie).
The EU would love that, because they could convince themselves they'd got UK concessions on trade whilst also saying new member sates - like Scotland - couldn't "cherrypick" how they join as an EU member, or what that membership entails, which is one of their favourite plays.
That's happening both above the radar (one party standing down) and below the radar (not bothering to campaign) here in Oxfordshire. But I've seen signs of it elsewhere - I've just seen a northern Green candidate approvingly tweet an interview with his supposed LD rival in an LD/Labour marginal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SX3lSN9NIY
Not understanding that even then it is wholly unacceptable, when the Scottish nation is bitterly divided over this incendiary issue. You don't make kids chant "Scottish independence!" again and again on a stage, at the rest of the school.
They are imposing a false narrative of Scottish victimisation at the hands of the English, inculcating it into the kids from the age of about 6
Yuk
'No- there is too much politics going on'
My wife and I launched into the giggles for some reason
It was just the way he said it I suppose
And they used the latest Savanta/ComRes pol
It's all blood and soil stuff.
Thirty seconds of unaccredited audio, without context, without imagery, that may or may not have come from a school supposedly. It's absolutely meaningless fluff.
Sounds like something snipped from kids putting on a play. Kids theatre may be odd at times but not grotesque.
OLD IRONSIDES
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Aye tear her tattered ensign down
Long has it waved on high,
And many an eye has danced to see
That banner in the sky;
Beneath it rung the battle shout,
And burst the cannon's roar;—
The meteor of the ocean air
Shall sweep the clouds no more.
Her deck, once red with heroes' blood,
Where knelt the vanquished foe,
When winds were hurrying o'er the flood,
And waves were white below,
No more shall feel the victor's tread,
Or know the conquered knee;—
The harpies of the shore shall pluck
The eagle of the sea!
Oh, better that her shattered hulk
Should sink beneath the wave;
Her thunders shook the mighty deep,
And there should be her grave;
Nail to the mast her holy flag,
Set every threadbare sail,
And give her to the god of storms,
The lightning and the gale!
This poem caused such a ruckus that the politicos reconsidered - and the harpies went hungry.
Nevertheless, a party puts up a platform, and people go in knowing that if that party wins they will, rightly, regard it as a mandate to proceed with the things they said they would do in that platform.
People may still not like them pushing ahead with that platform, but it is not at all unreasonable fort a party to do so if they win, particularly when it is such a major part of what they are offering. People either support that policy, or they do not oppose it enough to vote for someone promising not to do it.
If the SNP win they can pretty reasonably seek to advance their agenda. If they do not get a majority but can get a majority of the Parliament to seek to advance their agenda they can pretty reasonably do that.
Have some Lib Dem MPs resign in protest and the remainder get little to no formal leadership roles in the new Green Party. Then over 6 months the 'Independent Lib Dems' can one by one defect to them or enter into pacts for their constituency, so the Greens are seen to have taken over the party rather than mixing the brands. The Lib Dems are pretty Green already, and the Greens could do with some people less committed to left-wing economics to ensure the party doesn't become toxic to disaffected Tories.
What the Greens would benefit from the is Lib Dem voter data and local government strength, which even now far exceeds theirs. It might be difficult to keep all the local parties on board, but if it could be done amicably it would be the best path forwards for both sides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUuN2yHJigA&list=PL53DE353401BFABA6
If voters are vehemently against a section of the manifesto they either vote for a different party, or swallow their pride.
I opposed David Cameron wanting to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands, but I had to accept it was government policy since they won the election and I voted for the party.
Until Honolulu stole it from us, that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)