If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
Reading between the lines, it’s mostly the bank’s house, rather than Johnson’s. And he’s struggling to make his repayments at the same time as keeping his girlfriend in the style she expects.
He won’t make much from letting it out, after he’s paid interest. London yields are shite, and it’s not in an ideal location for the corporate rentals market.
I’m not sure people really understand the economics of rental. It works if you don’t have a mortgage or have enough capital to go into it in a big way. Not otherwise.
And it helps to pick the right area as well. London isn’t good because you get, as you rightly say, so little margin after overheads. Round here it’s different. I could easily buy five houses without a mortgage in Rugeley with the money I would get from selling up in Gloucester, or ten by turning into a company and borrowing. That money would keep me very comfortably for the rest of my life even allowing for depreciation and dilapidations.
I also think he’s providing many hostages to fortune by renting. It’s great if you get good tenants. Newsflash, you often don’t. One disgruntled tenant selling a story to the Daily Mirror and he will have a problem.
I completely and fundamentally disagree with this piece.
Firstly, in these negotiations who is representing me, and the 50% of Scots who have just voted for Unionist parties because we are proud to be British and want to stay that way? I want to be represented by the UK government, my government and David is putting them on the other side.
He is having me represented by a government that I am strongly opposed to and voted against on Thursday (twice). I really don't want that.
Let's suppose the UK government exposes the realities of independence: higher taxes, fewer public services, lower growth, the loss of much of our tax base in financial services, an uncertain currency, border trade issues etc. How hard do people think it would be for the Scottish government to present these consequences as bullying? How difficult would it be to stir up resentment? Why would anyone think that this helps the cause of Unionism? Would the UK thrive if and when Scotland was cowed into submission? Is that a voluntary and successful union at all? The damage would be irreparable.
We also saw the outcome of this kind of bullying in Brexit. Of course the problems an independent Scotland would face would be many, many times greater than any minor inconveniences suffered by the UK but the reality is that project Doom did nothing to dissuade Brexiteers, nothing. As a tactic it has failed recently and it would fail again. Scots are every bit as thrawn as the rest of the UK.
With Alba just beating that political powerhouse, the Scottish Family Party!
And the SFP beat Reform UK, Ms Ballantyne's lot. I bet she's regretting throwing her teddy out of the Tory pram - BUT we have to see the list votes for South of Scotland first.
The more i think about it the more i think that Scottish Independendence founders fundamentally on the issue of a hard border with England (as mentioned as one issue by DavidH). And it is the one issue that was, I believe, almost absent from the first Indy referendum debates. Quite simply, how DO they square the circle? I can't even see a fudge solution.
In the first referendum, the pro-Indy camp tried to play down difficulties in their position on currency, joining the EU and national debt, by arguing that statements by the opponents would not reflect the reality in the aftermath of a yes vote, suggesting that what the no camp was saying was merely project fear which wouldn't come to pass because of mutual interest (or in the case of national debt - they could just walk away from it). And sometimes (in the case of currency - fudging by just saying their were lots of options).
But the hard border is different. Because, as Northern Ireland has shown, being in the EU is incompatible with the lack of a hard border with England. And whereas during the first referendum they could try to place the EU and rUK in the same "project fear" camp, this time there would have to be a choice. I don't see any circumstances where they could put the case where there future is in the EU (which after all is presented currently as a, if not the, major driving force for Independence) but not have a hard border with England. As David points out, the default position is even worse - hard border with both - and even outside the EU there could not be a completely open border with England, short of joining a Customs Union/UK single market.
And this would also dominate any post Indy discussions, which would make Brexit look like a cakewalk. They would have to negotiate with the rUK (obviously). But the outcome of those negotiations would have to be heavily destructive to Scottish business and economy, or would have to agree a hard border. But without a hard border negotiations with the EU would be impossible, because of the implications for the EU-UK relationship.
Have the Sindy advocates on this site got an answer to this issue?
If LAB had a leader 80% as good at comms as Blair + focused on ActualReality, they'd win next GE easy. They don't/won't, P(80%), so impossible now to be confident re what will happen, both parties cd easily be hated/held in contempt at same time"
Why doesn’t Labour hire Cummings? Would be v funny.
In one of the Iain Dale alternate political history books, there's a tale where Lynton Crosby decides he's had enough of Cameron and Osborne and helps out EdM.
Labour needs a listening exercise but from my experience of working class life I think the middle class left think it’s all food banks and poverty. That’s not the experience of most working class people. They own their houses and go on nice holidays. Lab doesn’t speak to them.
And Labour are telling them they can't go on holiday, and they must go vegan. Plus they're a bit thick and racist.
Why would they vote Labour?
Labour is like a magician, playing to an audience who now know how the trick is done....
If Unionist parties win more votes than separatist ones, then that's all Johnson will need.
Hed have refused regardless of course, and I'm sympathetic to the point about parliamentary representation usually being key, but it does give him at least something to hang his refusal off , which is more than might have been expected.
Off topic but as anyone read the Dominic Sandbrook series of books - - I have just read Who Dares Wins ( social history of Britain from 1979 to 1982) and have ordered the one preceding it - Seasons in the sun 1974-79 . The one I have read is very good and nearly a 1000 pages .
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
Isn't it Carrie's? And presumably has a mortgage.
Speaking as somebody who owns a second house, and lets it out, I think I would sell it if I needed money (although as it happens I don’t, which saves me agonising over what to do about the tenant if I sell up). Then clear the mortgage and invest/use the capital.
The real problem however with Johnson appears to be less that he needs money than that he needs to learn to live within his means.
His hero Churchill used to run up big debts.....
Churchill's debts were often cleared by big donors in a way that would be illegal today. Does this explain wallpapergate? As Churchill's biographer, Boris would know how his debts were taken care of, but might not have realised you can't do the same things today.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
Reading between the lines, it’s mostly the bank’s house, rather than Johnson’s. And he’s struggling to make his repayments at the same time as keeping his girlfriend in the style she expects.
He won’t make much from letting it out, after he’s paid interest. London yields are shite, and it’s not in an ideal location for the corporate rentals market.
He doesn’t need to make money on it, he simply needs to stop half his salary going to the bank every month.
He’s also got an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend with a child and a couple of sets of school fees to pay. It’s easy to see that his £150k (£7,500 a month after tax) doesn’t go as far as he might like.
It occurs to me that the party who come out of yesterday’s results worst are not Labour, but Plaid. Labour have won in London and got back to 30 in Wales (probably 31 as Jane Dodds, unexpectedly returned on the list to keep the corpse of the Yellows above ground a little longer, will back them if given a cabinet seat). But Plaid haven’t gained a single seat and gone backwards in key areas. Their leadership is divorced from both the membership and the voters, and is talking aimlessly about independence rather than about the bread and butter issues that will attract the Valleys or the language issues that will help them in the West. Their front bench looks short on talent, and Price himself can count himself rather fortunate that Carmarthen East is a rare seat where the Tories and Labour split the vote.
I think that Rhun ab Iorwerth is likely to mount a challenge sooner rather than later. If there’s a market on Price to be out before the end of the year, there should be value.
I haven’t followed the Welsh election closely, but every time I see it on the news the media are talking about Wales going independent.
The idea of Wales going independent always seemed absurd to me but I assumed i was just out of touch. Turns out the media are the ones out of touch.
The Welsh Labour Party has been very astute at keeping the "Indycurious" onside, but true independence for Wales is always going to be tough economically, but also the length of the border, the substantial English population in Wales, and the lack of decent internal links between North and South Wales makes it much harder than Scottish Independence. I see a push for more devolved powers though.
Johnsons act doesn't appeal much outside England, and that sense of English arrogance to the other three nations is the biggest threat to the Union.
English apathy is a bigger threat than arrogance, which is a very subjective thing.
The more i think about it the more i think that Scottish Independendence founders fundamentally on the issue of a hard border with England (as mentioned as one issue by DavidH). And it is the one issue that was, I believe, almost absent from the first Indy referendum debates. Quite simply, how DO they square the circle? I can't even see a fudge solution.
The same way the Brexiteers did
"There will only be a border if the bastard English demand it"
followed by
"There is no border. Pay no attention to the guards."
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months.
Brexit is not remotely "sorted".
The effects have been masked by Covid, but it will continue to fuck up our lives for years to come.
BoZo is still campaigning on it
Speaking in Hartlepool, Boris Johnson has said it was "thanks to Brexit" that the government was able to pursue freeports, its own vaccine policy, and to fight off the European Super League. As far as I know, none of those are true.
Peter Walker 99 doesn’t know much about the world then does he
Peter Walker 99 is right of course.
But nobody seems to care; Boris is a compelling myth maker. In fact, if you actually voted for Brexit you’ll absolutely lap up the idea that you saved the Premiership etc.
Don’t listen to me, listen to Agnelli from Juve, who laid the “blame” at the door of the British government. That Britain could have used its post Brexit powers to impose a visa ban on all foreign players in the ESL was clearly a deal breaker. Perhaps an EU member Britain would still have had other weapons in the armoury but the visa weapon was swift and brutal in its effectiveness.
It staggers me how some people are unable to recognise both upsides and downsides to nuanced issues. For example, I can see how leaving the customs union has made it difficult for all manner of export and import businesses to operate, with that pain being front loaded. And it will not be clear for some time if the upsides of an independent trade policy will outweigh this disbenefit in the round in the long run.
There is quite a good way of wrapping your head round difficult concepts. Try writing an essay from each perspective on a complex argument to help you think it all through. Just don’t for goodness sake ever admit you did so, or you’ll have a lifetime of shallow thinking moral high horsers criticising you for it.
How is everyone's local election punting going ? Mine is slightly up although lost on Hartlepool but looking good on London Mayor with backing Berry for third place heavily . A lot depends on if Binface can get to 20k votes!
I completely and fundamentally disagree with this piece.
Firstly, in these negotiations who is representing me, and the 50% of Scots who have just voted for Unionist parties because we are proud to be British and want to stay that way? I want to be represented by the UK government, my government and David is putting them on the other side.
He is having me represented by a government that I am strongly opposed to and voted against on Thursday (twice). I really don't want that.
Let's suppose the UK government exposes the realities of independence: higher taxes, fewer public services, lower growth, the loss of much of our tax base in financial services, an uncertain currency, border trade issues etc. How hard do people think it would be for the Scottish government to present these consequences as bullying? How difficult would it be to stir up resentment? Why would anyone think that this helps the cause of Unionism? Would the UK thrive if and when Scotland was cowed into submission? Is that a voluntary and successful union at all? The damage would be irreparable.
We also saw the outcome of this kind of bullying in Brexit. Of course the problems an independent Scotland would face would be many, many times greater than any minor inconveniences suffered by the UK but the reality is that project Doom did nothing to dissuade Brexiteers, nothing. As a tactic it has failed recently and it would fail again. Scots are every bit as thrawn as the rest of the UK.
I had a similar reaction to the piece.
You would have to exclude every single politician of every Unionist party from the Scottish side of negotiations simply because they are already signed up members of the Unionist parties on the southern side of the table. Can't have them negotiating on both sides of the table, can one? Or even indirectly, through (say) some sort of committee? It's be like having M. Barnier on the same side of the table as Mr Davis in Brexit negotiations.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months.
Brexit is not remotely "sorted".
The effects have been masked by Covid, but it will continue to fuck up our lives for years to come.
BoZo is still campaigning on it
Speaking in Hartlepool, Boris Johnson has said it was "thanks to Brexit" that the government was able to pursue freeports, its own vaccine policy, and to fight off the European Super League. As far as I know, none of those are true.
Peter Walker 99 doesn’t know much about the world then does he
Peter Walker 99 is right of course.
But nobody seems to care; Boris is a compelling myth maker. In fact, if you actually voted for Brexit you’ll absolutely lap up the idea that you saved the Premiership etc.
Don’t listen to me, listen to Agnelli from Juve, who laid the “blame” at the door of the British government. That Britain could have used its post Brexit powers to impose a visa ban on all foreign players in the ESL was clearly a deal breaker. Perhaps an EU member Britain would still have had other weapons in the armoury but the visa weapon was swift and brutal in its effectiveness.
It staggers me how some people are unable to recognise both upsides and downsides to nuanced issues. For example, I can see how leaving the customs union has made it difficult for all manner of export and import businesses to operate, with that pain being front loaded. And it will not be clear for some time if the upsides of an independent trade policy will outweigh this disbenefit in the round in the long run.
There is quite a good way of wrapping your head round difficult concepts. Try writing an essay from each perspective on a complex argument to help you think it all through. Just don’t for goodness sake ever admit you did so, or you’ll have a lifetime of shallow thinking moral high horsers criticising you for it.
Off topic but as anyone read the Dominic Sandbrook series of books - - I have just read Who Dares Wins ( social history of Britain from 1979 to 1982) and have ordered the one preceding it - Seasons in the sun 1974-79 . The one I have read is very good and nearly a 1000 pages .
His books are excellent, if a little long at times. I am fascinated by the history of the 70’s and early 80’s as this is the early years of my life, and provides context for my own recollections (born in 1972).
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
Reading between the lines, it’s mostly the bank’s house, rather than Johnson’s. And he’s struggling to make his repayments at the same time as keeping his girlfriend in the style she expects.
He won’t make much from letting it out, after he’s paid interest. London yields are shite, and it’s not in an ideal location for the corporate rentals market.
I’m not sure people really understand the economics of rental. It works if you don’t have a mortgage or have enough capital to go into it in a big way. Not otherwise.
And it helps to pick the right area as well. London isn’t good because you get, as you rightly say, so little margin after overheads. Round here it’s different. I could easily buy five houses without a mortgage in Rugeley with the money I would get from selling up in Gloucester, or ten by turning into a company and borrowing. That money would keep me very comfortably for the rest of my life even allowing for depreciation and dilapidations.
I also think he’s providing many hostages to fortune by renting. It’s great if you get good tenants. Newsflash, you often don’t. One disgruntled tenant selling a story to the Daily Mirror and he will have a problem.
I suspect Johnson could rent it to a party donor for a million a week. All the downsides then disappear.
There are people on PB that would think it worth every penny to pay a million a week to live in Johnson's gaff.
A tip to any potential tenants. Make sure he's cleaned the red wine stains off the white sofa.
Off topic but as anyone read the Dominic Sandbrook series of books - - I have just read Who Dares Wins ( social history of Britain from 1979 to 1982) and have ordered the one preceding it - Seasons in the sun 1974-79 . The one I have read is very good and nearly a 1000 pages .
I have. Starting from the first. In fact the earlier periods are best; he tails off a bit in the late 70s, perhaps distracted by a lucrative career as shit rent-a-gob historian for the Daily Mail.
The more i think about it the more i think that Scottish Independendence founders fundamentally on the issue of a hard border with England (as mentioned as one issue by DavidH). And it is the one issue that was, I believe, almost absent from the first Indy referendum debates. Quite simply, how DO they square the circle? I can't even see a fudge solution.
In the first referendum, the pro-Indy camp tried to play down difficulties in their position on currency, joining the EU and national debt, by arguing that statements by the opponents would not reflect the reality in the aftermath of a yes vote, suggesting that what the no camp was saying was merely project fear which wouldn't come to pass because of mutual interest (or in the case of national debt - they could just walk away from it). And sometimes (in the case of currency - fudging by just saying their were lots of options).
But the hard border is different. Because, as Northern Ireland has shown, being in the EU is incompatible with the lack of a hard border with England. And whereas during the first referendum they could try to place the EU and rUK in the same "project fear" camp, this time there would have to be a choice. I don't see any circumstances where they could put the case where there future is in the EU (which after all is presented currently as a, if not the, major driving force for Independence) but not have a hard border with England. As David points out, the default position is even worse - hard border with both - and even outside the EU there could not be a completely open border with England, short of joining a Customs Union/UK single market.
And this would also dominate any post Indy discussions, which would make Brexit look like a cakewalk. They would have to negotiate with the rUK (obviously). But the outcome of those negotiations would have to be heavily destructive to Scottish business and economy, or would have to agree a hard border. But without a hard border negotiations with the EU would be impossible, because of the implications for the EU-UK relationship.
Have the Sindy advocates on this site got an answer to this issue?
If the UK government paid attention to how the EU negotiated Brexit, then the only two items on the agenda for post-referendum independence talks will be money (how much will Scotland pay) and the border (that there can never be one).
The more i think about it the more i think that Scottish Independendence founders fundamentally on the issue of a hard border with England (as mentioned as one issue by DavidH). And it is the one issue that was, I believe, almost absent from the first Indy referendum debates. Quite simply, how DO they square the circle? I can't even see a fudge solution.
The same way the Brexiteers did
"There will only be a border if the bastard English demand it"
followed by
"There is no border. Pay no attention to the guards."
That doesn't work as an analogy. Because it wouldn't be the "bastard English" demanding it. It would be the EU. In fact it would potentially by in the rUK's interests to be generous.
"Item 1 - the border. You want no checks, no tariffs, free movement? Done".
"Now if you would just run along to the EU and ask to join on those terms that would be wonderful. We might even be able to get them to soften their position on the Irish border as a consequence..."
The more i think about it the more i think that Scottish Independendence founders fundamentally on the issue of a hard border with England (as mentioned as one issue by DavidH). And it is the one issue that was, I believe, almost absent from the first Indy referendum debates. Quite simply, how DO they square the circle? I can't even see a fudge solution.
The same way the Brexiteers did
"There will only be a border if the bastard English demand it"
followed by
"There is no border. Pay no attention to the guards."
The ‘English’ will be demanding that there can never be a border between England and Scotland.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
Reading between the lines, it’s mostly the bank’s house, rather than Johnson’s. And he’s struggling to make his repayments at the same time as keeping his girlfriend in the style she expects.
He won’t make much from letting it out, after he’s paid interest. London yields are shite, and it’s not in an ideal location for the corporate rentals market.
I’m not sure people really understand the economics of rental. It works if you don’t have a mortgage or have enough capital to go into it in a big way. Not otherwise.
And it helps to pick the right area as well. London isn’t good because you get, as you rightly say, so little margin after overheads. Round here it’s different. I could easily buy five houses without a mortgage in Rugeley with the money I would get from selling up in Gloucester, or ten by turning into a company and borrowing. That money would keep me very comfortably for the rest of my life even allowing for depreciation and dilapidations.
I also think he’s providing many hostages to fortune by renting. It’s great if you get good tenants. Newsflash, you often don’t. One disgruntled tenant selling a story to the Daily Mirror and he will have a problem.
I suspect Johnson could rent it to a party donor for a million a week. All the downsides then disappear.
There are people on PB that would think it worth every penny to pay a million a week to live in Johnson's gaff.
A tip to any potential tenants. Make sure he's cleaned the red wine stains off the white sofa.
I thought it was white stains on a red sofa?
A la what the seaman in Captain Pugwash definitely wasn’t called...
Do you have any analysis to go with that, Alistair? On outstanding constituencies and potential list effects? What's the max v mim 95% confidence range?
I'm still shy of backing it.
SNP nerd to win seats in regions they currently have no list MSPs in. Winning West Dumfries doesn't do them any good as they will just lose the list seat.
So that gives you a tiny set of targets. Aberdeen West is a must win now but there is a massive LD vote to squeeze for the Con candidate.
On topic I think it's the sort of thing that looks good on paper but is probably totally unrealistic. Frustrating as it is I'm not sure this a bull whose horns can be grabbed, they can just attempt to stay on as it bucks.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
If LAB had a leader 80% as good at comms as Blair + focused on ActualReality, they'd win next GE easy. They don't/won't, P(80%), so impossible now to be confident re what will happen, both parties cd easily be hated/held in contempt at same time"
Why doesn’t Labour hire Cummings? Would be v funny.
If it looks like a turd , talks like a turd and behaves like a turd, it is usually a turd.
Boris's big mistake was to hang on to Cummings.
I think Cummings is a shit. But I can’t help but admire his campaigning nous.
There is some interesting stuff in the US material (David Shor) he links to in his latest post. Distilling it to save fellow PB'ers from thirty pages of hard reading, the key points are:
- bias gets into campaigns because most organisers and staffers are very young; related points are that campaigning is more enthusiastic on messages preferred by the campaigners rather than voters, and that activists (and donors) have more extreme views than voters;
- unlike business, politics is light on measurement and feedback (e.g. there is data that posters and yard signs are significantly more cost-effective than canvassing, yet most campaigns will prioritise canvassing);
- social media fills the feedback/data void and can encourage the wrong things (e.g. the Dem TV ad of the 'crying girl' at Trump's sexist/racist comments, which social media loved, but polling suggests actually made people more likely to vote Trump);
- campaigners spend most of their time on admin and organisation and too little on messaging;
- politicians raise money and get attention from the media (esp social), and get selected, by doing and saying unpopular things, yet this is unhelpful when campaigning for office;
- US politicians clinging to power into their old age means there isn't enough career progression and hence too little incentive to be a team player and work your way to the top (leading to factionalism and attention-seeking);
- election spending limits would be good for the US, esp as so much party money is wasted fighting themselves in primaries;
- message discipline is more important than message quality;
- the reduction in swing voters (in the US) pushes parties to focus on GOTV, yet increasing turnout is hard and can be less cost effective than focusing on conversions;
- the increasing polarisation by education in the US is increasing the FPTP and EC bias against the left;
- politics needs more old/experienced (and more ordinary) people working in it (behind the candidate);
- the spread of education changed the nature of campaigning; when graduates were a tiny minority, the (graduate) politicians were forced to pitch their messages to the mass of non-graduates;
- people are moving from rational voting, based on self interest, to expressive voting, where the mere act of voting is the emotional pay off, whether it changes anything or not. In part this is because politicians find it harder to deliver meaningful change in the modern world (esp with the US checks and balances); also, most voters don't want radical changes;
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
Reading between the lines, it’s mostly the bank’s house, rather than Johnson’s. And he’s struggling to make his repayments at the same time as keeping his girlfriend in the style she expects.
He won’t make much from letting it out, after he’s paid interest. London yields are shite, and it’s not in an ideal location for the corporate rentals market.
I’m not sure people really understand the economics of rental. It works if you don’t have a mortgage or have enough capital to go into it in a big way. Not otherwise.
And it helps to pick the right area as well. London isn’t good because you get, as you rightly say, so little margin after overheads. Round here it’s different. I could easily buy five houses without a mortgage in Rugeley with the money I would get from selling up in Gloucester, or ten by turning into a company and borrowing. That money would keep me very comfortably for the rest of my life even allowing for depreciation and dilapidations.
I also think he’s providing many hostages to fortune by renting. It’s great if you get good tenants. Newsflash, you often don’t. One disgruntled tenant selling a story to the Daily Mirror and he will have a problem.
I suspect Johnson could rent it to a party donor for a million a week. All the downsides then disappear.
There are people on PB that would think it worth every penny to pay a million a week to live in Johnson's gaff.
A tip to any potential tenants. Make sure he's cleaned the red wine stains off the white sofa.
I thought it was white stains on a red sofa?
A la what the seaman in Captain Pugwash definitely wasn’t called...
Urgh! Away with you! I've just brought up my breakfast. (And you didn't need to qualify the repulsive image).
When a genuine generation has elapsed since 2014 then starting negotiations with the Scottish government before any indyref2 sounds like a sensible plan.
However we are still only 7 years since the last vote and with Unionist parties combined winning more votes than Nationalist parties combined at Holyrood with over half the votes from Scotland now in there is clearly little demand from most Scots for an indyref2 any time soon apart from the Nationalist hardcore. In fact once the list votes are in the SNP may even have failed to win a majority.
Therefore Boris should stick to his guns, respect the once in a generation 2014 vote and refuse an indyref2
That is not what I expected a "London townhouse" to look like but then I've never had the money to buy one.
The photo in the tweet is definitely not in Camberwell! If it was it would be worth far more than £1.2m with that land. It is his Oxfordshire pad, already rented out at approx £4k per month.
Off topic but as anyone read the Dominic Sandbrook series of books - - I have just read Who Dares Wins ( social history of Britain from 1979 to 1982) and have ordered the one preceding it - Seasons in the sun 1974-79 . The one I have read is very good and nearly a 1000 pages .
Yes.
The Great British Dream Factory is also a good read with a solid and compelling thesis.
How is everyone's local election punting going ? Mine is slightly up although lost on Hartlepool but looking good on London Mayor with backing Berry for third place heavily . A lot depends on if Binface can get to 20k votes!
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
Isn't it Carrie's? And presumably has a mortgage.
Speaking as somebody who owns a second house, and lets it out, I think I would sell it if I needed money (although as it happens I don’t, which saves me agonising over what to do about the tenant if I sell up). Then clear the mortgage and invest/use the capital.
The real problem however with Johnson appears to be less that he needs money than that he needs to learn to live within his means.
His hero Churchill used to run up big debts.....
Churchill's debts were often cleared by big donors in a way that would be illegal today. Does this explain wallpapergate? As Churchill's biographer, Boris would know how his debts were taken care of, but might not have realised you can't do the same things today.
Not till it was too late anyway.
Pitt the Younger’s debts were actually paid mostly by the government, of course, although half a dozen big donors also helped out in 1801.
Good to see so many of our left-inclined posters back to talking about wallpaper, etc - It's a meme that worked really well yesterday. We await with eagerness the chortles as Starmer takes a photo-op in B &Q in order to reconnect with the plebeians.
On topic I think it's the sort of thing that looks good on paper but is probably totally unrealistic. Frustrating as it is I'm not sure this a bull whose horns can be grabbed, they can just attempt to stay on as it bucks.
It only works with a long formal process of debates and committees figuring out what the thing would look like. The result might not even be as supportive to the independence cause as one might think. Were I a Scot, I’d vote Remain primarily because I don’t think the SNP have much beyond a fag packet of what happens after the vote. Take away the Unknown and it’s suddenly a lot less scary. You’d even have plenty of notice before the vote itself to move your cash to an English bank and your debt to a Scottish one.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
He has a massive mortgage. Its not 1.2m cash
But if they sold it, they wouldn’t need to pay the mortgage.
If LAB had a leader 80% as good at comms as Blair + focused on ActualReality, they'd win next GE easy. They don't/won't, P(80%), so impossible now to be confident re what will happen, both parties cd easily be hated/held in contempt at same time"
Do you have any analysis to go with that, Alistair? On outstanding constituencies and potential list effects? What's the max v mim 95% confidence range?
I'm still shy of backing it.
SNP nerd to win seats in regions they currently have no list MSPs in. Winning West Dumfries doesn't do them any good as they will just lose the list seat.
So that gives you a tiny set of targets. Aberdeen West is a must win now but there is a massive LD vote to squeeze for the Con candidate.
To expand on this the SNP are currently up 1 seat, they need to be up 2.
Without winning Aberdeenshire West they would have to go absolute gangbusters on the List somewhere to get that second seat. And the List vote counted so far doesn't say they are going gangbusters anywhere.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
If these tales are even halfway true, it’s interesting to speculate what history will remember Boris Johnson as being important for.
Brexit was all sorted inside his first 6 months. Covid inside another 15-18 months. First half a dozen chapters of the memoirs then.
Sometimes I suppose political figures really are defined by something very early in their leadership. Will Boris spend his time chasing a different but elusive legacy to the above two? Or is there something else waiting over the hills for him...
We can be sure that a big part of what he will be remembered for is the reason that eventually removes him from office. The poll tax, sleaze, financial crisis, Brexit, Brexit...for five of the last six. Only Blair has avoided being remembered for why he left office, and given what he is remembered for, that's little consolation.
Over-reaching and overwhelming hubris does indeed tend to precede a fall.
Headline 1 in the Mail : "Ministers say Boris could rule longer than Thatcher's 11 years - We're the true workers' party now !"
Headline 2 : "Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds rent out their £1.2million south London townhouse to raise cash"
If he’s short of money, why doesn’t he just sell it? £1.2 million should keep him going for a few years.
Pay off the mortgage, and it would surely cover the next redecoration, at least
Off topic but as anyone read the Dominic Sandbrook series of books - - I have just read Who Dares Wins ( social history of Britain from 1979 to 1982) and have ordered the one preceding it - Seasons in the sun 1974-79 . The one I have read is very good and nearly a 1000 pages .
Yes.
The Great British Dream Factory is also a good read with a solid and compelling thesis.
Thanks Banned , I looked at that book and ignored it for while thinking (from the title) it would be a wishy washy type book about visions etc but realised after reading the blurb that it woudl be right up my street - love the creative arts industry so will order it next.
On the Who Dares Wins book I loved that he did a whole chapter to snooker ! If I were ever on Mastermind I think my chosen specialised topic ( if I cannot do fringe candidates in the London Mayor 2021 election) would be 70/80s snooker!
(Which prevents Scotland from joining the EU customs union).
Which brings us back to "there will only be a border if the Bastard English demand it"
See Brexiteers and Northern Ireland...
Have tribalist Labourites not clicked yet that Scottish independence cements a right leaning government in England most likely for the rest of their lives?
The more i think about it the more i think that Scottish Independendence founders fundamentally on the issue of a hard border with England (as mentioned as one issue by DavidH). And it is the one issue that was, I believe, almost absent from the first Indy referendum debates. Quite simply, how DO they square the circle? I can't even see a fudge solution.
In the first referendum, the pro-Indy camp tried to play down difficulties in their position on currency, joining the EU and national debt, by arguing that statements by the opponents would not reflect the reality in the aftermath of a yes vote, suggesting that what the no camp was saying was merely project fear which wouldn't come to pass because of mutual interest (or in the case of national debt - they could just walk away from it). And sometimes (in the case of currency - fudging by just saying their were lots of options).
But the hard border is different. Because, as Northern Ireland has shown, being in the EU is incompatible with the lack of a hard border with England. And whereas during the first referendum they could try to place the EU and rUK in the same "project fear" camp, this time there would have to be a choice. I don't see any circumstances where they could put the case where there future is in the EU (which after all is presented currently as a, if not the, major driving force for Independence) but not have a hard border with England. As David points out, the default position is even worse - hard border with both - and even outside the EU there could not be a completely open border with England, short of joining a Customs Union/UK single market.
And this would also dominate any post Indy discussions, which would make Brexit look like a cakewalk. They would have to negotiate with the rUK (obviously). But the outcome of those negotiations would have to be heavily destructive to Scottish business and economy, or would have to agree a hard border. But without a hard border negotiations with the EU would be impossible, because of the implications for the EU-UK relationship.
Have the Sindy advocates on this site got an answer to this issue?
Sturgeon's answer has been to claim that the Northern Ireland protocol is a model for a solution.
This has to be one of the cleverest and most dishonest claims I have ever heard in British politics.
What we know is that there is a border between London and Brussels. There isn't a border between Dublin and Brussels. So there must be a border between Dublin and London. The Northern Ireland protocol puts the border between Belfast and London, rather than Dublin and Belfast - but it still exists.
In the event that Scotland rejoins the EU, the purpose would be to remove the existing border between Edinburgh and Brussels. Logically this means there must be a border between Edinburgh and London. The Northern Ireland protocol doesn't change that essence at all. That's why the claim is so dishonest.
It's clever because the SNP can argue that the protocol avoids a border on the island of Ireland, and so it seems reasonable that something similar could avoid a border on the island of Britain. Simple. They're both islands after all, how different can it be?
Simple always wins these sorts of arguments, even when it's very wrong. The SNP only need unicorn fudge to make it through the referendum campaign, not something that might actually work.
Have tribalist Labourites not clicked yet that Scottish independence cements a right leaning government in England most likely for the rest of their lives?
That's an interesting question.
Some separatists argue that if it happens, there would be a political realignment in Scotland, with a revival of a party of the right.
While it is true the Little Englanders are an overwhelming right wing majority today, at some point the wheel will turn again, probably as their promises turn to ashes (again)
It’ll be the bastard Europeans demanding it, not the English.
The border will be with England, not Europe...
BoZo is the one who said he would "take back control of our borders"
It will be up to the Scottish if they want a border with England or with Europe. Europe forces that choice on Scotland, Brussels don’t do ambiguity when it comes to borders.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
This year?! Here’s yer bunnet, what’s yer hurry. Still, bring it on.
It will be up to the Scottish if they want a border with England or with Europe. Europe forces that choice on Scotland, Brussels don’t do ambiguity when it comes to borders.
Do you have any analysis to go with that, Alistair? On outstanding constituencies and potential list effects? What's the max v mim 95% confidence range?
I'm still shy of backing it.
SNP nerd to win seats in regions they currently have no list MSPs in. Winning West Dumfries doesn't do them any good as they will just lose the list seat.
So that gives you a tiny set of targets. Aberdeen West is a must win now but there is a massive LD vote to squeeze for the Con candidate.
To expand on this the SNP are currently up 1 seat, they need to be up 2.
Without winning Aberdeenshire West they would have to go absolute gangbusters on the List somewhere to get that second seat. And the List vote counted so far doesn't say they are going gangbusters anywhere.
Plus the Tories top target seat of Perthshire South and Kinrossshire has yet to declare, the Tories need a 1.97% swing to take it from the SNP and the LDs got 8% there for example in 2016
Hope you are all recovered from the excitements of the last 36 hours.
If you need a bit of distraction can I please recommend a fabulous long article by Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian this morning on the notable figures who have written for the newspaper in its 200 year history. Very enjoyable and some amazing stories.
I may not be at all in line with their politics but the Guardian remains, along with the Times the only real quality British newspaper on the shelves and the internet.
Edit: I should point out that this should only be considered after you have also read the excellent thread header by David
It’ll be the bastard Europeans demanding it, not the English.
The border will be with England, not Europe...
BoZo is the one who said he would "take back control of our borders"
Has the fact that the UK has been trying to fudge the border with Ireland, but the EU refusing to go along with it, completely passed you by? The UK would clearly be perfectly happy to fudge the border with a Scotland in the EU.
Just because "control the borders" was a campaign slogan - directed not at controlling movement of trade, but movement of people aka immigration - doesn't change that one bit.
If Scotland tried to join the EU then the EU would insist that a hard border with the UK/England. Just as they are insisting on a pseudo hard border between England and Northern Ireland as a quid pro quo for no hard border with Ireland. England/rUK, would "sadly have to acquiesce". That would be a choice that Scots are making.
So you don't expect Scotland to apply to join the EU then...
The border is a result of Brexit. If Scotland joins the EU, it's up to BoZo to "take control of the border"
There could only be no border with an independent Scotland if Scotland stayed out of the EU and single market or England rejoined the EEA single market
Good to see so many of our left-inclined posters back to talking about wallpaper, etc - It's a meme that worked really well yesterday. We await with eagerness the chortles as Starmer takes a photo-op in B &Q in order to reconnect with the plebeians.
From Wikipedia's account of the US election after Watergate:- Nixon won the election in a landslide, taking 60.7% of the popular vote and carrying 49 states while being the first Republican to sweep the South. McGovern took just 37.5% of the popular vote, while John G. Schmitz of the American Independent Party won 1.4% of the vote. Nixon received almost 18 million more votes than McGovern, and he holds the record for the widest popular vote margin in any post–World War II United States presidential election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election
Do you have any analysis to go with that, Alistair? On outstanding constituencies and potential list effects? What's the max v mim 95% confidence range?
I'm still shy of backing it.
SNP nerd to win seats in regions they currently have no list MSPs in. Winning West Dumfries doesn't do them any good as they will just lose the list seat.
So that gives you a tiny set of targets. Aberdeen West is a must win now but there is a massive LD vote to squeeze for the Con candidate.
To expand on this the SNP are currently up 1 seat, they need to be up 2.
Without winning Aberdeenshire West they would have to go absolute gangbusters on the List somewhere to get that second seat. And the List vote counted so far doesn't say they are going gangbusters anywhere.
Plus the Tories top target seat of Perthshire South and Kinrossshire has yet to declare, the Tories need a 1.97% swing to take it from the SNP and the LDs got 8% there for example in 2016
Hope you are all recovered from the excitements of the last 36 hours.
If you need a bit of distraction can I please recommend a fabulous long article by Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian this morning on the notable figures who have written for the newspaper in its 200 year history. Very enjoyable and some amazing stories.
I may not be at all in line with their politics but the Guardian remains, along with the Times the only real quality British newspaper on the shelves and the internet.
It will be up to the Scottish if they want a border with England or with Europe. Europe forces that choice on Scotland, Brussels don’t do ambiguity when it comes to borders.
See above...
So Scotland wants razor wire and guard posts from Gretna to the Tweed.
Make sure that goes in the referendum manifesto then.
It’ll be the bastard Europeans demanding it, not the English.
The border will be with England, not Europe...
BoZo is the one who said he would "take back control of our borders"
It will be up to the Scottish if they want a border with England or with Europe. Europe forces that choice on Scotland, Brussels don’t do ambiguity when it comes to borders.
On topic I think it's the sort of thing that looks good on paper but is probably totally unrealistic. Frustrating as it is I'm not sure this a bull whose horns can be grabbed, they can just attempt to stay on as it bucks.
It only works with a long formal process of debates and committees figuring out what the thing would look like. The result might not even be as supportive to the independence cause as one might think. Were I a Scot, I’d vote Remain primarily because I don’t think the SNP have much beyond a fag packet of what happens after the vote. Take away the Unknown and it’s suddenly a lot less scary. You’d even have plenty of notice before the vote itself to move your cash to an English bank and your debt to a Scottish one.
Which Scottish bank? There won’t be any (and I’ve worked for all the big 3 historic ones up here over the years)
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
You need to have done the work, though, to forensically demolish the SNP wibble on debt, on currency, on borders, on EU membership, on the departure of the Scottish finance sector, on the departure of the nuclear submarines and the jobs that sustain them, on North Sea oil platform and pipeline abandonment costs.
I suspect that there are significant numbers of Scots whose heart is with independence, but whose head knows the SNP has no answers to this raft of issues - and who will not take the risk that "something will be sorted".
It is just so much easier for Boris to play at being de Gaulle and say "Non....".
So Scotland wants razor wire and guard posts from Gretna to the Tweed.
It wants "the same border as Northern Ireland"
BoZo can insist there is one, and build one, or insist there isn't one.
His choice
Northern Ireland has a border with GB in the Irish Sea now to avoid a hard border with Ireland, the minimum border an independent Scotland in the EU and/or single market could have with England would be the same border Northern Ireland now has with GB.
Though if Boris needs confidence and supply from Mr Poots and the DUP in 2024 to stay in power he could remove that border by going to an even harder Brexit for the whole UK, albeit that would mean a hard border with Ireland and the same for an independent Scotland
Good header David. Well reasoned and logical. Which is why it won’t happen. Independence is heart over head. The leading protagonists both start from positions of mistrust and it will only get worse. The future is Catalonia I’m afraid.
So Scotland wants razor wire and guard posts from Gretna to the Tweed.
It wants "the same border as Northern Ireland"
BoZo can insist there is one, and build one, or insist there isn't one.
His choice
It will be the EU's choice if Scotland intends to apply for membership. Those are the rules and it is inconceivable that they would give rUK such unimpeded access to their SM via Scotland. Scotland would have to choose which SM they want to remain in and hope that the one they choose says yes.
Hope you are all recovered from the excitements of the last 36 hours.
If you need a bit of distraction can I please recommend a fabulous long article by Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian this morning on the notable figures who have written for the newspaper in its 200 year history. Very enjoyable and some amazing stories.
I may not be at all in line with their politics but the Guardian remains, along with the Times the only real quality British newspaper on the shelves and the internet.
On topic I think it's the sort of thing that looks good on paper but is probably totally unrealistic. Frustrating as it is I'm not sure this a bull whose horns can be grabbed, they can just attempt to stay on as it bucks.
It only works with a long formal process of debates and committees figuring out what the thing would look like. The result might not even be as supportive to the independence cause as one might think. Were I a Scot, I’d vote Remain primarily because I don’t think the SNP have much beyond a fag packet of what happens after the vote. Take away the Unknown and it’s suddenly a lot less scary. You’d even have plenty of notice before the vote itself to move your cash to an English bank and your debt to a Scottish one.
Which Scottish bank? There won’t be any (and I’ve worked for all the big 3 historic ones up here over the years)
I must admit one thing I’ve found amusing in the Sindy saga is the SNP’s insistence that after independence Scotland would continue to part own and control the Bank of England.
On topic I think it's the sort of thing that looks good on paper but is probably totally unrealistic. Frustrating as it is I'm not sure this a bull whose horns can be grabbed, they can just attempt to stay on as it bucks.
It only works with a long formal process of debates and committees figuring out what the thing would look like. The result might not even be as supportive to the independence cause as one might think. Were I a Scot, I’d vote Remain primarily because I don’t think the SNP have much beyond a fag packet of what happens after the vote. Take away the Unknown and it’s suddenly a lot less scary. You’d even have plenty of notice before the vote itself to move your cash to an English bank and your debt to a Scottish one.
Which Scottish bank? There won’t be any (and I’ve worked for all the big 3 historic ones up here over the years)
Correct and the Scottish government is going to have to work out who would fund its continuing operations. It would not have access to the BoE. If it creates its own central bank with its own currency this creates other problems but if it uses Sterling they will need an account with NatWest or whoever to allow them to pay wages, deposit taxes etc. And the conversations with the bank manager about the state of the account may not be entirely straightforward...
The more i think about it the more i think that Scottish Independendence founders fundamentally on the issue of a hard border with England (as mentioned as one issue by DavidH). And it is the one issue that was, I believe, almost absent from the first Indy referendum debates. Quite simply, how DO they square the circle? I can't even see a fudge solution.
In the first referendum, the pro-Indy camp tried to play down difficulties in their position on currency, joining the EU and national debt, by arguing that statements by the opponents would not reflect the reality in the aftermath of a yes vote, suggesting that what the no camp was saying was merely project fear which wouldn't come to pass because of mutual interest (or in the case of national debt - they could just walk away from it). And sometimes (in the case of currency - fudging by just saying their were lots of options).
But the hard border is different. Because, as Northern Ireland has shown, being in the EU is incompatible with the lack of a hard border with England. And whereas during the first referendum they could try to place the EU and rUK in the same "project fear" camp, this time there would have to be a choice. I don't see any circumstances where they could put the case where there future is in the EU (which after all is presented currently as a, if not the, major driving force for Independence) but not have a hard border with England. As David points out, the default position is even worse - hard border with both - and even outside the EU there could not be a completely open border with England, short of joining a Customs Union/UK single market.
And this would also dominate any post Indy discussions, which would make Brexit look like a cakewalk. They would have to negotiate with the rUK (obviously). But the outcome of those negotiations would have to be heavily destructive to Scottish business and economy, or would have to agree a hard border. But without a hard border negotiations with the EU would be impossible, because of the implications for the EU-UK relationship.
Have the Sindy advocates on this site got an answer to this issue?
Sturgeon's answer has been to claim that the Northern Ireland protocol is a model for a solution.
This has to be one of the cleverest and most dishonest claims I have ever heard in British politics.
What we know is that there is a border between London and Brussels. There isn't a border between Dublin and Brussels. So there must be a border between Dublin and London. The Northern Ireland protocol puts the border between Belfast and London, rather than Dublin and Belfast - but it still exists.
In the event that Scotland rejoins the EU, the purpose would be to remove the existing border between Edinburgh and Brussels. Logically this means there must be a border between Edinburgh and London. The Northern Ireland protocol doesn't change that essence at all. That's why the claim is so dishonest.
It's clever because the SNP can argue that the protocol avoids a border on the island of Ireland, and so it seems reasonable that something similar could avoid a border on the island of Britain. Simple. They're both islands after all, how different can it be?
Simple always wins these sorts of arguments, even when it's very wrong. The SNP only need unicorn fudge to make it through the referendum campaign, not something that might actually work.
I suspect that the Scots are far more tuned into these issues, and able to see through the dishonesty, than you give them credit for. The Irish border for voters in the Brexit referendum was an issue that many were vaguely aware of, but an issue that for most was either of no relevance or little interest. Ultimately the presence of a trade border with Ireland, or with Northern Ireland, really has little impact on England - absent abstract issues about "the Union". Even after the referendum, most only cared due to the perception that the EU were exploiting it to create difficulties for Brexit happening.
I think the border with England really matters to Scotland - and therefore it really does demand an answer and would be front and central of any referendum campaign. The SNP could try and dismiss it as "project fear" from Westminster, but inevitably the position would have to be, and would be, confirmed by EU spokespeople. Given that the SNP are anticipating easy passage into the EU, trying to paint EU spokespeople as being within the "project fear" camp would be difficult.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
Your comments suggest that the UK government needs urgently to reject being cast as the English government by the Scottish government. Very much more emphasis on representing Unionists in Scotland.
It will be up to the Scottish if they want a border with England or with Europe. Europe forces that choice on Scotland, Brussels don’t do ambiguity when it comes to borders.
See above...
So Scotland wants razor wire and guard posts from Gretna to the Tweed.
Make sure that goes in the referendum manifesto then.
Funny, it was the Unionists threatening that in 2014. Since we were happy clappy EUers then I can only think that they were threatening it out of spite and pique. Thank goodness they’ve cured themselves of that mindset.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
Your comments suggest that the UK government needs urgently to reject being cast as the English government by the Scottish government. Very much more emphasis on representing Unionists in Scotland.
Good morning, everyone.
An excellent summary of my somewhat wordy contributions.
Thanks for interesting Header. The premise - negotiate the indy deal first and then have the vote - sounds sensible on the face of it but in practice is a non starter. Years of intense, complex, fractious talks would be required to thrash out a deal, and to get there you need the authentic political pressures of having to do it because separation has been democratically mandated. The notion of going through all of this in advance as a kind of roleplay, and with the balance of power artificially stacked in favour of the UK government, which it would be, is somewhat ludicrous. It's a Not Happening Event.
And if anybody gets any ideas to the contrary there is a chalk of SF operators from Theydon Bois Conservatives who are ready to fast rope into a hot LZ near Gretna Green just as soon as Emmerdale is finished. Pop blue smoke for exfil once the separatists have been handled.
So Scotland wants razor wire and guard posts from Gretna to the Tweed.
It wants "the same border as Northern Ireland"
BoZo can insist there is one, and build one, or insist there isn't one.
His choice
Northern Ireland has a border with GB in the Irish Sea now to avoid a hard border with Ireland, the minimum border an independent Scotland in the EU and/or single market could have with England would be the same border Northern Ireland now has with GB.
Though if Boris needs confidence and supply from Mr Poots and the DUP in 2024 to stay in power he could remove that border by going to an even harder Brexit for the whole UK, albeit that would mean a hard border with Ireland and the same for an independent Scotland
If he needs confidence and supply from the DUP then he shouldn't be Prime Minister anyway. You keep telling us that minority parties don't count in parliament when considering major issues (vide Scottish Greens).
Hope you are all recovered from the excitements of the last 36 hours.
If you need a bit of distraction can I please recommend a fabulous long article by Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian this morning on the notable figures who have written for the newspaper in its 200 year history. Very enjoyable and some amazing stories.
I may not be at all in line with their politics but the Guardian remains, along with the Times the only real quality British newspaper on the shelves and the internet.
This bullshit is just going to drag on and on and on until they go. The idea that entering into a negotiation with the Scottish Government will somehow help to resolve the matter is for the birds.
Stick a draft treaty before the Scots and persuade them to reject it, and it will help not a jot. It's irrelevant. If the nationalists lose a second referendum, the campaign for the third starts the next morning and they'll keep on winning elections up there until they get it.
So Scotland wants razor wire and guard posts from Gretna to the Tweed.
It wants "the same border as Northern Ireland"
BoZo can insist there is one, and build one, or insist there isn't one.
His choice
Northern Ireland has a border with GB in the Irish Sea now to avoid a hard border with Ireland, the minimum border an independent Scotland in the EU and/or single market could have with England would be the same border Northern Ireland now has with GB.
Though if Boris needs confidence and supply from Mr Poots and the DUP in 2024 to stay in power he could remove that border by going to an even harder Brexit for the whole UK, albeit that would mean a hard border with Ireland and the same for an independent Scotland
That's almost on a par with your tank invasion narrative.
Although you haven't really looked in depth yet at a repeal of the Devolution Act (as suggested by someone earlier). Now there would be a political solution, and you could probably find a place for your tank invasion in the aftermath.
Have tribalist Labourites not clicked yet that Scottish independence cements a right leaning government in England most likely for the rest of their lives?
That's an interesting question.
Some separatists argue that if it happens, there would be a political realignment in Scotland, with a revival of a party of the right.
While it is true the Little Englanders are an overwhelming right wing majority today, at some point the wheel will turn again, probably as their promises turn to ashes (again)
Yes I think you are right that the SNP’s big tent would eventually crumble and you’d get a more balanced democracy in Scotland post independence. I was talking about England, where I thought you live?
By the way can you explain your Little Englander meme? I’m not sure I fully understand whatever insult you think you’re making.
Hope you are all recovered from the excitements of the last 36 hours.
If you need a bit of distraction can I please recommend a fabulous long article by Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian this morning on the notable figures who have written for the newspaper in its 200 year history. Very enjoyable and some amazing stories.
I may not be at all in line with their politics but the Guardian remains, along with the Times the only real quality British newspaper on the shelves and the internet.
So what should the UK government do? Well, firstly and obviously it needs to make the case for the Union. In 2014 Cameron and Osborne largely accepted the premise that this was a matter for Scots and stayed out. That was wrong. We are Brits every bit as much as people from Yorkshire or Cornwall. It is right for our government to make a positive case for the Union, to explain the enormous benefits we get from unimpeded access to the UK SM, the ability our financial services have had to grow with the BoE as lender of last resort and an internationally recognised regulator in the FCA.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
You need to have done the work, though, to forensically demolish the SNP wibble on debt, on currency, on borders, on EU membership, on the departure of the Scottish finance sector, on the departure of the nuclear submarines and the jobs that sustain them, on North Sea oil platform and pipeline abandonment costs.
I suspect that there are significant numbers of Scots whose heart is with independence, but whose head knows the SNP has no answers to this raft of issues - and who will not take the risk that "something will be sorted".
It is just so much easier for Boris to play at being de Gaulle and say "Non....".
Yes these points need to be forcibly made and it has been evident from many interviews in the last month that Sturgeon has no answers to them at all. But the missing element in 2014 was the positive case for the Union and we should not make that mistake again.
Comments
And it helps to pick the right area as well. London isn’t good because you get, as you rightly say, so little margin after overheads. Round here it’s different. I could easily buy five houses without a mortgage in Rugeley with the money I would get from selling up in Gloucester, or ten by turning into a company and borrowing. That money would keep me very comfortably for the rest of my life even allowing for depreciation and dilapidations.
I also think he’s providing many hostages to fortune by renting. It’s great if you get good tenants. Newsflash, you often don’t. One disgruntled tenant selling a story to the Daily Mirror and he will have a problem.
Firstly, in these negotiations who is representing me, and the 50% of Scots who have just voted for Unionist parties because we are proud to be British and want to stay that way? I want to be represented by the UK government, my government and David is putting them on the other side.
He is having me represented by a government that I am strongly opposed to and voted against on Thursday (twice). I really don't want that.
Let's suppose the UK government exposes the realities of independence: higher taxes, fewer public services, lower growth, the loss of much of our tax base in financial services, an uncertain currency, border trade issues etc. How hard do people think it would be for the Scottish government to present these consequences as bullying? How difficult would it be to stir up resentment? Why would anyone think that this helps the cause of Unionism? Would the UK thrive if and when Scotland was cowed into submission? Is that a voluntary and successful union at all? The damage would be irreparable.
We also saw the outcome of this kind of bullying in Brexit. Of course the problems an independent Scotland would face would be many, many times greater than any minor inconveniences suffered by the UK but the reality is that project Doom did nothing to dissuade Brexiteers, nothing. As a tactic it has failed recently and it would fail again. Scots are every bit as thrawn as the rest of the UK.
In the first referendum, the pro-Indy camp tried to play down difficulties in their position on currency, joining the EU and national debt, by arguing that statements by the opponents would not reflect the reality in the aftermath of a yes vote, suggesting that what the no camp was saying was merely project fear which wouldn't come to pass because of mutual interest (or in the case of national debt - they could just walk away from it). And sometimes (in the case of currency - fudging by just saying their were lots of options).
But the hard border is different. Because, as Northern Ireland has shown, being in the EU is incompatible with the lack of a hard border with England. And whereas during the first referendum they could try to place the EU and rUK in the same "project fear" camp, this time there would have to be a choice. I don't see any circumstances where they could put the case where there future is in the EU (which after all is presented currently as a, if not the, major driving force for Independence) but not have a hard border with England. As David points out, the default position is even worse - hard border with both - and even outside the EU there could not be a completely open border with England, short of joining a Customs Union/UK single market.
And this would also dominate any post Indy discussions, which would make Brexit look like a cakewalk. They would have to negotiate with the rUK (obviously). But the outcome of those negotiations would have to be heavily destructive to Scottish business and economy, or would have to agree a hard border. But without a hard border negotiations with the EU would be impossible, because of the implications for the EU-UK relationship.
Have the Sindy advocates on this site got an answer to this issue?
Shots are fired in every direction.
Not till it was too late anyway.
Fancy a house swap?
Residence in Derbyshire available for said purpose
He’s also got an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend with a child and a couple of sets of school fees to pay. It’s easy to see that his £150k (£7,500 a month after tax) doesn’t go as far as he might like.
"There will only be a border if the bastard English demand it"
followed by
"There is no border. Pay no attention to the guards."
It staggers me how some people are unable to recognise both upsides and downsides to nuanced issues. For example, I can see how leaving the customs union has made it difficult for all manner of export and import businesses to operate, with that pain being front loaded. And it will not be clear for some time if the upsides of an independent trade policy will outweigh this disbenefit in the round in the long run.
There is quite a good way of wrapping your head round difficult concepts. Try writing an essay from each perspective on a complex argument to help you think it all through. Just don’t for goodness sake ever admit you did so, or you’ll have a lifetime of shallow thinking moral high horsers criticising you for it.
You would have to exclude every single politician of every Unionist party from the Scottish side of negotiations simply because they are already signed up members of the Unionist parties on the southern side of the table. Can't have them negotiating on both sides of the table, can one? Or even indirectly, through (say) some sort of committee? It's be like having M. Barnier on the same side of the table as Mr Davis in Brexit negotiations.
There are people on PB that would think it worth every penny to pay a million a week to live in Johnson's gaff.
A tip to any potential tenants. Make sure he's cleaned the red wine stains off the white sofa.
Starting from the first.
In fact the earlier periods are best; he tails off a bit in the late 70s, perhaps distracted by a lucrative career as shit rent-a-gob historian for the Daily Mail.
"Item 1 - the border. You want no checks, no tariffs, free movement? Done".
"Now if you would just run along to the EU and ask to join on those terms that would be wonderful. We might even be able to get them to soften their position on the Irish border as a consequence..."
A la what the seaman in Captain Pugwash definitely wasn’t called...
So that gives you a tiny set of targets. Aberdeen West is a must win now but there is a massive LD vote to squeeze for the Con candidate.
We should emphasise right now that it is the resources and ingenuity of the UK that has allowed so many Scots to be vaccinated so quickly saving many lives, that it is the financial strength of the UK that has allowed furlough, the giving of grants and the continued funding of public services whilst tax revenues have collapsed.
Where I do have a passing element of agreement with David is that we should not let the Scottish government control the process. In 2014 we had a neverendum which went on for years paralysing the economy and the operation of the Scottish government. It should be made clear that if this is going to happen again it is going to happen quickly, say in 6 months time, and then we move on, together.
The votes are still to be counted. It seems unlikely that the independence parties will have more than 50% of the votes although they are depressingly close to this. If they fall short there is an argument for just saying no but I am moving to the idea that the correct approach is to have a referendum this year and get this nonsense over with.
- bias gets into campaigns because most organisers and staffers are very young; related points are that campaigning is more enthusiastic on messages preferred by the campaigners rather than voters, and that activists (and donors) have more extreme views than voters;
- unlike business, politics is light on measurement and feedback (e.g. there is data that posters and yard signs are significantly more cost-effective than canvassing, yet most campaigns will prioritise canvassing);
- social media fills the feedback/data void and can encourage the wrong things (e.g. the Dem TV ad of the 'crying girl' at Trump's sexist/racist comments, which social media loved, but polling suggests actually made people more likely to vote Trump);
- campaigners spend most of their time on admin and organisation and too little on messaging;
- politicians raise money and get attention from the media (esp social), and get selected, by doing and saying unpopular things, yet this is unhelpful when campaigning for office;
- US politicians clinging to power into their old age means there isn't enough career progression and hence too little incentive to be a team player and work your way to the top (leading to factionalism and attention-seeking);
- election spending limits would be good for the US, esp as so much party money is wasted fighting themselves in primaries;
- message discipline is more important than message quality;
- the reduction in swing voters (in the US) pushes parties to focus on GOTV, yet increasing turnout is hard and can be less cost effective than focusing on conversions;
- the increasing polarisation by education in the US is increasing the FPTP and EC bias against the left;
- politics needs more old/experienced (and more ordinary) people working in it (behind the candidate);
- the spread of education changed the nature of campaigning; when graduates were a tiny minority, the (graduate) politicians were forced to pitch their messages to the mass of non-graduates;
- people are moving from rational voting, based on self interest, to expressive voting, where the mere act of voting is the emotional pay off, whether it changes anything or not. In part this is because politicians find it harder to deliver meaningful change in the modern world (esp with the US checks and balances);
also, most voters don't want radical changes;
Both sides will say "no border" and move on...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-57035157
However we are still only 7 years since the last vote and with Unionist parties combined winning more votes than Nationalist parties combined at Holyrood with over half the votes from Scotland now in there is clearly little demand from most Scots for an indyref2 any time soon apart from the Nationalist hardcore. In fact once the list votes are in the SNP may even have failed to win a majority.
Therefore Boris should stick to his guns, respect the once in a generation 2014 vote and refuse an indyref2
Sadly expect more subsidies for landlords.
The Great British Dream Factory is also a good read with a solid and compelling thesis.
(Which prevents Scotland from joining the EU customs union).
Without winning Aberdeenshire West they would have to go absolute gangbusters on the List somewhere to get that second seat. And the List vote counted so far doesn't say they are going gangbusters anywhere.
See Brexiteers and Northern Ireland...
On the Who Dares Wins book I loved that he did a whole chapter to snooker ! If I were ever on Mastermind I think my chosen specialised topic ( if I cannot do fringe candidates in the London Mayor 2021 election) would be 70/80s snooker!
BoZo is the one who said he would "take back control of our borders"
This has to be one of the cleverest and most dishonest claims I have ever heard in British politics.
What we know is that there is a border between London and Brussels. There isn't a border between Dublin and Brussels. So there must be a border between Dublin and London. The Northern Ireland protocol puts the border between Belfast and London, rather than Dublin and Belfast - but it still exists.
In the event that Scotland rejoins the EU, the purpose would be to remove the existing border between Edinburgh and Brussels. Logically this means there must be a border between Edinburgh and London. The Northern Ireland protocol doesn't change that essence at all. That's why the claim is so dishonest.
It's clever because the SNP can argue that the protocol avoids a border on the island of Ireland, and so it seems reasonable that something similar could avoid a border on the island of Britain. Simple. They're both islands after all, how different can it be?
Simple always wins these sorts of arguments, even when it's very wrong. The SNP only need unicorn fudge to make it through the referendum campaign, not something that might actually work.
Some separatists argue that if it happens, there would be a political realignment in Scotland, with a revival of a party of the right.
While it is true the Little Englanders are an overwhelming right wing majority today, at some point the wheel will turn again, probably as their promises turn to ashes (again)
Still, bring it on.
Hope you are all recovered from the excitements of the last 36 hours.
If you need a bit of distraction can I please recommend a fabulous long article by Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian this morning on the notable figures who have written for the newspaper in its 200 year history. Very enjoyable and some amazing stories.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/08/guardian-200-feuding-reporters-feminist-icons-writers-through-ages
I may not be at all in line with their politics but the Guardian remains, along with the Times the only real quality British newspaper on the shelves and the internet.
Edit: I should point out that this should only be considered after you have also read the excellent thread header by David
Just because "control the borders" was a campaign slogan - directed not at controlling movement of trade, but movement of people aka immigration - doesn't change that one bit.
If Scotland tried to join the EU then the EU would insist that a hard border with the UK/England. Just as they are insisting on a pseudo hard border between England and Northern Ireland as a quid pro quo for no hard border with Ireland. England/rUK, would "sadly have to acquiesce". That would be a choice that Scots are making.
Nixon won the election in a landslide, taking 60.7% of the popular vote and carrying 49 states while being the first Republican to sweep the South. McGovern took just 37.5% of the popular vote, while John G. Schmitz of the American Independent Party won 1.4% of the vote. Nixon received almost 18 million more votes than McGovern, and he holds the record for the widest popular vote margin in any post–World War II United States presidential election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election
Do yourself a favour, take 5 mins to read this, by @julianborger https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/06/guardian-200-ad-that-saved-jewish-father-from-nazis
Make sure that goes in the referendum manifesto then.
BoZo can insist there is one, and build one, or insist there isn't one.
His choice
I suspect that there are significant numbers of Scots whose heart is with independence, but whose head knows the SNP has no answers to this raft of issues - and who will not take the risk that "something will be sorted".
It is just so much easier for Boris to play at being de Gaulle and say "Non....".
Though if Boris needs confidence and supply from Mr Poots and the DUP in 2024 to stay in power he could remove that border by going to an even harder Brexit for the whole UK, albeit that would mean a hard border with Ireland and the same for an independent Scotland
It’s the EU that like building borders.
I think the border with England really matters to Scotland - and therefore it really does demand an answer and would be front and central of any referendum campaign. The SNP could try and dismiss it as "project fear" from Westminster, but inevitably the position would have to be, and would be, confirmed by EU spokespeople. Given that the SNP are anticipating easy passage into the EU, trying to paint EU spokespeople as being within the "project fear" camp would be difficult.
Labour constituencies by majority
1 Swansea East (Mike Hedges AM) 45%
2 Merthyr (Dawn Bowden) 44%
3 Cynon Valley (Vikki Howells) 36,4%
4 Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) 33,3%
5 Bleanau Gwent (Alun Davies) 31,9%
6 Cardiff West (Mark Drakeford) 30,7%
7 Cardiff South (Vaughan Gething) 29,2%
8 Swansea West (Julie James) 27,2%
9 Cardiff Central (Jenny Rathbone) 26,8%
10 Aberavon (David Rees) 25,9%
11 Rhondda (Buffy Williams) 23,4%
12 Torfaen (Lynne Neagle) 22,2%
13 Islwyn (Rhianon Passmore)21,4%
14 Pontypridd (Mick Antoniw) 19,4%
15 Neath (Jeremy Miles) 18,9%
16 Lanelli (Lee Waters) 18,8%
17 Caerphilly (Hefin David) 17,6%
18 Alyn and Deeside (Jack Sergeant) 16,9%
19 Cardiff North (Julie Morgan) 15,8%
20 Newport East (John Griffiths) 15,5%
21 Gower (Rebecca Evans) 14,4%
22 Delyn (Hannah Blythyn) 14,1%
23 Bridgend (Sarah Murphy) 13,7%
24 Newport West (Jayne Bryant) 13,2%
25 Clwyd South (Ken Skates) 12,1%
26 Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt) 7,6%
27 Wrexham (Leslie Griffiths) 6%
Gaps in constituencies where they were second
Vale of Clwyd (Con) -1.4
Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South (Con) -2.9
Preseli Pembrokeshire (Con) -4.4
Monmouth (Con) -10.7
Clwyd West (Con) -13.0
Good morning, everyone.
Stick a draft treaty before the Scots and persuade them to reject it, and it will help not a jot. It's irrelevant. If the nationalists lose a second referendum, the campaign for the third starts the next morning and they'll keep on winning elections up there until they get it.
Although you haven't really looked in depth yet at a repeal of the Devolution Act (as suggested by someone earlier). Now there would be a political solution, and you could probably find a place for your tank invasion in the aftermath.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/07/hartlepool-labour-lack-vision-corbyn-starmer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
One of the few places it still has power.
By the way can you explain your Little Englander meme? I’m not sure I fully understand whatever insult you think you’re making.