HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Sturgeon's nightmare is calling and losing a vote.
Yes. It's a gun with one bullet in it.
So just like Russian roulette, they'll keep pulling the trigger until it goes off?
Uefa is set to decide by Wednesday whether to switch the Champions League final to Wembley from Istanbul because of travel restrictions.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
From The Times
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Sturgeon's nightmare is calling and losing a vote.
Yes. It's a gun with one bullet in it.
It would also massively reduce the SNP's ability to demand money with menaces for at least a decade.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Anyone who thinks that even if No won an indyref2 narrowly within the next year the Nationalists would happily accept the result and shut up for a generation is as naive as Neville Chamberlain and the appeaser wing of the Tory Party in 1938 who thought the Munich Agreement and the hand over of the Sudetenland to the Nazis would appease Hitler
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks Do you think the Conservatives feel confident enough now to propose tripling the PM's salary? 10:55 am · 10 May 2021
He should certainly be paid more than Sturgeon.
The £10,000 a year Prime Ministers got during the first half of the 20th Century would probably be between £250,000 and £500,000 now. Boris should thank Mrs Thatcher for refusing pay rises, along with Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron.
FPT. I fail to see the problem with next day counting . As late as the 1974 and 1979 elections circa 200 seats - ie 30% or so - did not count until the Friday morning. For the 1964 and 1966 elections , it was true of almost 40% of constituencies - mainly - though by no means exclusively - more rural seats.
It's like super league football. The idea of day after counting is obviously sensible except (a) it isn't and (b) politics nerds are like football nerds. They are wedded to tradition, custom and the Sunderland's moment in the sun at about 1 am and the thrill of political defenestration at 3 am. Nothing can replace it in fans' affections. The thought of allowing John Curtice to go to sleep any time until about Friday evening. The horror of it.
FPT. I fail to see the problem with next day counting . As late as the 1974 and 1979 elections circa 200 seats - ie 30% or so - did not count until the Friday morning. For the 1964 and 1966 elections , it was true of almost 40% of constituencies - mainly - though by no means exclusively - more rural seats.
It's like super league football. The idea of day after counting is obviously sensible except (a) it isn't and (b) politics nerds are like football nerds. They are wedded to tradition, custom and the Sunderland's moment in the sun at about 1 am and the thrill of political defenestration at 3 am. Nothing can replace it in fans' affections. The thought of allowing John Curtice to go to sleep any time until about Friday evening. The horror of it.
Newcastle was first in 2019 - not Sunderland . Billericay was the first result in 1959 wih Cheltenham managing it in 1964 & 1966. Guildford declared first in 1970 and both 1974 elections with the small Glasgow Central doing so in 1979. 1983 & 1987 saw Torbay declare first before being narrowly beaten by Sunderland South in 1992 shortly after 11pm. There were just as many political election night nerds in the 1960s and 1970s - and the quality of the results programmes was higher with more detailed coverage of individual results. From the 1990s onwards , the programmes have developed too much of a chat show format with far too many rather childish gimmicks included.I genuinely believe we were better served by having 400 or so overnight results followed by a further 200 the next day. It makes little sense to have some seats begin counting at 10 pm but not declare until breakfast time or later.
Uefa is set to decide by Wednesday whether to switch the Champions League final to Wembley from Istanbul because of travel restrictions.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
From The Times
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
Uefa is set to decide by Wednesday whether to switch the Champions League final to Wembley from Istanbul because of travel restrictions.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
From The Times
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
I'm fine with more fans but hell no to no quarantine.
Head in hands....
I was going to say there wasn't a problem but most countries are in the Orange category so people need to quarantine at home after arriving here - and that's a problem.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
This Mustique story - how can the PM get it that badly wrong? Him going off on a paid jolly is hardly a shock - the Blair's being entertained by Branson and Cliff Richard etc. But how has it turned into another expenses scandal?
"I received a £15k holiday from David Ross" says Johnson. "No you didn't" says Ross. Dafuq?
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
Uefa is set to decide by Wednesday whether to switch the Champions League final to Wembley from Istanbul because of travel restrictions.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
From The Times
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
I'm fine with more fans but hell no to no quarantine.
Haven't Liverpool and other clubs gone to their CL games without quarantining? And if quarantine were unavoidable then the match has been held elsewhere.
Clubs that have come to play CL games here haven't been asked to quarantine either have they?
So long as its a limited number of broadcasters etc then it seems like the same principle.
This Mustique story - how can the PM get it that badly wrong? Him going off on a paid jolly is hardly a shock - the Blair's being entertained by Branson and Cliff Richard etc. But how has it turned into another expenses scandal?
"I received a £15k holiday from David Ross" says Johnson. "No you didn't" says Ross. Dafuq?
That's simple - David Ross phones mate to ask can Boris use your villa for Christmas - mate says yes and Boris uses the villa.
Boris thinks David Ross gave it to him and so puts his name on the paperwork Ross says - it wasn't me who gave you the freebie.....
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
Shoppers moving en masse to Aldi, who squeeze prices by ruthlessly driving complexity out of their internal purchasing & provisioning, is exactly what market forces are meant to achieve, no?
By all accounts Aldi have a pretty good reputation for treating their suppliers well & I’m told they have significantly better payment terms than the big UK supermarkets. Producers should be using Aldi’s terms as a stick to beat Tesco with.
There is one Aldi and 5 Tesco's etc. When you trade with Aldi you then get assfucked by Tesco etc for your crime. The Commercial Director at Sainsbury's stood up at their supplier conference a few years back, blamed us for Sainsbury's problems in that we're supporting Aldi and we will be bear the punishment for doing so.
EDIT - Aldi treating their suppliers well? Thats true. As long as you aren't a brand owner who has been literally ripped off by Aldi creating a direct clone of your brand / product
This Mustique story - how can the PM get it that badly wrong? Him going off on a paid jolly is hardly a shock - the Blair's being entertained by Branson and Cliff Richard etc. But how has it turned into another expenses scandal?
"I received a £15k holiday from David Ross" says Johnson. "No you didn't" says Ross. Dafuq?
Isn't this another example of people not understanding benefits in kind?
David Ross didn't give him £15,000 for the holiday but gave it to him for free but valued the gift at £15,000.
Anyway the big news today and I hope everyone is looking forward to it as much as I am - the Prime Minister telling us whether we are going to be allowed to hug our families.
Be still my beating heart...
Haven't seen my parents in 15 months. Expected them to die if they got Covid. Trust me, there are many of us whose heart is absolutely beating at the prospect of a hug from their mum.
Of course. But whether or not that might be safe is not going to be determined by whatever the PM might or might not say this afternoon.
True. They have now had both doses. I have had my first last week. So we're looking for a date I can come down later this month.
Point is though that going to see frail parents in the midst of a pandemic whilst exposed to pox risk on a daily basis through schools would have been bloody stupid.
Absolutely agree, and I don't dismiss the need for government to communicate health advice. However, the absurd 'drama' of today's supposed announcement is more than a little silly.
It is. I don't hold much truck with the argument that government has been too intrusive and assumed too many powers during the pandemic - I think by and large this aspect has been appropriate to the situation - but I'm not keen on how the psychology of it all is working so heavily in their political favour.
People have got scared and because of this have started to view Boris Johnson and his government as Big Nurse. A comforting and authoritative presence in their lives to whom they are grateful and are happy (indeed wish) to defer. The government know this and are playing it to the hilt. Hence stuff like this - the big deal around hugging.
You are just beginning to realise all of this?
Big Nurse won't be so popular when she runs out of money. When Boris talks about the broad shoulders of the UK treasury what he really means is the broad shoulders of his core voters in the South outside London and Bristol.
Those voters are feeling uneasy. When Johnson hits them for six with higher taxes and inflates away their prosperity, things will get much worse.
But he won't do that. If he does - tax the rich till the pips squeak - he'll win my vote and lose a shed load of trad tories. It's not a good trade.
Uefa is set to decide by Wednesday whether to switch the Champions League final to Wembley from Istanbul because of travel restrictions.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
From The Times
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
I'm fine with more fans but hell no to no quarantine.
Haven't Liverpool and other clubs gone to their CL games without quarantining? And if quarantine were unavoidable then the match has been held elsewhere.
Clubs that have come to play CL games here haven't been asked to quarantine either have they?
So long as its a limited number of broadcasters etc then it seems like the same principle.
Broadcasters aren't tested as often as footballers.
Most, if not all, of the away matches in the Champions League and Europa League have been done off tube.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
Hush now.
As ever the PB braintrust know more than you about your own industry...
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
Let's face it, if you lived in Scotland, to get the best deal out of Westminster, wouldn't you have matters exactly as the the Scots have them now?
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Just make it for the woke and anyone with tattoos. That should do it.
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
That is the market working. Aldi & Lidl are stripping out costs and so selling for cheaper and gaining market share. Free market in action.
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
The problem is that Tesco isn't making a loss - rather than fixing it's cost base it's hiding the issue by forcing the farmers to swallow the loss until the farmer goes bankrupt.
Then if the farmer goes bankrupt then another farmer with lower cost base will need to step in, or other farmers will charge more for their milk, or Tesco will have no milk. 🤷♂️
How quickly do most people go bankrupt?
Hint for most firms it's a slow drip effect until some external factor removes the final string that was holding everything together.
Indeed so let the market do its job.
And if Aldi offer better terms than Tesco then farmers will be incentivised to sell to Aldi instead of Tesco.
We don't need the government to step in and tell farmers or businesses what to do.
We do. Before we had the Grocery Supplies Code of Practice and a regulator with legal powers, we had your free market engaged in all kinds of illegal practices. "Nice products you have in our stores" say Asda. "we have a profit gap so unless you pay £fucktons we will delist you". Or Tesco doing the same. Co-op are are about as un-cooperative as they can be and thats despite them having the shit fined out of them by the regulator.
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks Do you think the Conservatives feel confident enough now to propose tripling the PM's salary? 10:55 am · 10 May 2021
He should certainly be paid more than Sturgeon.
He takes a bigger salary than Sturgeon, unless you think he returns part of it like Sturgeon does to keep her pay frozen at 2008 rates?
Even the fact she's entitled to more boggles the mind.
Why?
You don't think it's the slightest bit odd that the first minister of a constituent part of the UK is paid more than the leader of the entire UK?
(a) she isn't (b) it will derive from the Labour/LD setup of Holyrood back in 1997 with index linking etc (though obvs not taken up of late) (c) was there not more of an assumption that MSPs wouldn't have private businesses, bribes, etc.? The Holyrood regime on outside payments was a lot stricter than for MPs before the duck houses business (hence some ex MPs got caught out and had to resign)
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
You can also see the SNP polling average in the summer of 2013 being what they achieved at the 2015 and 2016 elections.
But you were saying there was not a surge after the referendum. I'm clearly showing that there was one.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
There wasn't though. There was a mirage where polls showed 60%, but they were wrong and not verified by any real elections.
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
What's the issue that the voters are going to vote against the government upon?
If there's a shortage of drivers then hire drivers, and pay them a decent wage.
Maybe some Deliveroo style drivers might want to train to be HGV drivers if offered a decent wage for doing the job.
It will make sod all difference politically. Lets look at the "pay a decent wage" argument - which I support btw.
Hauliers cannot pass on the additional costs of higher wages as supermarkets won't accept them and consumers won't pay them British workers don't want to be truck drivers in sufficient numbers - hours and being away from home as much of an issue as wages Foreign drivers therefore step in. Until Brexit removes their right to work here.
So we go back to slogans. "Pay them more" doesn't work. "British jobs for British workers" doesn't work. So we muddle along until the supply chain falls over, people finally notice and the blame of Patel not putting drivers on the shortage occupation list rightly falls on the EU.
Except the supply chain won't fall over, because if the choice is "pay what needs to be paid" or "have the supply chain fall over", companies will need to pay what needs to be paid.
Supermarkets won't accept higher prices if they have a choice, if they have no choice they will deal with it and move on.
The industry has a shortage of drivers which is becoming acute. Unless we allow foreign drivers to step back in to fill the hole, then a lack of drivers will have supply chains fall over. It isn't about pay, its about a shortage of drivers.
As for your comments about supermarkets, you've never traded with them...
There are plenty of people in this country who know how to drive, there are plenty of people in this country who drive for a living and it takes 6-8 weeks to get a HGV licence not years. If there is a shortage of drivers then pay more money.
If it was simple as that it would have been done already.
Hasn't it though? The supply chain hasn't fallen over yet.
More profitable to squeal for an urgent need for more people you can pay less, than to pay what needs to be paid. This doesn't need government intervention, it needs a free market and let supply and demand resolve the wages for this sector.
Yes, it's as though some people don't want free market economics to apply to labour costs or think it doesn't apply. Removing the unlimited pool if cheap labour from Europe always ended this way with companies paying higher wages, that's a good thing as a well paid workforce is beneficial for the whole country.
Its also better for the Exchequer ultimately as the government paying to subsidise minimum wage workers via in-work benefits, on top of paying for the NHS, Education etc is replaced by workers earning higher wages, thus claiming less in benefits and paying more in tax.
Yup and the economy can probably handle the inflation right now anyway as we've got a lot of monetary tightening already pencilled in and a strengthening currency which will absorb quite a lot of any domestic inflationary pressures.
It has always been an unspoken approach that the govt(s) want cheap food via supermarkets which mean that the broad mass of people are better off via their weekly grocery bill.
If you then shrink margins (I don't think any supermarket is a price maker, and people won't pay more than they are used to paying) then you will affect those at the other end of the supply chain (eg dairy farmers, famously).
To say "let's raise wages hoorah" ignores the reality of the supermarkets' role in our economy.
Supermarkets raise prices quite frequently, they just don't advertise it when they do.
A 4 pint of milk cost me 99p not too long ago, now its £1.09. If its £1.14 in a couple of months time I'll pay it, I won't stop drinking milk.
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks Do you think the Conservatives feel confident enough now to propose tripling the PM's salary? 10:55 am · 10 May 2021
He should certainly be paid more than Sturgeon.
The £10,000 a year Prime Ministers got during the first half of the 20th Century would probably be between £250,000 and £500,000 now. Boris should thank Mrs Thatcher for refusing pay rises, along with Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron.
The scumbag that was Brown cut Cameron pay. It was his last act before leaving office, he is a real shit of a man.
Also - 6: pump billions of UK money openly and visibly into Scotland now - "jockgeld" i saw it referred to the other day - not what i'd normally favour, but desperate times etc - sounds like that is on the agenda anyway - good
What's the point of a union that's held together with bribery?
Many happy marriages work exactly this way. Perhaps most
Odd comment. Not sure how to process it. Jocular 'man of the world' stuff?
Honestly if Starmer is leader at the next election I think the Tories will increase their majority, not go go all Sion Simon.
He's completey misdiagnosed the issue with their core voters and I don't think he can ever win their trust on brexit or cultural values and Red Wall voters are "values voters", they will vote primarily for leaders who align with their culture and who they think they can sit and have a drink with in the pub. Starmer can talk economy until he is out of air to breathe and he won't win them over. He was remianer and mischief maker in chief, everyone remembers that.
I disagree: I think the Conservatives have only modest opportunities to take further seats from Labour in the old "Red Wall", but are under threat 20-30 seats if tactical voting returns. My central prediction is that the Conservatives end up with a 35-50 seat majority next time around, off a broadly similar vote share as 2019.
I can see the Conservatives sweeping the north if they carry on like this, which I think they will
Human nature is to attribute one's successes to oneself, while blaming others for whatever problems might befall you.
Which is why governments tend to lose popularity over time. Objectively, the period from 1992 to 1997 was one of great prosperity, with rapid growth, falling unemployment, and the like. Yet the government had managed to store up enough grievances, and their opponents were willing to tactically vote.
My gut is that the Conservative vote share will hold up well in 2024 (and which, by the way, would be the highest vote share of either Lab or Con since... well... a long time ago...). But it only takes a modest amount of tactical voting for that to result in them seeing a smaller majority.
Except that, in 2020, the government had three events which caused their rating to fall as a visible step change, with stasis in between. One was in May, caused by the Durham fiasco. One was in August, caused by the exam fiasco. One was in December, caused by the lockdown fiasco.
The Great Vaccination reset things, and has given the government another life.
But to bet on the next GE is to bet on the ratio of fiascos to triumphs for this government...
Yes, three years is a long time, so a Labour revival is very possible. Hard to see Starmer going though he should.
The mechanisms to challenge a Labour Leader are a much higher bar than a Tory one.
Stepping back, why exactly do you think Starmer should go? I ask because there is a hell of a lot of spin out there, if not some campaigns against him. Is the by election loss enough (normally it wouldn’t) or was the 1% swing not enough.
Meanwhile, as Labour politicians are kicking lumps out of each other, Priti Patel is engaged in some GOP style voter suppression tactics and other electoral changes that should substantially benefit Conservative candidates.
Yeah it's disgusting. What will count as acceptable ID? OK, driving licence and passport, obvs. But what about work IDs, university IDs, any other non-governmental IDs with a photo on?
If the government expect us to show photo ID to vote, then they should avail us of a universal form of photo ID, issued free of charge. A national ID card, if you will.
Of course, those on the right will scream that it is an intolerable outrage to expect a freeborn Englishman to carry an ID card; that will make us akin to a police state.
Accept when it comes to voting, apparently, when it's being justified to tackle a problem - voter fraud - that doesn't exist in any meaningful way in this country.
It's the shamelessness that really galls.
It's quite transparent why they are doing so. A day after the Conservatives lose but two mayoralties they decide, let's change the system to our advantage.
I have a feeling that once the Covid dust settles, these sort of Dick Dastardly scams will blow up in their faces.
The only reason we have the Supplementary Vote system for Mayoral elections, rather than AV, is that SV is better for Labour than AV. It was a scam in the first place.
I prefer a Labour scam to a Tory one, but the status quo is short of a democratic ideal.
Given that 1/6 of votes in London were cast incorrectly SV seems too complex for the benefits it offers.
The problem with the London Mayor election was not the voting system but the confusing design of the ballot paper, as explored on previous threads.
A friend of mine, who is a qualified accountant aged 61 told me he voted Bailey first choice and Fox second, he said that he knew Fox couldn't win but he wanted him to get as many votes as possible and he wanted Bailey to beat Khan.
He was surprised when I told him that he should have voted them the other way round and I explained the voting system to him. If professionally qualified people don't understand the system what chance has the Hoi polloi?
There were too many candidates, the £10,000 deposit didn't put them off so in future I suggest that they up the number accenting signatures from each borough from 2 to say 20. This won't be any problem for the main parties or any small parties and independents with serious levels of support but might put off a few no hopers.
Yet another argument in favour of the best voting system: Approval Voting!
Simplicity wins out every time & approval voting is the simplest system that fixes the worst sins of FPTP. The nerds can keep their ranked votes with Condorcet counts & Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping to eliminate ties - Approval voting is where it’s at.
I am sorry to say that the people who find the simplest forms of AV over complicated are going to struggle with Approval voting. Perhaps the best single point in favour of FPTP is that if you can understand who won the Cheltenham Gold Cup, and why, you can get FPTP.
Except that the Gold Cup has a winning post, which you can watch to see which horse first arrives. Our voting system doesn’t.
This Mustique story - how can the PM get it that badly wrong? Him going off on a paid jolly is hardly a shock - the Blair's being entertained by Branson and Cliff Richard etc. But how has it turned into another expenses scandal?
"I received a £15k holiday from David Ross" says Johnson. "No you didn't" says Ross. Dafuq?
Isn't this another example of people not understanding benefits in kind?
David Ross didn't give him £15,000 for the holiday but gave it to him for free but valued the gift at £15,000.
Oh sure. Though you wonder what the PM would have spend on a holiday had nobody come forward with a freebie.
It isn't the nominal value thats the question. Its that it hasn't been legally declared again.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
You can also see the SNP polling average in the summer of 2013 being what they achieved at the 2015 and 2016 elections.
But you were saying there was not a surge after the referendum. I'm clearly showing that there was one.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
There wasn't though. There was a mirage where polls showed 60%, but they were wrong and not verified by any real elections.
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
There was. I'm sorry but you are blind if you cannot see it. To argue that they were within margin of error of 45% all that time is utterly ridiculous. Just look at the plots I linked.
The Heavy Woolens sound like a brigade from the Crimean war.
I thought the point about the war in the Crimea was that the squaddies didn't get heavy woollens in the first, secodn and third place till a lot of them had died and Peto and his colleagues had had to build a railway for the Army?
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
You can also see the SNP polling average in the summer of 2013 being what they achieved at the 2015 and 2016 elections.
But you were saying there was not a surge after the referendum. I'm clearly showing that there was one.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
There wasn't though. There was a mirage where polls showed 60%, but they were wrong and not verified by any real elections.
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
There was. I'm sorry but you are blind if you cannot see it. To argue that they were within margin of error of 45% all that time is utterly ridiculous. Just look at the plots I linked.
No, I'm saying that the plots were wrong. The polls were wrong.
Yes polls surged to say 60% SNP share but we had real elections in that time. Please show me a single real election that verifies 60% SNP share rather than that being the polls being incorrect.
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks Do you think the Conservatives feel confident enough now to propose tripling the PM's salary? 10:55 am · 10 May 2021
He should certainly be paid more than Sturgeon.
He takes a bigger salary than Sturgeon, unless you think he returns part of it like Sturgeon does to keep her pay frozen at 2008 rates?
Even the fact she's entitled to more boggles the mind.
Why?
You don't think it's the slightest bit odd that the first minister of a constituent part of the UK is paid more than the leader of the entire UK?
(a) she isn't (b) it will derive from the Labour/LD setup of Holyrood back in 1997 with index linking etc (though obvs not taken up of late) (c) was there not more of an assumption that MSPs wouldn't have private businesses, bribes, etc.? The Holyrood regime on outside payments was a lot stricter than for MPs before the duck houses business (hence some ex MPs got caught out and had to resign)
On a), entitled to more then. I've already made that point.
Very good (and lengthy) thread for those following the 'lab origins' debate.
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1391507230848032772 The SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is yet again in the news - this time because of a quote by Nobel laureate David Baltimore. The site is not a "smoking gun", nor does it "make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin"...
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks Do you think the Conservatives feel confident enough now to propose tripling the PM's salary? 10:55 am · 10 May 2021
He should certainly be paid more than Sturgeon.
He takes a bigger salary than Sturgeon, unless you think he returns part of it like Sturgeonan does to keep her pay frozen at 2008 rates?
Even the fact she's entitled to more boggles the mind.
Why?
You don't think it's the slightest bit odd that the first minister of a constituent part of the UK is paid more than the leader of the entire UK?
As I’m sure has been pointed out ad nauseum there are various council leaders and officials paid more than both of them. That’s the deal which is crystal clear to anyone aiming at those jobs. If you can’t stand the heat don’t even enter the kitchen, and definitely don’t get a new one funded by a dodgy donation.
The next crisis for the Union will come when Holyrood approves a referendum bill and challenges Westminster to go to the Supreme Court to strike it down as illegal, which it would be.
But the Johnson government need not fall into that trap.
What if a private citizen took the Scottish Government to Scotland’s Court of Session, the highest court north of border, on the grounds that its referendum bill was illegal? Canny Unionists are thinking of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who used the English courts to cause the Brexiteers such pain.
The Martin Keatings S30 court case was struck down largely on the basis of standing, i.e. it was a only matter for elected representatives or governments to pursue.
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Postal votes for all over 65s, push it as part of some COVID safety measure?
This Mustique story - how can the PM get it that badly wrong? Him going off on a paid jolly is hardly a shock - the Blair's being entertained by Branson and Cliff Richard etc. But how has it turned into another expenses scandal?
"I received a £15k holiday from David Ross" says Johnson. "No you didn't" says Ross. Dafuq?
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Postal votes for all over 65s, push it as part of some COVID safety measure?
Pushing postal votes on people who are least likely to trust them isn't a good idea.
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Postal votes for all over 65s, push it as part of some COVID safety measure?
But postal votes is where the real fraud happens and you want to encourage that?
FPT. I fail to see the problem with next day counting . As late as the 1974 and 1979 elections circa 200 seats - ie 30% or so - did not count until the Friday morning. For the 1964 and 1966 elections , it was true of almost 40% of constituencies - mainly - though by no means exclusively - more rural seats.
It's like super league football. The idea of day after counting is obviously sensible except (a) it isn't and (b) politics nerds are like football nerds. They are wedded to tradition, custom and the Sunderland's moment in the sun at about 1 am and the thrill of political defenestration at 3 am. Nothing can replace it in fans' affections. The thought of allowing John Curtice to go to sleep any time until about Friday evening. The horror of it.
FPT. I fail to see the problem with next day counting . As late as the 1974 and 1979 elections circa 200 seats - ie 30% or so - did not count until the Friday morning. For the 1964 and 1966 elections , it was true of almost 40% of constituencies - mainly - though by no means exclusively - more rural seats.
It's like super league football. The idea of day after counting is obviously sensible except (a) it isn't and (b) politics nerds are like football nerds. They are wedded to tradition, custom and the Sunderland's moment in the sun at about 1 am and the thrill of political defenestration at 3 am. Nothing can replace it in fans' affections. The thought of allowing John Curtice to go to sleep any time until about Friday evening. The horror of it.
Newcastle was first in 2019 - not Sunderland . Billericay was the first result in 1959 wih Cheltenham managing it in 1964 & 1966. Guildford declared first in 1970 and both 1974 elections with the small Glasgow Central doing so in 1979. 1983 & 1987 saw Torbay declare first before being narrowly beaten by Sunderland South in 1992 shortly after 11pm. There were just as many political election night nerds in the 1960s and 1970s - and the quality of the results programmes was higher with more detailed coverage of individual results. From the 1990s onwards , the programmes have developed too much of a chat show format with far too many rather childish gimmicks included.I genuinely believe we were better served by having 400 or so overnight results followed by a further 200 the next day. It makes little sense to have some seats begin counting at 10 pm but not declare until breakfast time or later.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
You can also see the SNP polling average in the summer of 2013 being what they achieved at the 2015 and 2016 elections.
But you were saying there was not a surge after the referendum. I'm clearly showing that there was one.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
There wasn't though. There was a mirage where polls showed 60%, but they were wrong and not verified by any real elections.
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
There was. I'm sorry but you are blind if you cannot see it. To argue that they were within margin of error of 45% all that time is utterly ridiculous. Just look at the plots I linked.
No, I'm saying that the plots were wrong. The polls were wrong.
Yes polls surged to say 60% SNP share but we had real elections in that time. Please show me a single real election that verifies 60% SNP share rather than that being the polls being incorrect.
No, you said " They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections". Which is quite clearly not true if you look at the polls.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
We've had 2 referendums since 2014 - and the losers have refused to accept either result.
Suggests referendums in their current form aren't a good solution.
Not sure about that. 2014 was accepted and implemented immediately. 2016 was accepted, then de-accepted when it got bogged down, but then accepted again (and implemented).
But I agree with you about referendums. I hate them. I think they should only be used for relatively trivial and simple things such as whose face to put on the new £10 note.
The next crisis for the Union will come when Holyrood approves a referendum bill and challenges Westminster to go to the Supreme Court to strike it down as illegal, which it would be.
But the Johnson government need not fall into that trap.
What if a private citizen took the Scottish Government to Scotland’s Court of Session, the highest court north of border, on the grounds that its referendum bill was illegal? Canny Unionists are thinking of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who used the English courts to cause the Brexiteers such pain.
The Martin Keatings S30 court case was struck down largely on the basis of standing, i.e. it was a only matter for elected representatives or governments to pursue.
The enacting of the law, not the legal challenge.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh upheld a previous decision that any ruling would be hypothetical because there’s no existing legislation for such a vote, Martin Keatings, who brought the crowd-funded case, said on Friday
Aren't we all supposed to be drinking oat milk these days to save the planet like.
From memory all the vegan milks use way more energy and water than real milk..
As far as I'm aware, all the plant based drinks are better for the planet than dairy, but each has it's own environmental issues in relation to bees/water/and even deforestation. The modern dairy industry is vile and the sooner it dies, the better.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
The Heavy Woolens sound like a brigade from the Crimean war.
I thought the point about the war in the Crimea was that the squaddies didn't get heavy woollens in the first, secodn and third place till a lot of them had died and Peto and his colleagues had had to build a railway for the Army?
Peto. A name to conjure with. A mile south of my flat is Peto Place, on the southwestern corner of Regent’s Park
It’s not much more than an alleyway, but it boasts one remarkable building: the Diorama, from the 1820s, a kind of primitive ‘cinema’
I am perhaps the only person who can legally claim to have enjoyed TWO blow jobs in the Diorama. The first was from a 19 year old North London heiress, the second from a very short very pretty girl with a thick Stoke-on-Trent accent
Leon: consciously raising the tone on PB since 1894
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
You can also see the SNP polling average in the summer of 2013 being what they achieved at the 2015 and 2016 elections.
But you were saying there was not a surge after the referendum. I'm clearly showing that there was one.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
There wasn't though. There was a mirage where polls showed 60%, but they were wrong and not verified by any real elections.
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
There was. I'm sorry but you are blind if you cannot see it. To argue that they were within margin of error of 45% all that time is utterly ridiculous. Just look at the plots I linked.
No, I'm saying that the plots were wrong. The polls were wrong.
Yes polls surged to say 60% SNP share but we had real elections in that time. Please show me a single real election that verifies 60% SNP share rather than that being the polls being incorrect.
No, you said " They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections". Which is quite clearly not true if you look at the polls.
To be more clear, they were [before the 2014 referendum] consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish, which they then [after the referendum] consistently achieved afterwards in the elections.
Some polls falsely gave them a 60% share afterwards. That was unsubstantiated garbage.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
+1 - were it not for Brexit there wouldn't be any argument for there to be a second referendum - it's only that other change that makes a second referendum vaguely justifiable.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
With the SNP's dominance in the Scottish Parliament I suspect it would be reasonably likely to occur on the medium term, say after a couple of parliaments.
Very good (and lengthy) thread for those following the 'lab origins' debate.
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1391507230848032772 The SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is yet again in the news - this time because of a quote by Nobel laureate David Baltimore. The site is not a "smoking gun", nor does it "make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin"...
That still doesn't do anything to disprove the whole 'Top Chinese lab repeatedly warned for shoddy disposal procedures, shoddily disposed of something, as a result covid got out'.
There's a distinct difference between claiming it was designed by a mad scientist, and claiming that the likely origin of a SE asian bat flu is the sloppily ran bio lab a few miles away from where the flu had it's first outbreak.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
There's a video out there somewhere of a disgruntled SNP voter asking Sturgeon why a referendum is so important post election when it was well down the agenda pre-election.
That's such an easy question for her to answer, I suspect a plant.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
You can also see the SNP polling average in the summer of 2013 being what they achieved at the 2015 and 2016 elections.
But you were saying there was not a surge after the referendum. I'm clearly showing that there was one.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
There wasn't though. There was a mirage where polls showed 60%, but they were wrong and not verified by any real elections.
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
There was. I'm sorry but you are blind if you cannot see it. To argue that they were within margin of error of 45% all that time is utterly ridiculous. Just look at the plots I linked.
No, I'm saying that the plots were wrong. The polls were wrong.
Yes polls surged to say 60% SNP share but we had real elections in that time. Please show me a single real election that verifies 60% SNP share rather than that being the polls being incorrect.
No, you said " They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections". Which is quite clearly not true if you look at the polls.
To be more clear, they were [before the 2014 referendum] consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish, which they then [after the referendum] consistently achieved afterwards in the elections.
Some polls falsely gave them a 60% share afterwards. That was unsubstantiated garbage.
That's just re-writing what you had originally said. There was obviously a surge in popularity after the referendum. I'm not sure why it's being denied.
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Postal votes for all over 65s, push it as part of some COVID safety measure?
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
You can also see the SNP polling average in the summer of 2013 being what they achieved at the 2015 and 2016 elections.
But you were saying there was not a surge after the referendum. I'm clearly showing that there was one.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
There wasn't though. There was a mirage where polls showed 60%, but they were wrong and not verified by any real elections.
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
There was. I'm sorry but you are blind if you cannot see it. To argue that they were within margin of error of 45% all that time is utterly ridiculous. Just look at the plots I linked.
No, I'm saying that the plots were wrong. The polls were wrong.
Yes polls surged to say 60% SNP share but we had real elections in that time. Please show me a single real election that verifies 60% SNP share rather than that being the polls being incorrect.
No, you said " They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections". Which is quite clearly not true if you look at the polls.
To be more clear, they were [before the 2014 referendum] consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish, which they then [after the referendum] consistently achieved afterwards in the elections.
Some polls falsely gave them a 60% share afterwards. That was unsubstantiated garbage.
That's just re-writing what you had originally said. There was obviously a surge in popularity after the referendum. I'm not sure why it's being denied.
Its clarifying what I meant.
There was no major surge witnessed in the elections. That's why the high watermark of SNP MSPs remains 2011 which was pre-referendum.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
If the Scots haven't changed their mind then they'd vote No. And the Scots can tell the SNP to piss off and not vote for them if they're bothered by that.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
If the Scots haven't changed their mind then they'd vote No. And the Scots can tell the SNP to piss off and not vote for them if they're bothered by that.
This is one of those issues where you’ve chosen a position, and you will stick by it religiously and dogmatically, whatever argument is put to you. Sometimes you are right, on this occasion you are wrong. Either way, it is pointless arguing with you, so I shan’t
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
The SNP vote surged before the referendum not after it realistically. 2015 was catching up with the changes that had already occurred. Had the SNP not already surged to a majority in 2011 then they'd not have had the referendum in the first place.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
No, you can see the surge at the time of the referendum:
You can also see the SNP polling average in the summer of 2013 being what they achieved at the 2015 and 2016 elections.
But you were saying there was not a surge after the referendum. I'm clearly showing that there was one.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
There wasn't though. There was a mirage where polls showed 60%, but they were wrong and not verified by any real elections.
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
There was. I'm sorry but you are blind if you cannot see it. To argue that they were within margin of error of 45% all that time is utterly ridiculous. Just look at the plots I linked.
No, I'm saying that the plots were wrong. The polls were wrong.
Yes polls surged to say 60% SNP share but we had real elections in that time. Please show me a single real election that verifies 60% SNP share rather than that being the polls being incorrect.
No, you said " They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections". Which is quite clearly not true if you look at the polls.
To be more clear, they were [before the 2014 referendum] consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish, which they then [after the referendum] consistently achieved afterwards in the elections.
Some polls falsely gave them a 60% share afterwards. That was unsubstantiated garbage.
That's just re-writing what you had originally said. There was obviously a surge in popularity after the referendum. I'm not sure why it's being denied.
Its clarifying what I meant.
There was no major surge witnessed in the elections. That's why the high watermark of SNP MSPs remains 2011 which was pre-referendum.
That's a rather large clarification given you explicitly mentioned polls in your original reply. The surge in support is really obvious in the polls. Performance in the elections maybe less so, but it is complicated by the tactical nature of some votes.
Grocery prices are stagnant, despite inflationary pressure mounting.
"Whether it’s soaring shipping costs, packaging supply issues, commodity price hikes, shortages of drivers and seasonal workers, increased labour and safety costs, or new Brexit-related red tape, inflationary pressures have been mounting.
Yet stagnant food prices on shelf make it difficult to see how these are being offset. Multiple indexes show grocery prices remain stable in the UK – ONS, Kantar and our own data, including this week’s Grocer 33, which shows prices falling overall "
As I have said (and I appreciate you are the expert) when people discuss Tesco they understand that while the factory and farm gate producers suffer, it is better "for the country" ie the vast majority of people in our service economy who don't make widgets or milk cows, that this situation continues.
Supermarkets squeeze the other end, not the consumers.
But I think @Philip_Thompson should start using his market powers to withdraw his custom from perhaps the only shop which has raised milk prices recently.
Philip bangs on and on about the market. The big change that the market needed to drive - and hasn't - is to strip the absurd complexity out of the big supermarkets. Because they are so vast and bloated their operating costs are high which means any price pressure gets passed down the line to producers, hauliers, distributors etc.
Supermarkets squeeze farmers so that milk is sold at a loss because Aldi & Lidl can sign big contracts with people like Arla to sell milk at a small profit on their low operating costs. Tesco etc have to copy the same prices but can't afford to make a loss, which screws the producers to the point where farming in so many sectors is marginal at best.
The market doesn't work.
That is the market working. Aldi & Lidl are stripping out costs and so selling for cheaper and gaining market share. Free market in action.
If Tesco makes a loss then it will ultimately go out of business, same with its farmers.
Just let the market do its job. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
The problem is that Tesco isn't making a loss - rather than fixing it's cost base it's hiding the issue by forcing the farmers to swallow the loss until the farmer goes bankrupt.
Then if the farmer goes bankrupt then another farmer with lower cost base will need to step in, or other farmers will charge more for their milk, or Tesco will have no milk. 🤷♂️
How quickly do most people go bankrupt?
Hint for most firms it's a slow drip effect until some external factor removes the final string that was holding everything together.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
Apparently Nicola said to Boris "When, not if" to which the obvious rejoinder is "after a generation, like you said".
If Indyref2 is held next year the psychology will be different. In 2014 it was "once in a generation, now or never". In 2022 it would be "every 8 years, maybe safer to wait for the next one and see how Brexit pans out".
A leitmotif of my mis-spent youth was the septennial Welsh counties plebiscite on Sunday pub opening. In theory they could decide wet or dry each time, but the underlying assumption was that if a county voted wet it would stay that way forever. After the final dry holdouts succumbed in 1975 future votes were abandoned. No-one has since been given the opportunity to reintroduce the traditional somnolent and sober Welsh sabbath.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
If the Scots haven't changed their mind then they'd vote No. And the Scots can tell the SNP to piss off and not vote for them if they're bothered by that.
This is one of those issues where you’ve chosen a position, and you will stick by it religiously and dogmatically, whatever argument is put to you. Sometimes you are right, on this occasion you are wrong. Either way, it is pointless arguing with you, so I shan’t
If in 2016 we'd narrowly voted to Remain, then the EU voted say to allow Turkish accession and other changes disliked by the UK and dismissed as "lies" during the referendum, then the following UK election was then won by UKIP do you think that the UK should have been denied a second independence referendum?
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
The SNP have promised something that is not in their gift. Just like they can't declare war on Sweden they can't promise, as opposed to ask for, a referendum. It's a UK matter as well as a Scottish one. That too is called democracy.
I don't see the problem. They have a mandate to negotiate with Westminster to get a legally binding Sindy vote.
Imagine that at the next GE Labour and the LDs have in their manifestos the following - "We will take the UK into the European Single Market."
Labour win 300 seats. The LDs 50. Upshot is a minority Labour government with C&S from the LDs.
Is anyone going to say the Labour government does NOT have a mandate to take the UK into the Single Market because it requires negotiation (with the EU) and therefore isn't 100% in their gift?
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
If the Scots haven't changed their mind then they'd vote No. And the Scots can tell the SNP to piss off and not vote for them if they're bothered by that.
This is one of those issues where you’ve chosen a position, and you will stick by it religiously and dogmatically, whatever argument is put to you. Sometimes you are right, on this occasion you are wrong. Either way, it is pointless arguing with you, so I shan’t
If in 2016 we'd narrowly voted to Remain, then the EU voted say to allow Turkish accession and other changes disliked by the UK and dismissed as "lies" during the referendum, then the following UK election was then won by UKIP do you think that the UK should have been denied a second independence referendum?
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
If the Scots haven't changed their mind then they'd vote No. And the Scots can tell the SNP to piss off and not vote for them if they're bothered by that.
This is one of those issues where you’ve chosen a position, and you will stick by it religiously and dogmatically, whatever argument is put to you. Sometimes you are right, on this occasion you are wrong. Either way, it is pointless arguing with you, so I shan’t
If in 2016 we'd narrowly voted to Remain, then the EU voted say to allow Turkish accession and other changes disliked by the UK and dismissed as "lies" during the referendum, then the following UK election was then won by UKIP do you think that the UK should have been denied a second independence referendum?
Yes
I don't believe you.
You'd have been spitting bullets in outrage and demanding one.
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Postal votes for all over 65s, push it as part of some COVID safety measure?
But postal votes is where the real fraud happens and you want to encourage that?
It's also a bit hypocritical for Max to rant about zero covid fanatics and then to propose telling over 65s that it's not safe for them to go to a polling station.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
If the Scots haven't changed their mind then they'd vote No. And the Scots can tell the SNP to piss off and not vote for them if they're bothered by that.
This is one of those issues where you’ve chosen a position, and you will stick by it religiously and dogmatically, whatever argument is put to you. Sometimes you are right, on this occasion you are wrong. Either way, it is pointless arguing with you, so I shan’t
If in 2016 we'd narrowly voted to Remain, then the EU voted say to allow Turkish accession and other changes disliked by the UK and dismissed as "lies" during the referendum, then the following UK election was then won by UKIP do you think that the UK should have been denied a second independence referendum?
Yes
I don't believe you.
You'd have been spitting bullets in outrage and demanding one.
Right. So I’m not allowed to express my opinion because I must be lying. There is no point arguing with you. As I said
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
The SNP have promised something that is not in their gift. Just like they can't declare war on Sweden they can't promise, as opposed to ask for, a referendum. It's a UK matter as well as a Scottish one. That too is called democracy.
I don't see the problem. They have a mandate to negotiate with Westminster to get a legally binding Sindy vote.
Imagine that at the next GE Labour and the LDs have in their manifestos the following - "We will take the UK into the European Single Market."
Labour win 300 seats. The LDs 50. Upshot is a minority Labour government with C&S from the LDs.
Is anyone going to say the Labour government does NOT have a mandate to take the UK into the Single Market because it requires negotiation (with the EU) and therefore isn't 100% in their gift?
Can see the LDs having rejoin the EEA and Single Market in their manifesto now as most of their seats and target seats are in Remain areas of London and the South, cannot see Labour having it in their next manifesto though as rejoining the single market would require free movement again which would be a disaster for its attempts to regain the strong Leave Red Wall seats it has lost in the North and Midlands.
At most Labour will promise closer regulatory alignment to the EEA, not full membership of it
Re the Scottish question, I think if I was PM i would:
1 - acknowledge that Scotland's voice is, and must be, heard, and if there is a desire for another indyref, then that cannot be denied by Westminster. Acknowledge there may well therefore be a referendum in the next 4 years, if and when Holyrood ever asks for it, but that is a constitutional matter reserved to Westminster as approved in a devolution settlement put to Scottish voters in 1998 and approved by a massive X v Y majority - but...
2 - say that we cannot however have a situation where we have a neverendum or that if there is ever a pro-indy majority in Holyrood, we have to go through the whole divisive and grossly expensive process of legislating for and holding another vote - taking hundreds of millions of £s away from public services and economic investment by the public and private sectors
3 - say that therefore very keen to discuss with the FM, and between civil servants, how we can set the ground rules for any vote in the short or medium term and what might need to change if there is ever to be a vote on the issue after that - and that once this is established, and assuming the Scottish Parliament keeps its side of the bargain, the Scotland Act will be changed so that the holding of a future vote will be reserved to Holyrood (only subject to challenge if the terms are broken)
4 - the ground rules for me (when dialogue eventually takes place with the FM) would be that the Scottish Parliament doesn't get to rig the question, and that if put to the voters in this Holyrood term, the only question Westminster will agree to is "Should Scotland remain in the UK or leave?" - acknowledging Westminster made a big mistake allowing Salmond to run the show last time and fix his loaded pro-indy question - and that there will be an independent commission set up, now, to take evidence from all concerned (including the EU) about the likely real practical outcome of Scotland ever leaving, so that voters can be properly informed of what issues a secession deal might have to deal with and not be fed 300 pages of guff in a pro-indy govt "White Paper" again
No way on god's earth will NS or the SNP generally agree to a 2nd vote with that question on the ballot. So indyref2 never happens. But I don't think Boris appears at all unreasonable making the points at 1-4 above. Agree in principle, push back on the terms the SNP want. Fight that battle in the public domain. Stand up for Union and stand up to the SNP, but not deny the principle - "of course Scottish voters should have their say"....
If she does agree to that question, then good. Even a number of "independence" supporters don't seem to want to lose many of the things they are rather fond of (eg, UK paying the bill, free internal travel within GB and no border, the BBC etc), so a proper question should focus minds. "Remain" would win comfortably.
5 - set up the independent commission anyway, and do it now
Any thoughts?
The question last time was approved by the EC and tested.
The question was amended by the EC last time removing the SNP's prejudicial "Do you agree"
Subsequently they did further research ahead of the Brexit referendum - which is why we got "Remain/Leave" not "Yes/No".
This Mustique story - how can the PM get it that badly wrong? Him going off on a paid jolly is hardly a shock - the Blair's being entertained by Branson and Cliff Richard etc. But how has it turned into another expenses scandal?
"I received a £15k holiday from David Ross" says Johnson. "No you didn't" says Ross. Dafuq?
David called up a mate and said “will you lend your house to the PM”.
The estimated value of the holiday was £15k (based on rental values of equivalent)
Boris registered that as a benefit. A media guy called up David and asked “why did you pay for Boris’s holiday”. He said that he didn’t.
Everyone has acted correctly and within the rules. But it’s complicated and the media doesn’t care about nuance.
Uefa is set to decide by Wednesday whether to switch the Champions League final to Wembley from Istanbul because of travel restrictions.
Given the sort of idiot decisions UEFA so often make, they will probably move it to Australia.
From The Times
The Times understands the EFL is prepared to move its play-off games, due to be held at Wembley on the same weekend, to alternative venues or different dates. Uefa wants concessions from the government, including the capacity at Wembley being raised from 10,000 to 22,500 and allowing Uefa staff, international broadcasters and sponsors to come into the UK for the game without needing to quarantine.
I'm fine with more fans but hell no to no quarantine.
Haven't Liverpool and other clubs gone to their CL games without quarantining? And if quarantine were unavoidable then the match has been held elsewhere.
Clubs that have come to play CL games here haven't been asked to quarantine either have they?
So long as its a limited number of broadcasters etc then it seems like the same principle.
The teams bubble and can be controlled. It’s not practical for loads of individual broadcaster crew members etc
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Postal votes for all over 65s, push it as part of some COVID safety measure?
But postal votes is where the real fraud happens and you want to encourage that?
I'm not saying I support it, just seems like one of those cynical policies that this government will come out with and use COVID as cover to push.
HYUFD has an unarguable point. If HMG cedes an indyref now it establishes the principle that a Holyrood parliament, with a pro-referendum majority from various parties, can have a new referendum whenever it likes (as there will always be a ‘reason’ for a new vote)
That cannot stand. It is a recipe for permanent chaos (and a crocked Scottish economy, as investment flees from the instability).
At some point Boris will need to man up and say a flat No for this reason
Why can't it stand, its called democracy.
If the Scots don't want a future referendum they can choose to not vote for the SNP in a future election, if they have another referendum in their manifesto.
Spot on. You have to trust the people. The notion that the Scots can't be "given" a Sindy vote because then they'd have carte blanche to hold one every other Tuesday, keeping everyone in a permanent state of paralysis and division, is horseshit. You have to think of the Scottish people as being like moody adolescents to hold this view. If I were Scottish I'd be offended by it. The harsh (for the Nats) reality is, if they have a vote now and it's another No to Indy, that's it for a long time. Sturgeon knows this. It's why she'll be happy to wait a while and build a head of steam.
Horseshit? Look what happened after the last failed vote, the SNP vote surged. They might be voting for the SNP for other reasons than independence, but you can bet the SNP will use each and every opportunity to have yet another vote. Ultimately, it's the SNP leadership that decides whether or not to call one.
Imagine Scotland votes No again in 22/23 - how do you see another Sindy ref coming about anytime soon after that?
When the SNP and Greens get another majority in Holyrood they’ll ask for another referendum on ‘whatever’ grounds. They’ll find something
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
Apparently Nicola said to Boris "When, not if" to which the obvious rejoinder is "after a generation, like you said".
If Indyref2 is held next year the psychology will be different. In 2014 it was "once in a generation, now or never". In 2022 it would be "every 8 years, maybe safer to wait for the next one and see how Brexit pans out".
A leitmotif of my mis-spent youth was the septennial Welsh counties plebiscite on Sunday pub opening. In theory they could decide wet or dry each time, but the underlying assumption was that if a county voted wet it would stay that way forever. After the final dry holdouts succumbed in 1975 future votes were abandoned. No-one has since been given the opportunity to reintroduce the traditional somnolent and sober Welsh sabbath.
Yes. Also add in the pure politics of it. If you’re the SNP you can create the expense and disruption of a referendum once or twice and lose it, and be forgiven. Keep doing it and the voters will punish you (or if they don’t, then good luck to the Nats they have a niche and we can have a 4000 year tradition of failed independence referendums until they win one).
Regarding ID to vote I know a few Tory agents and activists who are actually very worried about this.
Given the age profile of the Tory vote then not all the old dears will remember to bring something appropriate and will they be arsed to come back with the right ID?
Postal votes for all over 65s, push it as part of some COVID safety measure?
But postal votes is where the real fraud happens and you want to encourage that?
It's also a bit hypocritical for Max to rant about zero covid fanatics and then to propose telling over 65s that it's not safe for them to go to a polling station.
Not proposing or in favour, just theorising on how the government will cynically use COVID to protect its voting base.
This Mustique story - how can the PM get it that badly wrong? Him going off on a paid jolly is hardly a shock - the Blair's being entertained by Branson and Cliff Richard etc. But how has it turned into another expenses scandal?
"I received a £15k holiday from David Ross" says Johnson. "No you didn't" says Ross. Dafuq?
Isn't this another example of people not understanding benefits in kind?
David Ross didn't give him £15,000 for the holiday but gave it to him for free but valued the gift at £15,000.
Oh sure. Though you wonder what the PM would have spend on a holiday had nobody come forward with a freebie.
It isn't the nominal value thats the question. Its that it hasn't been legally declared again.
Comments
There were just as many political election night nerds in the 1960s and 1970s - and the quality of the results programmes was higher with more detailed coverage of individual results. From the 1990s onwards , the programmes have developed too much of a chat show format with far too many rather childish gimmicks included.I genuinely believe we were better served by having 400 or so overnight results followed by a further 200 the next day. It makes little sense to have some seats begin counting at 10 pm but not declare until breakfast time or later.
He'll probably insist on Indian media getting extra tickets.
If the SNP keep holding and losing referenda then eventually Brenda from Broxburn is going to say "not another one" and vote accordingly.
"I received a £15k holiday from David Ross" says Johnson. "No you didn't" says Ross. Dafuq?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Scottish_Parliament_election
Clubs that have come to play CL games here haven't been asked to quarantine either have they?
So long as its a limited number of broadcasters etc then it seems like the same principle.
Boris thinks David Ross gave it to him and so puts his name on the paperwork
Ross says - it wasn't me who gave you the freebie.....
EDIT - Aldi treating their suppliers well? Thats true. As long as you aren't a brand owner who has been literally ripped off by Aldi creating a direct clone of your brand / product
David Ross didn't give him £15,000 for the holiday but gave it to him for free but valued the gift at £15,000.
Oat milk is the best it seems - and also the raw material is produced in the UK.
Most, if not all, of the away matches in the Champions League and Europa League have been done off tube.
As ever the PB braintrust know more than you about your own industry...
Hats off. They are great at it.
And really, that's cherry picking two polls.
Oat milk is the least environmentally harmful.
(b) it will derive from the Labour/LD setup of Holyrood back in 1997 with index linking etc (though obvs not taken up of late)
(c) was there not more of an assumption that MSPs wouldn't have private businesses, bribes, etc.? The Holyrood regime on outside payments was a lot stricter than for MPs before the duck houses business (hence some ex MPs got caught out and had to resign)
The reality is the SNP surged to a majority in 2011. They were consistently in the lead then averaging about 45% ish which they polled within MoE of consistently in polls and elections in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
All I will say is The Heavy Woolen Independents really aren't the typical Leave/UKIP voter.
These are the mob that think that Farage is a woke liberal, ditto Boris Johnson.
A lot of the people behind this movement are ex BNP and this is part of the world where the BNP did well in, well relatively for them.
Fosun Pharma unit, BioNTech to form joint venture to make up to 1 billion doses of Covid-19 vaccine in China
https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/3132834/fosun-pharma-unit-biontech-form-joint-venture-make-1-billion
It isn't the nominal value thats the question. Its that it hasn't been legally declared again.
Yes polls surged to say 60% SNP share but we had real elections in that time. Please show me a single real election that verifies 60% SNP share rather than that being the polls being incorrect.
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1391507230848032772
The SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is yet again in the news - this time because of a quote by Nobel laureate David Baltimore.
The site is not a "smoking gun", nor does it "make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin"...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57055882.amp
But I agree with you about referendums. I hate them. I think they should only be used for relatively trivial and simple things such as whose face to put on the new £10 note.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh upheld a previous decision that any ruling would be hypothetical because there’s no existing legislation for such a vote, Martin Keatings, who brought the crowd-funded case, said on Friday
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-30/scottish-court-dismisses-case-on-independence-referendum
It’s not much more than an alleyway, but it boasts one remarkable building: the Diorama, from the 1820s, a kind of primitive ‘cinema’
I am perhaps the only person who can legally claim to have enjoyed TWO blow jobs in the Diorama. The first was from a 19 year old North London heiress, the second from a very short very pretty girl with a thick Stoke-on-Trent accent
Leon: consciously raising the tone on PB since 1894
Some polls falsely gave them a 60% share afterwards. That was unsubstantiated garbage.
There's a distinct difference between claiming it was designed by a mad scientist, and claiming that the likely origin of a SE asian bat flu is the sloppily ran bio lab a few miles away from where the flu had it's first outbreak.
There was no major surge witnessed in the elections. That's why the high watermark of SNP MSPs remains 2011 which was pre-referendum.
It’s what they do. It is their DNA. Asking them to stop seeking indy is like asking you to stop feeling morally superior
And, of course, if the UKG granted a 2nd referendum to the last Scots parliament there’s no logical reason to refuse a 3rd. Or a 4th. Or a 5th
This is why HMG will probably have to discover a spine and say No, this time
If Indyref2 is held next year the psychology will be different. In 2014 it was "once in a generation, now or never". In 2022 it would be "every 8 years, maybe safer to wait for the next one and see how Brexit pans out".
A leitmotif of my mis-spent youth was the septennial Welsh counties plebiscite on Sunday pub opening. In theory they could decide wet or dry each time, but the underlying assumption was that if a county voted wet it would stay that way forever. After the final dry holdouts succumbed in 1975 future votes were abandoned. No-one has since been given the opportunity to reintroduce the traditional somnolent and sober Welsh sabbath.
Imagine that at the next GE Labour and the LDs have in their manifestos the following - "We will take the UK into the European Single Market."
Labour win 300 seats. The LDs 50. Upshot is a minority Labour government with C&S from the LDs.
Is anyone going to say the Labour government does NOT have a mandate to take the UK into the Single Market because it requires negotiation (with the EU) and therefore isn't 100% in their gift?
You'd have been spitting bullets in outrage and demanding one.
At most Labour will promise closer regulatory alignment to the EEA, not full membership of it
Subsequently they did further research ahead of the Brexit referendum - which is why we got "Remain/Leave" not "Yes/No".
Leave won that one - what's not to like?
The estimated value of the holiday was £15k (based on rental values of equivalent)
Boris registered that as a benefit. A media guy called up David and asked “why did you pay for Boris’s holiday”. He said that he didn’t.
Everyone has acted correctly and within the rules. But it’s complicated and the media doesn’t care about nuance.