I also have another solution for the Union. Aggressively recruit new countries and swap out Scotland. I reckon Malta might join for 30 MPs and a cash bung. Target Bermuda and a few other Caribbean territories and the ball would really start rolling. Sierra Leone might go for it. It could work for Greenland.
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".
Leave won that one - what's not to like?
When there is a new indyref - around 2030? - the UK government must play harder. Why not extend the franchise to Scots-born people living in rUK, for instance? I never understood why they were excluded from the last one (except that it probably helped YES)
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?
No, Rob. But yes, very good, my analogy was superficially good but collapses with forensic scrutiny.
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.
Wallpapergate didn't make the media & Opposition look stupid and petty enough, so now we're back to the PM's holidays...
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
You're allowed an opinion but if you're blatantly obvious that you're saying something inconsistent with what you believe I'm entitled to call it out.
I don't believe for one second you'd have swallowed the notion that the UK couldn't vote again even if we elected a government pledged to do just 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.
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?
As importantly they have a precedent for doing so. If the SNP were entitled in 2011 to ask for a referendum, they are now similarly entitled after having Brexit imposed on Scotland without consultation or compromise. BJ can of course say Foxtrot Oscar, but PB Tories screeching and gathering their skirts about them at the very prospect need to calm doon.
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.
Well if you want to frame it like that, ok. Point is, there won't be a stream of Sindy referendums if we "allow" this one. That argument is a complete nonsense.
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".
Leave won that one - what's not to like?
When there is a new indyref - around 2030? - the UK government must play harder. Why not extend the franchise to Scots-born people living in rUK, for instance? I never understood why they were excluded from the last one (except that it probably helped YES)
England is great at standing up to huge foreign enemies but too often is exploited and defeated by the weak. Iceland in the Cod Wars was the classic example of this. And the Irish have a great record in beating us since 1922. And the Scots - just look at the Barnett formula. We need to be better at standing up for ourselves. It is ridiculous that the only country that won't have a representative at Boris's Save the Union summit is the one that accounts for 85% of the Union's population.
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
You're allowed an opinion but if you're blatantly obvious that you're saying something inconsistent with what you believe I'm entitled to call it out.
I don't believe for one second you'd have swallowed the notion that the UK couldn't vote again even if we elected a government pledged to do just that.
Oh dear, Mummy and Daddy are fighting 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.
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
You're allowed an opinion but if you're blatantly obvious that you're saying something inconsistent with what you believe I'm entitled to call it out.
I don't believe for one second you'd have swallowed the notion that the UK couldn't vote again even if we elected a government pledged to do just that.
No, I really believe this. Brexit and indyref have proved one thing. Referendums on massive constitutional issues are horribly divisive, and leave one side bitterly dismayed, to the point of lunacy. These referendums are necessary evils, but they are evil, and should therefore be allowed very rarely. Once a generation seems right to me (sturgeon and Salmond used to agree). A generation means 15-20 years. Cf Quebec
If we’d voted Remain we’d have done it knowing the EU is a pile of bureaucratic crap run by liars, but obviously membership had enough benefits that we still wanted to be in it.
If, after a Remain vote, the EU then acted like it was run by liars we’d have no grounds for complaint or a revote
Most Council Leaders would treat the role as full time, just as most MPs probably treat being an MP as full time. But if it is permissable and they think they can do it, well, that's that. I think Mike Hancock used to be a Cabinet Member at council level and an MP.
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?
No, Rob. But yes, very good, my analogy was superficially good but collapses with forensic scrutiny.
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
You're allowed an opinion but if you're blatantly obvious that you're saying something inconsistent with what you believe I'm entitled to call it out.
I don't believe for one second you'd have swallowed the notion that the UK couldn't vote again even if we elected a government pledged to do just that.
No, I really believe this. Brexit and indyref have proved one thing. Referendums on massive constitutional issues are horribly divisive, and leave one side bitterly dismayed, to the point of lunacy. These referendums are necessary evils, but they are evil, and should therefore be allowed very rarely. Once a generation seems right to me (sturgeon and Salmond used to agree). A generation means 15-20 years. Cf Quebec
If we’d voted Remain we’d have done it knowing the EU is a pile of bureaucratic crap run by liars, but obviously membership had enough benefits that we still wanted to be in it.
If, after a Remain vote, the EU then acted like it was run by liars we’d have no grounds for complaint or a revote
I’d tell the Farageists to do one
Saying that you can't change your minds after a vote, especially a referendum, is incredibly undemocratic and dangerous. That's how dictators operate, get a policy passed by referenda then say its irreversible and can't be revisited. Its an enabling act.
If we vote at a general election to revisit the issue then that is grounds for a revote. That is the only grounds we need.
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
I'm not saying the SNP would "shut up" about Sindy for a generation. Independence for Scotland is their core aspiration and goal. What I'm saying is something different - that the Scottish people will not be up for another Sindy Ref anytime soon if they have one now and vote No again, and that this sentiment will work its way through into their politics in terms of platforms, priorities, and results. The naivety - the jaundiced naivety - is in thinking otherwise.
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
Oh, I know what the Diorama was! But can't claim the, erm, second features. This building?
There's a fascinating book called The Shows of London by R. Altick. All about that stuff and lots more. Used to be as rare as ScoTory MP shite, but (like aforesaid) it has now been reprinted to some extent. Seems like the sort fo thing you would enjoy. Maybe look at it in the library.
Most Council Leaders would treat the role as full time, just as most MPs probably treat being an MP as full time. But if it is permissable and they think they can do it, well, that's that. I think Mike Hancock used to be a Cabinet Member at council level and an MP.
If Hancock can be MP and Health Secretary, if Boris can be MP and Prime Minister, I see no reason this guy can't be MP and Council Leader.
The notion that MP is a full time job is patently ridiculous when almost every Minister is an MP too.
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".
Leave won that one - what's not to like?
Yes, that,s what I said, the actual question used was checked out by the EC. No reason to change it.
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.
Well if you want to frame it like that, ok. Point is, there won't be a stream of Sindy referendums if we "allow" this one. That argument is a complete nonsense.
It really isn’t nonsense. You’re the one talking nonsense. The SNP started agitating for a new vote a year after NO, and long before Brexit. Here, look. May 2015
‘SNP prepared to defy Cameron on a second independence referendum’
I don’t blame the SNP for doing this. Indy is all they care about. It is their one driving purpose. But you are cluelessly and embarrassingly naive if you think the Nats would not try for a 3rd vote after losing a 2nd. Of course they would. Activists would demand it. Probably take them 18 months to make it official party policy. Again
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
Most Council Leaders would treat the role as full time, just as most MPs probably treat being an MP as full time. But if it is permissable and they think they can do it, well, that's that. I think Mike Hancock used to be a Cabinet Member at council level and an MP.
If Hancock can be MP and Health Secretary, if Boris can be MP and Prime Minister, I see no reason this guy can't be MP and Council Leader.
The notion that MP is a full time job is patently ridiculous when almost every Minister is an MP too.
And of course, Bradley is MP for the much coveted cast iron safe tory seat of.......er.........Mansfield.
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
Spending beyond his means doesn't mean he's poor. Just entitled.
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.
Well if you want to frame it like that, ok. Point is, there won't be a stream of Sindy referendums if we "allow" this one. That argument is a complete nonsense.
It really isn’t nonsense. You’re the one talking nonsense. The SNP started agitating for a new vote a year after NO, and long before Brexit. Here, look. May 2015
‘SNP prepared to defy Cameron on a second independence referendum’
I don’t blame the SNP for doing this. Indy is all they care about. It is their one driving purpose. But you are cluelessly and embarrassingly naive if you think the Nats would not try for a 3rd vote after losing a 2nd. Of course they would. Activists would demand it. Probably take them 18 months to make it official party policy. Again
This is why Westminster has to say No, eventually
Why?
Why can't the Scots just keep voting No, until they eventually stop voting SNP? Or vote Yes. That's their choice.
At Lobby briefing, Boris Johnson’s spokesman justifies voter ID plans by comparing it to using photo ID to "take out a library book" or "pick up a parcel."
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
Apparently one of the things that winds him up is Dave and George's wealth.
The Camerons spent a lot of their own money to improve the flat.
Also the fact the Marina Wheeler took him to the cleaners in the divorce and will also take a huge portion of his future income.
He's going to be a pauper for a long time after he leaves Downing Street.
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
Think you're right. Labour won't go within a million miles of free movement. if they do, it'll be a sign they have chosen that "alternative narrative" we discussed the other day - forget the Red Wall and become "Remain" to the Cons "Leave". I don't see it. They'll think it's worth at least one serious shot at getting their old vote back. But if it fails again? ... hmm.
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
Spending beyond his means doesn't mean he's poor. Just entitled.
He makes for an odd conservative.
I think his eventual replacement will revert to type.
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
Odd. You wouldn't think the heiress would have needed the money. Inheritance tied up until age 21? Or the bequeather not dead yet?
At Lobby briefing, Boris Johnson’s spokesman justifies voter ID plans by comparing it to using photo ID to "take out a library book" or "pick up a parcel."
My parcels do. But the devil is in the detail as to what counts as sufficient ID. If it's something you can access via your Council, then I am in favour.
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
His credit must be good though, if the pickings of former PMs are anything to go by.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
At Lobby briefing, Boris Johnson’s spokesman justifies voter ID plans by comparing it to using photo ID to "take out a library book" or "pick up a parcel."
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
His credit must be good though, if the pickings of former PMs are anything to go by.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
Yes he could securitise his future earnings I bet GS would package it up for him.
Everything's going so well for Johnson at the moment, I can't help feeling something's going to come out of the woodwork to derail his premiership at some point over the next 12 to 18 months. It happened to Tony Blair when he looked utterly invincible, first with the fuel protests in the year 2000, and the with Iraq in 2003. You could also include being slow-handclapped by the Women's Institute around the same time. I remember what a shock that was, because it was the first time anything had remotely gone wrong for him since he became leader of the Labour Party in 1994, even though it was rather trivial in hindsight.
You mean 'Events, dear boy'
Of course something *else* may come along, but taking your examples, I couldn't remember the slow hand clap and the fuel protests - which I can remember vividly as I was working in motorway service station that summer - felt like a bizarre fever dream by the time I was back at Uni. I had mates who appeared to not have even noticed them. You could throw in also from that era - foot and mouth, the army driving green goddesses around the country, protestors being manhandled out of conferences.
We could do a quiz - without looking up, tell me the month and year.
Not everything is going to be bad for the Tories. Even things that are bad for them may only be in the news for a week. I don't think anyone will win prizes chasing monthly data points and hounding every story like a dog after a postman.
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
You're allowed an opinion but if you're blatantly obvious that you're saying something inconsistent with what you believe I'm entitled to call it out.
I don't believe for one second you'd have swallowed the notion that the UK couldn't vote again even if we elected a government pledged to do just that.
No, I really believe this. Brexit and indyref have proved one thing. Referendums on massive constitutional issues are horribly divisive, and leave one side bitterly dismayed, to the point of lunacy. These referendums are necessary evils, but they are evil, and should therefore be allowed very rarely. Once a generation seems right to me (sturgeon and Salmond used to agree). A generation means 15-20 years. Cf Quebec
If we’d voted Remain we’d have done it knowing the EU is a pile of bureaucratic crap run by liars, but obviously membership had enough benefits that we still wanted to be in it.
If, after a Remain vote, the EU then acted like it was run by liars we’d have no grounds for complaint or a revote
I’d tell the Farageists to do one
Saying that you can't change your minds after a vote, especially a referendum, is incredibly undemocratic and dangerous. That's how dictators operate, get a policy passed by referenda then say its irreversible and can't be revisited. Its an enabling act.
If we vote at a general election to revisit the issue then that is grounds for a revote. That is the only grounds we need.
No. Huge constitutional issues can’t be decided this way or that every few years. You make a decision and you stick with it until a new generation comes along that might feel different.
We waited too long for our second EU vote. 40 years of stifled dissent led to the explosion of Brexit
But 7 years is way too soon to have a rethink on breaking up a 300 year old United Kingdom. The 2014 vote demands more respect than that. 15 years minimum. 2030
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
His credit must be good though, if the pickings of former PMs are anything to go by.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
Yes he could securitise his future earnings I bet GS would package it up for him.
I'd do a good deal on that tbf with a pretty big advance.
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).
Yep. No way would the voters keep voting for a Sindy Ref and then rejecting Sindy. It really requires a bizarre view of the Scottish people to believe this. Or to put it another way, anybody who believes this has a bizarre view of the Scottish people.
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.
Wallpapergate didn't make the media & Opposition look stupid and petty enough, so now we're back to the PM's holidays...
BUT there was a photo of him in John Lewis and it was retweeted and aren't the Tories so so jolly awful??!?
At Lobby briefing, Boris Johnson’s spokesman justifies voter ID plans by comparing it to using photo ID to "take out a library book" or "pick up a parcel."
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
His credit must be good though, if the pickings of former PMs are anything to go by.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
Yes he could securitise his future earnings I bet GS would package it up for him.
Ditto the memoirs. As we’ve discussed. He could secure a multimillion advance now. Unless it is illegal I don’t know why he doesn’t. Or he could sell his ‘life rights’ to a movie studio. He’d get millions for that as well
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
You're allowed an opinion but if you're blatantly obvious that you're saying something inconsistent with what you believe I'm entitled to call it out.
I don't believe for one second you'd have swallowed the notion that the UK couldn't vote again even if we elected a government pledged to do just that.
No, I really believe this. Brexit and indyref have proved one thing. Referendums on massive constitutional issues are horribly divisive, and leave one side bitterly dismayed, to the point of lunacy. These referendums are necessary evils, but they are evil, and should therefore be allowed very rarely. Once a generation seems right to me (sturgeon and Salmond used to agree). A generation means 15-20 years. Cf Quebec
If we’d voted Remain we’d have done it knowing the EU is a pile of bureaucratic crap run by liars, but obviously membership had enough benefits that we still wanted to be in it.
If, after a Remain vote, the EU then acted like it was run by liars we’d have no grounds for complaint or a revote
I’d tell the Farageists to do one
Saying that you can't change your minds after a vote, especially a referendum, is incredibly undemocratic and dangerous. That's how dictators operate, get a policy passed by referenda then say its irreversible and can't be revisited. Its an enabling act.
If we vote at a general election to revisit the issue then that is grounds for a revote. That is the only grounds we need.
No. Huge constitutional issues can’t be decided this way or that every few years. You make a decision and you stick with it until a new generation comes along that might feel different.
We waited too long for our second EU vote. 40 years of stifled dissent led to the explosion of Brexit
But 7 years is way too soon to have a rethink on breaking up a 300 year old United Kingdom. The 2014 vote demands more respect than that. 15 years minimum. 2030
That's not how democracy works. Can you name any democratic country in the world that allows a vote on something, but then says "that's it for a generation, this issue can't be revisited"?
There is no need to stifle any debate. We have elections every 4-5 years, let people choose their priorities there. If the argument was won in the past, then people choose to revisit it, then the winners need to rewin the argument again - it keeps them honest.
At Lobby briefing, Boris Johnson’s spokesman justifies voter ID plans by comparing it to using photo ID to "take out a library book" or "pick up a parcel."
Solution in search of a problem. Even if the potential for a problem means a solution could be useful, said solutions should be proportionate to the apparent issues, not to the maximum potential issue.
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).
Yep. No way would the voters keep voting for a Sindy Ref and then rejecting Sindy. It really requires a bizarre view of the Scottish people to believe this. Or to put it another way, anybody who believes this has a bizarre view of the Scottish people.
Like seeing a bear crouching in the woods with a toilet roll on a convenient branch adjacent, and claiming it's playing Greensleeves au M. Petomane.
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
You're allowed an opinion but if you're blatantly obvious that you're saying something inconsistent with what you believe I'm entitled to call it out.
I don't believe for one second you'd have swallowed the notion that the UK couldn't vote again even if we elected a government pledged to do just that.
No, I really believe this. Brexit and indyref have proved one thing. Referendums on massive constitutional issues are horribly divisive, and leave one side bitterly dismayed, to the point of lunacy. These referendums are necessary evils, but they are evil, and should therefore be allowed very rarely. Once a generation seems right to me (sturgeon and Salmond used to agree). A generation means 15-20 years. Cf Quebec
If we’d voted Remain we’d have done it knowing the EU is a pile of bureaucratic crap run by liars, but obviously membership had enough benefits that we still wanted to be in it.
If, after a Remain vote, the EU then acted like it was run by liars we’d have no grounds for complaint or a revote
I’d tell the Farageists to do one
Saying that you can't change your minds after a vote, especially a referendum, is incredibly undemocratic and dangerous. That's how dictators operate, get a policy passed by referenda then say its irreversible and can't be revisited. Its an enabling act.
If we vote at a general election to revisit the issue then that is grounds for a revote. That is the only grounds we need.
That's how democracies behave too. See the Athenian Coinage Decree of 447 which provided that anyone who proposed its repeal should be subject to the death penalty, A powerful argument against "yay for Pericles" flag waving.
Solution in search of a problem. Even if the potential for a problem means a solution could be useful, said solutions should be proportionate to the apparent issues, not to the maximum potential issue.
Actually it's an explicit voter disenfranchisement measure, dressed up as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
Apparently one of the things that winds him up is Dave and George's wealth.
The Camerons spent a lot of their own money to improve the flat.
Also the fact the Marina Wheeler took him to the cleaners in the divorce and will also take a huge portion of his future income.
He's going to be a pauper for a long time after he leaves Downing Street.
No he won’t. He’ll make £10m from the memoirs alone. Millions more for ‘life rights’. Huge sums as a speaker. He has one of the most interesting political stories to tell - in the world. The most interesting from a British PM since Churchill.
I don’t care how grievous his divorce settlement is, he’s gonna be worth 10-20m and he’ll be super rich. Just not yet
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
His credit must be good though, if the pickings of former PMs are anything to go by.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
Yes he could securitise his future earnings I bet GS would package it up for him.
Ditto the memoirs. As we’ve discussed. He could secure a multimillion advance now. Unless it is illegal I don’t know why he doesn’t. Or he could sell his ‘life rights’ to a movie studio. He’d get millions for that as well
Partly, I imagine that he would have to declare it, which would be... undignified (how has he got time to spare negotiating book deals when he has a country to run?)
Mostly, it's never been his worldview to store grain in the fat years in anticipation of the lean ones. Which is how he got into this predicament. And negotiating a book deal for his retirement from office... makes his retirement and mortality concrete. None of us like that.
I think we can say that £12k if it was that doesn't get you the best that Mustique can offer...
Yup, I'm looking at going to Mustique now.
I've decided that with no foreign holidays for me in 2020 and 2021 I need to go somewhere new in 2022 (plague permitting off course.)
Well I don't know how you roll in terms of wanting a villa or not but The Cotton House is very good indeed. Exceptional I would go as far as to say. If you like snorkelling it is imo some of the best in the Caribbean.
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
His credit must be good though, if the pickings of former PMs are anything to go by.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
Yes he could securitise his future earnings I bet GS would package it up for him.
Ditto the memoirs. As we’ve discussed. He could secure a multimillion advance now. Unless it is illegal I don’t know why he doesn’t. Or he could sell his ‘life rights’ to a movie studio. He’d get millions for that as well
Partly, I imagine that he would have to declare it, which would be... undignified (how has he got time to spare negotiating book deals when he has a country to run?)
Mostly, it's never been his worldview to store grain in the fat years in anticipation of the lean ones. Which is how he got into this predicament. And negotiating a book deal for his retirement from office... makes his retirement and mortality concrete. None of us like that.
Yes, I agree on both points. Looks bad and reeks of the grave
Solution in search of a problem. Even if the potential for a problem means a solution could be useful, said solutions should be proportionate to the apparent issues, not to the maximum potential issue.
Actually it's an explicit voter disenfranchisement measure, dressed up as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
It's very obviously inspired by the Republicans, a leftover from the list of other broadly and shamelessly Trumpian Cummings-era proposals, last year.
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
Does it ring true? All right, Boris has an expensive lifestyle but he must have been pulling in at least half a million a year, and Marina would have helped out with the school fees. Is Boris really skint or is it a have cake and eat it situation where he wants the lifestyle without dipping into his savings? It is not like he is running a private jet and a garage full of Ferraris.
Solution in search of a problem. Even if the potential for a problem means a solution could be useful, said solutions should be proportionate to the apparent issues, not to the maximum potential issue.
Actually it's an explicit voter disenfranchisement measure, dressed up as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
No it isn't. That is a USA problem which you are trying to transplant from its native soil. It's like BLM; a perfectly valid position over there, but it's silly to pretend this country has an out of control policemen murdering black people problem when it doesn't.
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
His credit must be good though, if the pickings of former PMs are anything to go by.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
Yes he could securitise his future earnings I bet GS would package it up for him.
Stacks of money, lots of attention, hordes of adoring blonde attendees....
At Lobby briefing, Boris Johnson’s spokesman justifies voter ID plans by comparing it to using photo ID to "take out a library book" or "pick up a parcel."
Solution in search of a problem. Even if the potential for a problem means a solution could be useful, said solutions should be proportionate to the apparent issues, not to the maximum potential issue.
Actually it's an explicit voter disenfranchisement measure, dressed up as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
No it isn't. That is a USA problem which you are trying to transplant from its native soil. It's like BLM; a perfectly valid position over there, but it's silly to pretend this country has an out of control policemen murdering black people problem when it doesn't.
Cummings imported the voter ID policy during the Trump era, and it's of that vintage.
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
But they wouldn't get a majority if they ran on a commitment to hold another Sindy vote when they'd only just held one and Sindy had yet again been rejected. These Refs are massive, high energy, disruptive and divisive events. The Scottish people won't be up for a constant stream of them. They'll want a break. If you can't appreciate this, it's more than morally superior I'm feeling.
Whats all this nonsense about the government hinting it may allow us to "hug" again? Aside from indicating we used to live in some kind of hugging cult ( we may have been getting there tbh with media seemingly promoting it for a few years) they are seemignly treating it as though this is the most important lockdown easing measure ever . Have we really become a nation of over emotional wrecks that hugging is the cure for ,coupled with needing the government to tell you you can do it again (if ever the urge struck before?)
I personally (as you can tell) am not a hugger . I do like hand shaking (is this allowed now by the government- who cares) and will occasionally go for a hug if those rare occasions materialise where I think it is the thing to do . TBH I may have done a hug the other week without knowing it was illegal.I am wallowing in guilt now obviously.
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
Apparently one of the things that winds him up is Dave and George's wealth.
The Camerons spent a lot of their own money to improve the flat.
Also the fact the Marina Wheeler took him to the cleaners in the divorce and will also take a huge portion of his future income.
He's going to be a pauper for a long time after he leaves Downing Street.
No he won’t. He’ll make £10m from the memoirs alone. Millions more for ‘life rights’. Huge sums as a speaker. He has one of the most interesting political stories to tell - in the world. The most interesting from a British PM since Churchill.
I don’t care how grievous his divorce settlement is, he’s gonna be worth 10-20m and he’ll be super rich. Just not yet
Let us say he gets £10m, he's going to get taxed a lot on that, the Sunday Times said Ms Wheeler and her kids will get about 40% of that after tax.
He's famously tax inefficient.
He's famously lazy as well which gets him into trouble.
Some MPs and old friends of Johnson blame Symonds — whom they call “Carrie Antoinette” — for the excessive spending on the flat, saying Johnson has little regard for opulent furnishings or clothing. “Boris didn’t really know anything about it until Carrie handed him the bill,” said one Downing Street insider. “She has champagne tastes and a lemonade budget.”
I think we can say that £12k if it was that doesn't get you the best that Mustique can offer...
Yup, I'm looking at going to Mustique now.
I've decided that with no foreign holidays for me in 2020 and 2021 I need to go somewhere new in 2022 (plague permitting off course.)
Well I don't know how you roll in terms of wanting a villa or not but The Cotton House is very good indeed. Exceptional I would go as far as to say. If you like snorkelling it is imo some of the best in the Caribbean.
I like walking on beaches.
I like nice restaurants.
But generally I am not one of life's great outdoorsman.
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
I'm not saying the SNP would "shut up" about Sindy for a generation. Independence for Scotland is their core aspiration and goal. What I'm saying is something different - that the Scottish people will not be up for another Sindy Ref anytime soon if they have one now and vote No again, and that this sentiment will work its way through into their politics in terms of platforms, priorities, and results. The naivety - the jaundiced naivety - is in thinking otherwise.
Not true though is it. How long after 2014 ref did Scots (who want indy) start demanding another ref? Two years? Four? Whatever, the same would happen again. I dislike referenda anyway but it cannot be repeated until the correct result is obtained and this is the SNPs game.
I think we can say that £12k if it was that doesn't get you the best that Mustique can offer...
Yup, I'm looking at going to Mustique now.
I've decided that with no foreign holidays for me in 2020 and 2021 I need to go somewhere new in 2022 (plague permitting off course.)
Well I don't know how you roll in terms of wanting a villa or not but The Cotton House is very good indeed. Exceptional I would go as far as to say. If you like snorkelling it is imo some of the best in the Caribbean.
The Caribbean is effing dull, tho.
If you want somewhere sunny, dull, luxurious and with GREAT snorkeling it’s the Maldives
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
His credit must be good though, if the pickings of former PMs are anything to go by.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
Yes he could securitise his future earnings I bet GS would package it up for him.
Ditto the memoirs. As we’ve discussed. He could secure a multimillion advance now. Unless it is illegal I don’t know why he doesn’t. Or he could sell his ‘life rights’ to a movie studio. He’d get millions for that as well
I wondered about the book deal advance option. Less of a conflict of interest than his mortgages which must be allowed. I can only guess that potentially you are looking quite a few years into the future and he needs the money now, so if he fails to produce or just drops dead in the meantime the money has gone. At least with Mick Jagger who failed to produce they just get the money back and because he had the security there was no risk.
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
I'm not saying the SNP would "shut up" about Sindy for a generation. Independence for Scotland is their core aspiration and goal. What I'm saying is something different - that the Scottish people will not be up for another Sindy Ref anytime soon if they have one now and vote No again, and that this sentiment will work its way through into their politics in terms of platforms, priorities, and results. The naivety - the jaundiced naivety - is in thinking otherwise.
Not true though is it. How long after 2014 ref did Scots (who want indy) start demanding another ref? Two years? Four? Whatever, the same would happen again. I dislike referenda anyway but it cannot be repeated until the correct result is obtained and this is the SNPs game.
Barely a week since Spain's socialist government was trounced in Madrid election and now all 4 national polls since have the Conservative PP ahead - in one poll today by 4.5 points. Previously there has been a very long run with the socialists ahead in every poll. A definite change - I'm tempted to call it the Hartlepool effect!
Solution in search of a problem. Even if the potential for a problem means a solution could be useful, said solutions should be proportionate to the apparent issues, not to the maximum potential issue.
Actually it's an explicit voter disenfranchisement measure, dressed up as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
It's very obviously inspired by the Republicans, a leftover from the list of other broadly and shamelessly Trumpian Cummings-era proposals, last year.
Trump and Cummings are probably innocent OK. Voter suppression goes back a lot further than that. The Americans have been gerrymandering for decades, and CCHQ developed its interest under David Cameron and George Osborne. I think the Cameron-era purge-then-redraw scheme even went the other way across the Atlantic.
I think we can say that £12k if it was that doesn't get you the best that Mustique can offer...
Yup, I'm looking at going to Mustique now.
I've decided that with no foreign holidays for me in 2020 and 2021 I need to go somewhere new in 2022 (plague permitting off course.)
Well I don't know how you roll in terms of wanting a villa or not but The Cotton House is very good indeed. Exceptional I would go as far as to say. If you like snorkelling it is imo some of the best in the Caribbean.
The Caribbean is effing dull, tho.
If you want somewhere sunny, dull, luxurious and with GREAT snorkeling it’s the Maldives
With the sharks, right
I do like the Caribbean for its many facets. Sitting at lunch at the front of the Lone Star having a glass of Minuty and a prawn caesar salad is close to heaven.
I don't see why for the nations in the union why they don't just take it completely out of party hands. Each holyrood election just add to the end of the ballot a yes no question . I want a referendum in this parliament. Then scottish parties can concentrate on doing their day job and a referendum is only held when the people of scotland agree they want one
At Lobby briefing, Boris Johnson’s spokesman justifies voter ID plans by comparing it to using photo ID to "take out a library book" or "pick up a parcel."
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.
Yep. That's the other important point to make. It's the COMBO here which gives overwhelming strength to the argument for a Sindy vote in 22 or 23. The democratic mandate from the election, yes, but also the (enormously) material change in circumstances (from 2014) that is Brexit.
I think we can say that £12k if it was that doesn't get you the best that Mustique can offer...
Yup, I'm looking at going to Mustique now.
I've decided that with no foreign holidays for me in 2020 and 2021 I need to go somewhere new in 2022 (plague permitting off course.)
Well I don't know how you roll in terms of wanting a villa or not but The Cotton House is very good indeed. Exceptional I would go as far as to say. If you like snorkelling it is imo some of the best in the Caribbean.
I like walking on beaches.
I like nice restaurants.
But generally I am not one of life's great outdoorsman.
Well I wouldn't go to Mustique (or anywhere else for that matter) for the hiking.
The Cotton House has "a beach". Mustique is certainly not buzzy and you end up eating mostly on reservation but that is why people go. Most people stay in their villas perhaps making it down to the beach now and again so the island is generally quiet.
If you want buzzy there are plenty of other places in the Caribbean and elsewhere for 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?
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.
You "suspect" that it would be "reasonably likely" after say "a couple of parliaments".
I think we can say that £12k if it was that doesn't get you the best that Mustique can offer...
Yup, I'm looking at going to Mustique now.
I've decided that with no foreign holidays for me in 2020 and 2021 I need to go somewhere new in 2022 (plague permitting off course.)
It's not great, full of security staff and short on bars and restaurants and such. There's better places in the Grenadines.
Hmm I disagree. Yes not many bars and restaurants but surely you don't want that if you are going there.
Not if you are on the villa dinner party circuit. I've only visited off a (not super) yacht for a couple of nights.
Yes absolutely. But that is inter-villa. The Island is not a very "buzzy" place generally, including Basil's. There's just not much there for someone who likes "bars and restaurants".
I think what must be hurting Boris the most is that he's clearly a bit of a pauper. Can't pay for a flat refurbishment, needs to rely on friends to pay for his holidays. It's now been made very public that he's not even nuveau rich.
Apparently one of the things that winds him up is Dave and George's wealth.
The Camerons spent a lot of their own money to improve the flat.
Also the fact the Marina Wheeler took him to the cleaners in the divorce and will also take a huge portion of his future income.
He's going to be a pauper for a long time after he leaves Downing Street.
No he won’t. He’ll make £10m from the memoirs alone. Millions more for ‘life rights’. Huge sums as a speaker. He has one of the most interesting political stories to tell - in the world. The most interesting from a British PM since Churchill.
I don’t care how grievous his divorce settlement is, he’s gonna be worth 10-20m and he’ll be super rich. Just not yet
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
I'm not saying the SNP would "shut up" about Sindy for a generation. Independence for Scotland is their core aspiration and goal. What I'm saying is something different - that the Scottish people will not be up for another Sindy Ref anytime soon if they have one now and vote No again, and that this sentiment will work its way through into their politics in terms of platforms, priorities, and results. The naivety - the jaundiced naivety - is in thinking otherwise.
Not true though is it. How long after 2014 ref did Scots (who want indy) start demanding another ref? Two years? Four? Whatever, the same would happen again. I dislike referenda anyway but it cannot be repeated until the correct result is obtained and this is the SNPs game.
That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying the Scottish people would not keep voting to have a Sindy Ref and then rejecting Sindy. The SNP have to win elections promising a Sindy vote in order to ask for a Sindy vote. And this wouldn't happen. In order to keep winning they'd have to drop the promise. Or they could keep the promise and not win. Their choice.
Comments
Another letter from the army. 75,000 signatures
https://twitter.com/bbcworld/status/1391703194540072962?s=21
Starmer refused to take questions at a meeting with staff today
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/10/labour-reshuffle-keir-starmer-nicola-sturgeon-boris-johnson/
I don't believe for one second you'd have swallowed the notion that the UK couldn't vote again even if we elected a government pledged to do just that.
£15k for a villa in Mustique (I am assuming one week only) doesn't get you very much.
If we’d voted Remain we’d have done it knowing the EU is a pile of bureaucratic crap run by liars, but obviously membership had enough benefits that we still wanted to be in it.
If, after a Remain vote, the EU then acted like it was run by liars we’d have no grounds for complaint or a revote
I’d tell the Farageists to do one
If we vote at a general election to revisit the issue then that is grounds for a revote. That is the only grounds we need.
http://www.midley.co.uk/diorama/Diorama_Wood_3.htm
There's a fascinating book called The Shows of London by R. Altick. All about that stuff and lots more. Used to be as rare as ScoTory MP shite, but (like aforesaid) it has now been reprinted to some extent. Seems like the sort fo thing you would enjoy. Maybe look at it in the library.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shows-London-Belknap-Richard-Altick/dp/0674807316
£12k for rental and £3k for the food and drink/staff.
This villa in Mustique in December for a week is more than 12k in rent.
https://www.vrbo.com/en-gb/p690822vb?adultsCount=2&arrival=2021-12-20&departure=2021-12-27&uni_id=1238760
The notion that MP is a full time job is patently ridiculous when almost every Minister is an MP too.
‘SNP prepared to defy Cameron on a second independence referendum’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/14/snp-prepared-overrule-cameron-second-independence-referendum-scotland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I don’t blame the SNP for doing this. Indy is all they care about. It is their one driving purpose. But you are cluelessly and embarrassingly naive if you think the Nats would not try for a 3rd vote after losing a 2nd. Of course they would. Activists would demand it. Probably take them 18 months to make it official party policy. Again
This is why Westminster has to say No, eventually
Why can't the Scots just keep voting No, until they eventually stop voting SNP? Or vote Yes. That's their choice.
Neither of these things requires photo ID.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1391733451028582406
The Camerons spent a lot of their own money to improve the flat.
Also the fact the Marina Wheeler took him to the cleaners in the divorce and will also take a huge portion of his future income.
He's going to be a pauper for a long time after he leaves Downing Street.
I think his eventual replacement will revert to type.
The party will choose someone very bankmanagery.
You could see him cutting a swathe through America's University lecture circuit when he's done.
Of course something *else* may come along, but taking your examples, I couldn't remember the slow hand clap and the fuel protests - which I can remember vividly as I was working in motorway service station that summer - felt like a bizarre fever dream by the time I was back at Uni. I had mates who appeared to not have even noticed them. You could throw in also from that era - foot and mouth, the army driving green goddesses around the country, protestors being manhandled out of conferences.
We could do a quiz - without looking up, tell me the month and year.
Not everything is going to be bad for the Tories.
Even things that are bad for them may only be in the news for a week.
I don't think anyone will win prizes chasing monthly data points and hounding every story like a dog after a postman.
https://bit.ly/2R6q9ln
We waited too long for our second EU vote. 40 years of stifled dissent led to the explosion of Brexit
But 7 years is way too soon to have a rethink on breaking up a 300 year old United Kingdom. The 2014 vote demands more respect than that. 15 years minimum. 2030
I bet Nadine won’t be going on about posh boys not knowing the price of milk this time.
There is no need to stifle any debate. We have elections every 4-5 years, let people choose their priorities there. If the argument was won in the past, then people choose to revisit it, then the winners need to rewin the argument again - it keeps them honest.
I've decided that with no foreign holidays for me in 2020 and 2021 I need to go somewhere new in 2022 (plague permitting off course.)
I don’t care how grievous his divorce settlement is, he’s gonna be worth 10-20m and he’ll be super rich. Just not yet
Mostly, it's never been his worldview to store grain in the fat years in anticipation of the lean ones. Which is how he got into this predicament. And negotiating a book deal for his retirement from office... makes his retirement and mortality concrete. None of us like that.
https://www.expedia.co.uk/Bequia-Island-Hotels-Twilight-Villa.h20249383.Hotel-Information?chain=&chkin=11/4/2022&chkout=18/4/2022&daysInFuture=&destType=MARKET&destination=Mustique Island, St. Vincent and the Grenadines&group=&guestRating=&hotelName=&latLong=&lodging=VILLA&misId=&neighborhood=&poi=&pwa_ts=1620650286281&referrerUrl=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZXhwZWRpYS5jby51ay9Ib3RlbC1TZWFyY2g=&regionId=11757&rfrr=HSR&rm1=a2&roomIndex=&selected=&semdtl=&sort=RECOMMENDED&stayLength=&theme=&useRewards=false&userIntent=&x_pwa=1
Bit cheaper than £12k.
Like throwing petrol on a fire really.
Fascinating...
Have we really become a nation of over emotional wrecks that hugging is the cure for ,coupled with needing the government to tell you you can do it again (if ever the urge struck before?)
I personally (as you can tell) am not a hugger . I do like hand shaking (is this allowed now by the government- who cares) and will occasionally go for a hug if those rare occasions materialise where I think it is the thing to do . TBH I may have done a hug the other week without knowing it was illegal.I am wallowing in guilt now obviously.
Billings (Lab) 165,442 votes
Chinchen (Con) 98,851
Oten (LD) 42,462
He's famously tax inefficient.
He's famously lazy as well which gets him into trouble.
Some MPs and old friends of Johnson blame Symonds — whom they call “Carrie Antoinette” — for the excessive spending on the flat, saying Johnson has little regard for opulent furnishings or clothing. “Boris didn’t really know anything about it until Carrie handed him the bill,” said one Downing Street insider. “She has champagne tastes and a lemonade budget.”
I like nice restaurants.
But generally I am not one of life's great outdoorsman.
If you want somewhere sunny, dull, luxurious and with GREAT snorkeling it’s the Maldives
https://twitter.com/FormulaNerds/status/1391734359544188931
In tragic news, Monaco is still going ahead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election
NEW THREAD
And I'm lactose intolerant!
Can't people just drink coffee black rather than ruining it with 'oat milk' or whatever.
I do like the Caribbean for its many facets. Sitting at lunch at the front of the Lone Star having a glass of Minuty and a prawn caesar salad is close to heaven.
The Cotton House has "a beach". Mustique is certainly not buzzy and you end up eating mostly on reservation but that is why people go. Most people stay in their villas perhaps making it down to the beach now and again so the island is generally quiet.
If you want buzzy there are plenty of other places in the Caribbean and elsewhere for that.
That is inching towards reality.