Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
It is the government's fault that people are thinking like they are
Johnson & Co themselves framed the debate as the 'safety' of lockdown versus the 'risk' of freedom. They have done that for a year and a half.
Now of course with the debt ballooning and the economy nowhere near full speed, the government are forced to admit this that was a completely false choice.
Far from being 'safe' , long-term restrictions on freedom and businesses are ruinous and utterly reckless gamble with any nation's finance.
The thing is they can hardly point this out when they have been lying through their teeth to the electorate about the real choices we face for f8cking ever.
Codswallop.
It's not the debt or the economy that is the big difference it is that the vaccines have changed things. The vaccines have worked and thanks to that we are now unlocking.
They haven't lied to anyone. The lockdown was to keep people safe until the vaccines were rolled out, well now it's Mission Accomplished.
That wasn't the purpose of the original lockdown. The original lockdown was about trying to prevent the systemic collapse of the NHS due to the potential for a massive peak in cases. Somewhere along the line, this mission-crept to "try and stop people dying whilst we wait for vaccines to turn up". This turns out to have been a fairly good strategy, as the vaccines worked well. Had vaccine development been unsuccessful, it would have been a terrible strategy, all the costs of lockdown, and at the end of it, back to square one anyway.
My biggest worry looking to the future is that one day this sort of crisis may occur again, but the vaccines don't ride to the rescue. How long would it take before the politicians stopped locking us down, even though they would just be delaying the inevitable.
The third lockdown was explicitly linked to rolling out vaccines, which of course had already begun to be rolled out by then.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Er...apart from needing several different acts of Parliament, no that would not be difficult.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
Agree entirely, either we become a genuine Federal UK and add an English Parliament to join those of the other Home Nations or we return to the Union as was and scrap Holyrood, the Senedd and Stormont and return to direct rule by Westminster
Logic failure. There is a third option, as well as the status quo (which has been good enough for Unionists for 100 eyars exactly, vide Stormont).
Stormont didn't exist as an administrative entity between 1974 and 1998.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
No but I do object it to having devolved powers England does not
So why did the Conservative and Unionist Party do precisaely that for Stormont, and why did it not close it down when the time was opportune?
And why have the Conservatives not set up an English Parliament in the last, oh, 100 years? Because that's the length of time that particular anomaly has existed.
Heath's Conservatives closed down Stormont in the early 1970s and imposed direct rule from Westminster which lasted until the 1998 GFA.
If all the devolved parliaments are closed down there is no need for an English Parliament, if however we are to retain them then we do need an English parliament too
The thing that the government got wrong was about 18 months ago, they decided to tell people that a virus which is fairly serious in old people and almost entirely harmless in young people was the new black death.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
The government never said any such thing. If you think it did that is because at least one of your intelligence and your memory is seriously faulty.
You have either not heard of or not understood the implications of the emergence and nature of the delta variant. Everybody, whether they agree with the government's policy or disagree with it, accepts that the policy is high risk. Everybody except you, anyway.
No those with an agenda to push are calling it high risk.
Given the figures on death rates and antibodies there is no more real risk of the NHS being overwhelmed than there ever normally is now.
The government have been farcically cautious in waiting as long as they have and those calling it high risk to proceed now have an agenda to push.
Not so. How hard is it to understand that predictions are hard to make, especially about the future? The NHS is going to take a very large hit in July to save, we hope, a larger hit in winter. We do not know how big a hit, because see the last but one sentence.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Er...apart from needing several different acts of Parliament, no that would not be difficult.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Also the point that the Scottish Episcopal Church has never been part of the C of E (as a few civil wars made clear).
IIRC - and I am no expert on Scottish ecclesiastical history - it was a separate province under the Metropolitan Archbishop of St Andrews.
Unlike say, Wales, where the four medieval dioceses were considered, certainly by the 1130s, to be part of the province of Canterbury.
And, of course, the break with Rome in England (1538) and the reformation in Scotland (1560) both happened before 1603, never mind 1707, so it’s not surprising that the processes and therefore churches remain separate. Henry VIII and even Somerset were no John Knox.
Indeed, it's directly derived from the interactions of the RC and Reformed Kirks - quite independent of the lot down south whose primary role was to sort out Henry VIII's sex life. It can be seen as yet another split from the C of S that decided to keep the bishops unlike the more purely Presbyterian wing.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
I did mention this when Boris Johnson announced his plans.
I understand there is concern in Whitehall over what to do about the sheer number of people expected to be told to isolate in the coming days.
This could be a big problem over next 5 weeks after Sajid Javid announced 10 day quarantine for double jabbed wont end until Aug 16
The Department for Health privately confirmed to others in Whitehall it is looking at the scheme
Chancellor Rishi Sunak confirmed one plan this morning: to make the Covid app bluetooth function less sensitive. There were 356,036 app alerts in England in week to June 30 - up 62%
Look at the stats
In the week to June 30, 135,685 people tested positive
and
281,500 people who had come into contact with Covid patients were identified via NHS Test and Trace and told to isolate
Now imagine 100,000 cases a day as Javid predicted- that's 700,000 a week infected and 1.4 million a week then doing isolation. Curbing app wont help this.
One source said gvt modelling done under Hancock suggested this scale cd potentially compromise transport and healthcare
So what could they do?
Some believe test-to-release will be the answer.
Reports looked good.
Michael Gove benefited after being pinged post Porto holiday
And a pilot scheme in Liverpool found 3200 key worker staff days protected from quarantine
BUT senior government sources tonight downplay that option.
They say test-and-release isn't the focus, and the government is primarily looking at changing the app.
Lets see - given those expected stats - if that holds.
You know the perspex screens in restaurants, offices, etc? Turns out they aren't any good. In fact they're making things worse, according to this article.
"Perspex screens scrapped: Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission. Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped."
Clear guidance. Perspex screens.
Someone is having fun.
But yes, they were a daft idea that made things worse but had a psychological effect to make people feel safe.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
Agree entirely, either we become a genuine Federal UK and add an English Parliament to join those of the other Home Nations or we return to the Union as was and scrap Holyrood, the Senedd and Stormont and return to direct rule by Westminster
The politics of the pandemic, to give just one example, would have been very different with an English Parliament, given that so much of public health policy is devolved, but with the UK PM also in charge of the English response - as well as the UK financial response.
I think the asymmetric nature of devolution both denies the English their own decision-making process (which might become a huge issue at some point in the future) and can be used by the devolved states to stoke their own grievances.
The obvious solution is some sort of constitutional convention, to report in 2023 and be put to a referendum on the same day as the planned GE in 2024.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
No but I do object it to having devolved powers England does not
And does the Government (or any realistic alternative to the Government) have any intention whatsoever of resolving this matter? Of course not.
Once again, there are so many problems that could be resolved by the expedient of breaking up the UK.
No as that would weaken us and our power and strength on the world stage as well as now requiring a hard border at Berwick post Brexit.
Independence can be ruled out, the acceptable alternatives are either full Union as was or an English Parliament with maybe devomax for Holyrood too
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No they weren’t. The same person held both, which is quite different. Just as, for example, from 1714 to 1837* the same person was King of Great Britain and King of Hanover but the two kingdoms were never merged.
Remember, Charles II was declared as King of Scots in February 1649 and he reigned until 1651 while England was a republic, albeit Scotland was the conquered by Cromwell and he was forced to flee.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Nor eyeing up the Sudetenland afaik. Also hosting =/= winning at, so the fact it's at wembley surely means we are already there?
The thing that the government got wrong was about 18 months ago, they decided to tell people that a virus which is fairly serious in old people and almost entirely harmless in young people was the new black death.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
The government never said any such thing. If you think it did that is because at least one of your intelligence and your memory is seriously faulty.
You have either not heard of or not understood the implications of the emergence and nature of the delta variant. Everybody, whether they agree with the government's policy or disagree with it, accepts that the policy is high risk. Everybody except you, anyway.
No those with an agenda to push are calling it high risk.
Given the figures on death rates and antibodies there is no more real risk of the NHS being overwhelmed than there ever normally is now.
The government have been farcically cautious in waiting as long as they have and those calling it high risk to proceed now have an agenda to push.
Not so. How hard is it to understand that predictions are hard to make, especially about the future? The NHS is going to take a very large hit in July to save, we hope, a larger hit in winter. We do not know how big a hit, because see the last but one sentence.
To say that the future is uncertain is a truism but that doesn't make the current path "high risk".
To quote the late Rumsfeld there could of course be some "unknown unknown" that throws us into danger, like the original Covid did at the start of last year, but from the data we have before us both the known knowns and known unknowns show the current path is not high risk.
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
Agree with this. I think the next election is going to feature some very interesting results in prosperous areas of the South. Most of the Tories I know through work are now ex Tories. Things like the "citizens of nowhere" speech went down like a bucket of cold sick on the trading floor. But the media are still engaged in their anthropological expeditions to Leaveland.
Confirmation bias. Given how raw your politics are Tories that disagree with you simply won't talk to you.
I talk to everyone at work. I think it's probably more down to the kind of Tories I meet. I don't encounter Tories outside of work, because they don't really live in my neighbourhood or have kids at local schools and I didn't make friends with any at university and I grew up in Scotland where Tories are a protected species. Tories in my field of work, which is the only place I encounter them apart from on here, tend towards the free maket/pro EU/socially liberal wing so mostly hate the current incarnation of the party. I've never had my political views described as raw before, I'll take that, it's better than half baked or overcooked I suppose!
I missed this earlier. I've worked with people just like you who have prejudiced views to those not on their side of the political spectrum, and are unable to see the other's point of view - preferring to stereotype and hurl insults instead.
In all cases, I was professional and polite with them but avoided talking politics with them and close relationships with them more generally. I think the rest of your post bares this out.
Everyone will have detected this about you and those who agree with you on some issues (like Brexit and Boris) will share it with you to build some sort of rapport, and those who don't will avoid you or keep their mouth shut.
I genuinely don't recognise myself in your description. For one thing, I think you are confusing how people communicate in online forums devoted to vigorous political debate, shorn of the subtleties of in-person human interaction, and how they interact in real life. I think there's a fair amount of projection going on, too, since you are probably one of the most abrasive and thin-skinned people on this site. I recall, for instance, the time you abused my parents and my dead grandparents, solely on the basis of their political views, and ignored completely my request for an apology. Prejudiced, hurling insults, yes; polite and professional, no. I have enjoyed friendships with people across the political spectrum, who knows perhaps IRL we could find common ground, if you could drop the permanent outrage act for just a second.
In support of what Casino says...most at work think I am apolitical I often lambasted for not paying attention to politics. Simple fact is I don't say anything because I work with a corbynista and a rainbow flag waver and I know saying anything just provokes a row at work so I keep quiet and let them spout
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Er...apart from needing several different acts of Parliament, no that would not be difficult.
Easily passed with a Tory majority of 80
You really think there wouldn't be 41 rebellions on that?
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
Hang on, that doesn't work. Surely that was guaranteed when we got the semi finals and final (and Johnson then became PM).
What's needed is a Jesse Owens type moment. Not sure what that would be, though.
Maybe a last minute winner for England with the players taking off their tops to reveal some nasty words directed towards Boris.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Seriously, I do wonder what would happen if the Anglican Chuirch tried such a hostile takeover of its neighbours. I didn't think Charles II was still alive, is he?
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Nor eyeing up the Sudetenland afaik. Also hosting =/= winning at, so the fact it's at wembley surely means we are already there?
I've got plenty of Hugo Boss suits and other Hugo Boss products ready for use.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
Hang on, that doesn't work. Surely that was guaranteed when we got the semi finals and final (and Johnson then became PM).
What's needed is a Jesse Owens type moment. Not sure what that would be, though.
Maybe a last minute winner for England with the players taking off their tops to reveal some nasty words directed towards Boris.
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
I find the idea that the Scottish Government represents an elite class of Scottish politicians to be an interesting suggestion.
Agree with this. I think the next election is going to feature some very interesting results in prosperous areas of the South. Most of the Tories I know through work are now ex Tories. Things like the "citizens of nowhere" speech went down like a bucket of cold sick on the trading floor. But the media are still engaged in their anthropological expeditions to Leaveland.
Confirmation bias. Given how raw your politics are Tories that disagree with you simply won't talk to you.
I talk to everyone at work. I think it's probably more down to the kind of Tories I meet. I don't encounter Tories outside of work, because they don't really live in my neighbourhood or have kids at local schools and I didn't make friends with any at university and I grew up in Scotland where Tories are a protected species. Tories in my field of work, which is the only place I encounter them apart from on here, tend towards the free maket/pro EU/socially liberal wing so mostly hate the current incarnation of the party. I've never had my political views described as raw before, I'll take that, it's better than half baked or overcooked I suppose!
I missed this earlier. I've worked with people just like you who have prejudiced views to those not on their side of the political spectrum, and are unable to see the other's point of view - preferring to stereotype and hurl insults instead.
In all cases, I was professional and polite with them but avoided talking politics with them and close relationships with them more generally. I think the rest of your post bares this out.
Everyone will have detected this about you and those who agree with you on some issues (like Brexit and Boris) will share it with you to build some sort of rapport, and those who don't will avoid you or keep their mouth shut.
I genuinely don't recognise myself in your description. For one thing, I think you are confusing how people communicate in online forums devoted to vigorous political debate, shorn of the subtleties of in-person human interaction, and how they interact in real life. I think there's a fair amount of projection going on, too, since you are probably one of the most abrasive and thin-skinned people on this site. I recall, for instance, the time you abused my parents and my dead grandparents, solely on the basis of their political views, and ignored completely my request for an apology. Prejudiced, hurling insults, yes; polite and professional, no. I have enjoyed friendships with people across the political spectrum, who knows perhaps IRL we could find common ground, if you could drop the permanent outrage act for just a second.
In support of what Casino says...most at work think I am apolitical I often lambasted for not paying attention to politics. Simple fact is I don't say anything because I work with a corbynista and a rainbow flag waver and I know saying anything just provokes a row at work so I keep quiet and let them spout
I have never shared my politics at work.
Nothing to gain from doing so, only people to upset.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Nor eyeing up the Sudetenland afaik. Also hosting =/= winning at, so the fact it's at wembley surely means we are already there?
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Nor eyeing up the Sudetenland afaik. Also hosting =/= winning at, so the fact it's at wembley surely means we are already there?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Seriously, I do wonder what would happen if the Anglican Chuirch tried such a hostile takeover of its neighbours. I didn't think Charles II was still alive, is he?
Considering only 1% of Scots are practicing members of the Episcopal Church and they are already members of the wider Anglican Communion it makes logical sense
Agree with this. I think the next election is going to feature some very interesting results in prosperous areas of the South. Most of the Tories I know through work are now ex Tories. Things like the "citizens of nowhere" speech went down like a bucket of cold sick on the trading floor. But the media are still engaged in their anthropological expeditions to Leaveland.
Confirmation bias. Given how raw your politics are Tories that disagree with you simply won't talk to you.
I talk to everyone at work. I think it's probably more down to the kind of Tories I meet. I don't encounter Tories outside of work, because they don't really live in my neighbourhood or have kids at local schools and I didn't make friends with any at university and I grew up in Scotland where Tories are a protected species. Tories in my field of work, which is the only place I encounter them apart from on here, tend towards the free maket/pro EU/socially liberal wing so mostly hate the current incarnation of the party. I've never had my political views described as raw before, I'll take that, it's better than half baked or overcooked I suppose!
I missed this earlier. I've worked with people just like you who have prejudiced views to those not on their side of the political spectrum, and are unable to see the other's point of view - preferring to stereotype and hurl insults instead.
In all cases, I was professional and polite with them but avoided talking politics with them and close relationships with them more generally. I think the rest of your post bares this out.
Everyone will have detected this about you and those who agree with you on some issues (like Brexit and Boris) will share it with you to build some sort of rapport, and those who don't will avoid you or keep their mouth shut.
I genuinely don't recognise myself in your description. For one thing, I think you are confusing how people communicate in online forums devoted to vigorous political debate, shorn of the subtleties of in-person human interaction, and how they interact in real life. I think there's a fair amount of projection going on, too, since you are probably one of the most abrasive and thin-skinned people on this site. I recall, for instance, the time you abused my parents and my dead grandparents, solely on the basis of their political views, and ignored completely my request for an apology. Prejudiced, hurling insults, yes; polite and professional, no. I have enjoyed friendships with people across the political spectrum, who knows perhaps IRL we could find common ground, if you could drop the permanent outrage act for just a second.
In support of what Casino says...most at work think I am apolitical I often lambasted for not paying attention to politics. Simple fact is I don't say anything because I work with a corbynista and a rainbow flag waver and I know saying anything just provokes a row at work so I keep quiet and let them spout
I have never shared my politics at work.
Nothing to gain from doing so, only people to upset.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Isn't the big man promising us a bank holiday if he wins on Sunday. England only presumably, which suits me as I have appointments Monday.
Although a Nuremberg rally would work too. Socially distanced of course.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
The thing that the government got wrong was about 18 months ago, they decided to tell people that a virus which is fairly serious in old people and almost entirely harmless in young people was the new black death.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
The government never said any such thing. If you think it did that is because at least one of your intelligence and your memory is seriously faulty.
You have either not heard of or not understood the implications of the emergence and nature of the delta variant. Everybody, whether they agree with the government's policy or disagree with it, accepts that the policy is high risk. Everybody except you, anyway.
No those with an agenda to push are calling it high risk.
Given the figures on death rates and antibodies there is no more real risk of the NHS being overwhelmed than there ever normally is now.
The government have been farcically cautious in waiting as long as they have and those calling it high risk to proceed now have an agenda to push.
Not so. How hard is it to understand that predictions are hard to make, especially about the future? The NHS is going to take a very large hit in July to save, we hope, a larger hit in winter. We do not know how big a hit, because see the last but one sentence.
To say that the future is uncertain is a truism but that doesn't make the current path "high risk".
To quote the late Rumsfeld there could of course be some "unknown unknown" that throws us into danger, like the original Covid did at the start of last year, but from the data we have before us both the known knowns and known unknowns show the current path is not high risk.
You know more about delta than anybody else does then, never mind any potential successors.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Seriously, I do wonder what would happen if the Anglican Chuirch tried such a hostile takeover of its neighbours. I didn't think Charles II was still alive, is he?
are you referring to the prayer book controversy of Charles I? Or is there some nuance I have missed?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No they weren’t. The same person held both, which is quite different. Just as, for example, from 1714 to 1837* the same person was King of Great Britain and King of Hanover but the two kingdoms were never merged.
Remember, Charles II was declared as King of Scots in February 1649 and he reigned until 1651 while England was a republic, albeit Scotland was the conquered by Cromwell and he was forced to flee.
*Well, technically 1801.
Yes they were, the crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, just the parliaments of England and Scotland were not merged until 1707. The parliaments of the UK and Hanover were never merged.
Charles II of course returned as King of England and Scotland at the Restoration
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Isn't the big man promising us a bank holiday if he wins on Sunday. England only presumably, which suits me as I have appointments Monday.
Although a Nuremberg rally would work too. Socially distanced of course.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Isn't the big man promising us a bank holiday if he wins on Sunday. England only presumably, which suits me as I have appointments Monday.
Although a Nuremberg rally would work too.
Don’t you need legislation to create bank holidays? And even if not the idea that one could be created at 3 hours notice is, er... bonkers! Unless it wasn’t a “real” bank holiday.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Triumph of the Brill 👍👍👍👍⚽⚽⚽⚽🏴🏴🏴🏴
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
What do you mean, “if”?
Jobs for the boys
The only objection I’d have to the concept of an EP, is not wanting to create yet another few hundred politicians with a few thousand hangers-on. My preference would be for something like EV4EL on steroids, with the English MPs meeting on different days to British MPs, but I can also see how that doesn’t fly with a lot of others.
I think the solution is something like a 500-ish seat EP (based outside London, possibly Birmingham), a 250-ish seat UK Commons elected in a similar way to now, and a 100-seat Lords - with the latter group elected in such a way that there’s both a non-English majority, and cross-party support from each state. Term limit on the Lords too. Extensive tax-raising and borrowing powers for the states, much as in the USA.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Isn't the big man promising us a bank holiday if he wins on Sunday. England only presumably, which suits me as I have appointments Monday.
Although a Nuremberg rally would work too.
Don’t you need legislation to create bank holidays? And even if not the idea that one could be created at 3 hours notice is, er... bonkers! Unless it wasn’t a “real” bank holiday.
Queen can do it via order in council. But the idea that one is arranged with less than eight hours notice is absurd.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No, it was a Personal Union:, two different crowns, one Monarch.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Isn't the big man promising us a bank holiday if he wins on Sunday. England only presumably, which suits me as I have appointments Monday.
Although a Nuremberg rally would work too.
Don’t you need legislation to create bank holidays? And even if not the idea that one could be created at 3 hours notice is, er... bonkers! Unless it wasn’t a “real” bank holiday.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Seriously, I do wonder what would happen if the Anglican Chuirch tried such a hostile takeover of its neighbours. I didn't think Charles II was still alive, is he?
are you referring to the prayer book controversy of Charles I? Or is there some nuance I have missed?
THere's that too, but I was thinking of the attempt to reimpose episcopacy post the counterrevolution in 1659-60 and the ensuing atrocities of the Killing Time.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
What do you mean, “if”?
Jobs for the boys
The only objection I’d have to the concept of an EP, is not wanting to create yet another few hundred politicians with a few thousand hangers-on. My preference would be for something like EV4EL on steroids, with the English MPs meeting on different days to British MPs, but I can also see how that doesn’t fly with a lot of others.
I think the solution is something like a 500-ish seat EP (based outside London, possibly Birmingham), a 250-ish seat UK Commons elected in a similar way to now, and a 100-seat Lords - with the latter group elected in such a way that there’s both a non-English majority, and cross-party support from each state.
None of which is ever going to happen. Either something resembling the current ramshackle arrangements will limp along indefinitely, or it will fall apart. Hopefully the latter. Then we can finally have a quiet life.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No they weren’t. The same person held both, which is quite different. Just as, for example, from 1714 to 1837* the same person was King of Great Britain and King of Hanover but the two kingdoms were never merged.
Remember, Charles II was declared as King of Scots in February 1649 and he reigned until 1651 while England was a republic, albeit Scotland was the conquered by Cromwell and he was forced to flee.
*Well, technically 1801.
Yes they were, the crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, just the parliaments of England and Scotland were not merged until 1707. The parliaments of the UK and Hanover were never merged.
Charles II of course returned as King of England and Scotland at the Restoration
England and Scotland were always named separately.
Charles II had the same style as Charles I, James VI & I and James VII & II By the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.
The monarch of England and the monarch of Scotland was abolished under Queen Anne who became the first Queen of Great Britain. There's never been a King or Queen of England or Scotland since.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
There is more information produced in a single minute on Earth today than surviving historical data about whole centuries. And much of it consists of people like that screaming into their echo chambers desperate for validation. I have more verifiable biographical data at my fingertips about this guy than all of humanity has about Socrates, Plato, Jesus of Nazareth, Carravagio...life on this planet has become so utterly utterly fucked.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No, it was a Personal Union:, two different crowns, one Monarch.
It continued under Charles 1st, Charles IInd, James IInd and William and Mary that all were Head of State of both England and Scotland, until the Parliaments were united too under Anne, it was not merely personal to James
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Isn't the big man promising us a bank holiday if he wins on Sunday. England only presumably, which suits me as I have appointments Monday.
Although a Nuremberg rally would work too.
Don’t you need legislation to create bank holidays? And even if not the idea that one could be created at 3 hours notice is, er... bonkers! Unless it wasn’t a “real” bank holiday.
Queen can do it via order in council. But the idea that one is arranged with less than eight hours notice is absurd.
Yep - bank holidays do actually have consequences in the real world. It’s not just an opportunity for everyone to have a day off. Imagine the chaos it could cause in the financial markets with all the deals settling on that day!
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
No but I do object it to having devolved powers England does not
I really don't understand why we couldn't have a much simpler system than the present one. Westminster is elected as now, but only handles matters not devolved. The national parliaments just comprise the Westminster MPs of each nation. The English parliament could meet in the House of Commons, the others at Holyrood/Cardiff/Stormont. Obviously sittings would be timed so the UK parliament and National Parliaments didn't clash.
This solves a lot of problems - it's like EVEL but equal for each nation. It doesn't require an extra layer of troughing politicians, and solves the problem with parties either sending their also-rans to Westminster (SNP) or Cardiff (all of them apart from PC). I can't see why it shouldn't work, but obviously such a policy would lead to much squealing from some of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish snouts which would get thrown out of the trough.
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No, it was a Personal Union:, two different crowns, one Monarch.
It continued under Charles 1st, Charles IInd, James IInd and William and Mary that all were Head of State of both England and Scotland, until the Parliaments were united too under Anne, it was not merely personal to James
That's not what personal means. 🤦♂️
For an ardent monarchist you really don't understand how the monarchy actually works.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No they weren’t. The same person held both, which is quite different. Just as, for example, from 1714 to 1837* the same person was King of Great Britain and King of Hanover but the two kingdoms were never merged.
Remember, Charles II was declared as King of Scots in February 1649 and he reigned until 1651 while England was a republic, albeit Scotland was the conquered by Cromwell and he was forced to flee.
*Well, technically 1801.
Yes they were, the crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, just the parliaments of England and Scotland were not merged until 1707. The parliaments of the UK and Hanover were never merged.
Charles II of course returned as King of England and Scotland at the Restoration
Sigh.
A personal Union is totally different from a merged crown.
The first is where one person holds two jobs at once. The second is where those jobs are both abolished and become one job.
The Crowns of Scotland and England were legal entities represented by the person of the Sovereign. They still existed independently until 1707 even though one person held both. Just as the crown of Ireland did until 1801. That was why there were two separate parliaments, not the other way around.
I think you are confusing the slang phrase ‘the Union of the crowns’ which is sometimes used to refer to James VI’s accession to the throne of England, with the reality. He was the VI and I for a reason. The reason was he and his son and grandsons all held two crowns.
Albeit, I’ve never yet known you admit you’re wrong even when you’ve been demonstrably talking nonsense - the Straits of Hormuz or your lecturing Richard on what qualifications an engineer need both spring to mind. So I don’t know why I’m bothering.
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
So why did Mr Gove scrub EVEL? That is the simple solution to such a situation, is it not? YOur party brought it in for precisely that reason.
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
So why did Mr Gove scrub EVEL? That is the simple solution to such a situation, is it not? YOur party brought it in for precisely that reason.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
Talking of which:
What, Johnson isn't planning his own celebratory Nuremberg Rally, pillars of light, the works?
Isn't the big man promising us a bank holiday if he wins on Sunday. England only presumably, which suits me as I have appointments Monday.
Although a Nuremberg rally would work too.
Don’t you need legislation to create bank holidays? And even if not the idea that one could be created at 3 hours notice is, er... bonkers! Unless it wasn’t a “real” bank holiday.
Queen can do it via order in council. But the idea that one is arranged with less than eight hours notice is absurd.
Yep - bank holidays do actually have consequences in the real world. It’s not just an opportunity for everyone to have a day off. Imagine the chaos it could cause in the financial markets with all the deals settling on that day!
That’s why you have the Modified Following Day Business Convention. It gets more complicated when a Business Day has multiple jurisdictions and competing holidays, In short it shouldn’t be chaos unless your documentation has been negligently drafted.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
What do you mean, “if”?
Jobs for the boys
The only objection I’d have to the concept of an EP, is not wanting to create yet another few hundred politicians with a few thousand hangers-on. My preference would be for something like EV4EL on steroids, with the English MPs meeting on different days to British MPs, but I can also see how that doesn’t fly with a lot of others.
I think the solution is something like a 500-ish seat EP (based outside London, possibly Birmingham), a 250-ish seat UK Commons elected in a similar way to now, and a 100-seat Lords - with the latter group elected in such a way that there’s both a non-English majority, and cross-party support from each state.
None of which is ever going to happen. Either something resembling the current ramshackle arrangements will limp along indefinitely, or it will fall apart. Hopefully the latter. Then we can finally have a quiet life.
Some of us don’t want a quiet life. We consider ourselves British, have family in both England and Scotland, and don’t wish to see barbed wire stretching between Berwick and Gretna.
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
So why did Mr Gove scrub EVEL? That is the simple solution to such a situation, is it not? YOur party brought it in for precisely that reason.
Gove is a word being with c and ending in unt?
Couldn't possibly comment. But it is odd when suddenly there is all this concern about the poor downtrodden English and their lack of an English Parliament (which the Scots independistas have been telling them to extract digit and sort out for decades now).
The thing that the government got wrong was about 18 months ago, they decided to tell people that a virus which is fairly serious in old people and almost entirely harmless in young people was the new black death.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
The government never said any such thing. If you think it did that is because at least one of your intelligence and your memory is seriously faulty.
You have either not heard of or not understood the implications of the emergence and nature of the delta variant. Everybody, whether they agree with the government's policy or disagree with it, accepts that the policy is high risk. Everybody except you, anyway.
No those with an agenda to push are calling it high risk.
Given the figures on death rates and antibodies there is no more real risk of the NHS being overwhelmed than there ever normally is now.
The government have been farcically cautious in waiting as long as they have and those calling it high risk to proceed now have an agenda to push.
Not so. How hard is it to understand that predictions are hard to make, especially about the future? The NHS is going to take a very large hit in July to save, we hope, a larger hit in winter. We do not know how big a hit, because see the last but one sentence.
To say that the future is uncertain is a truism but that doesn't make the current path "high risk".
To quote the late Rumsfeld there could of course be some "unknown unknown" that throws us into danger, like the original Covid did at the start of last year, but from the data we have before us both the known knowns and known unknowns show the current path is not high risk.
You know more about delta than anybody else does then, never mind any potential successors.
Not really. I know nothing that's not been independently verified by those who know better ranging from MaxPB to Chris Whitty. Please quote anyone sane without an agenda like MaxPB or Chris Whitty etc calling this step "high risk".
Zero Covid extremists are of course calling it high risk, that doesn't make it so.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No they weren’t. The same person held both, which is quite different. Just as, for example, from 1714 to 1837* the same person was King of Great Britain and King of Hanover but the two kingdoms were never merged.
Remember, Charles II was declared as King of Scots in February 1649 and he reigned until 1651 while England was a republic, albeit Scotland was the conquered by Cromwell and he was forced to flee.
*Well, technically 1801.
Yes they were, the crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, just the parliaments of England and Scotland were not merged until 1707. The parliaments of the UK and Hanover were never merged.
Charles II of course returned as King of England and Scotland at the Restoration
Sigh.
A personal Union is totally different from a merged crown.
The first is where one person holds two jobs at once. The second is where those jobs are both abolished and become one job.
The Crowns of Scotland and England were legal entities represented by the person of the Sovereign. They still existed independently until 1707 even though one person held both. Just as the crown of Ireland did until 1801. That was why there were two separate parliaments, not the other way around.
I think you are confusing the slang phrase ‘the Union of the crowns’ which is sometimes used to refer to James VI’s accession to the throne of England, with the reality. He was the VI and I for a reason. The reason was he and his son and grandsons all held two crowns.
Albeit, I’ve never yet known you admit you’re wrong even when you’ve been demonstrably talking nonsense - the Straits of Hormuz or your lecturing Richard on what qualifications an engineer need both spring to mind. So I don’t know why I’m bothering.
Good night all.
The reality was James VI and all his successors were Head of State for both England and Scotland, so for all intents and purposes there was a Union of the Crowns in 1603. Just the union of parliaments did not occur until 1707
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
So why did Mr Gove scrub EVEL? That is the simple solution to such a situation, is it not? YOur party brought it in for precisely that reason.
Gove is a word being with c and ending in unt?
Couldn't possibly comment. But it is odd when suddenly there is all this concern about the poor downtrodden English and their lack of an English Parliament (which the Scots independistas have been telling them to extract digit and sort out for decades now).
Point me at a party I can vote for that advocates it and I will cast a vote
AIUI farmed salmon is roaring back (double(?) by volume, somewhat lower on profitably), but shellfish etc have not done anything like so well if recovered at all.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
So why did Mr Gove scrub EVEL? That is the simple solution to such a situation, is it not? YOur party brought it in for precisely that reason.
About 10 years ago I used to think Gove was fairly sane. These days, he appears to have gone completely nuts - with scrubbing EVEL being just one of his many many stupid actions (although his getting right on board the climate change train is probably going to do more harm to the country and all his other folly put together).
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Own up, who on here is in the 19% wanting a permanent 10pm curfew?
The bigoted young-hating elderly. Of course, none on here.
You hardly sound mad at all. Many of us incredibly old folks have, you know, children, and children of our friends and friends of our children and so on, which takes the edge off a bit. Plus I am far too busy hating immigrants and transsexuals* to give the young the attention they no doubt richly deserve.
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
So why did Mr Gove scrub EVEL? That is the simple solution to such a situation, is it not? YOur party brought it in for precisely that reason.
An English Parliament is a better alternative to EVEL
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Your established church not mine nor the vast majority of the countries
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
As the Sovereign of England is also Sovereign of Scotland no problem her heading both
There is no sovereign of England. Or of Scotland.
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
The crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, 104 years before the United Kingdom was created
No they weren’t. The same person held both, which is quite different. Just as, for example, from 1714 to 1837* the same person was King of Great Britain and King of Hanover but the two kingdoms were never merged.
Remember, Charles II was declared as King of Scots in February 1649 and he reigned until 1651 while England was a republic, albeit Scotland was the conquered by Cromwell and he was forced to flee.
*Well, technically 1801.
Yes they were, the crowns of England and Scotland were merged in 1603, just the parliaments of England and Scotland were not merged until 1707. The parliaments of the UK and Hanover were never merged.
Charles II of course returned as King of England and Scotland at the Restoration
Sigh.
A personal Union is totally different from a merged crown.
The first is where one person holds two jobs at once. The second is where those jobs are both abolished and become one job.
The Crowns of Scotland and England were legal entities represented by the person of the Sovereign. They still existed independently until 1707 even though one person held both. Just as the crown of Ireland did until 1801. That was why there were two separate parliaments, not the other way around.
I think you are confusing the slang phrase ‘the Union of the crowns’ which is sometimes used to refer to James VI’s accession to the throne of England, with the reality. He was the VI and I for a reason. The reason was he and his son and grandsons all held two crowns.
Albeit, I’ve never yet known you admit you’re wrong even when you’ve been demonstrably talking nonsense - the Straits of Hormuz or your lecturing Richard on what qualifications an engineer need both spring to mind. So I don’t know why I’m bothering.
Good night all.
The reality was James VI and all his successors were Head of State for both England and Scotland, so for all intents and purposes there was a Union of the Crowns in 1603. Just the union of parliaments did not occur until 1707
Personal unions of crowns came and went through the ages. Until the union of the Parliaments it was always possible that Scotland and England could diverge again. Just like Mary and Philip were styled King and Queen of Naples/Spain and Jerusalem as well as England, France and Ireland.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
So why did Mr Gove scrub EVEL? That is the simple solution to such a situation, is it not? YOur party brought it in for precisely that reason.
An English Parliament is a better alternative to EVEL
But why are you suddenly saying this? Back in 2014-2020 EVEL: was the masterly seal to victory in indyref 1.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Wow I've seen some absolutely delusional stuff written on Brexit down the years, mainly from Scott, but this puts it all in the shade. 😂😂😂😂
One of the fundamental problems with a separate English Parliament (which is almost entirely unnecessary given that almost all the time (due to its disproportionate size) what England wants England gets, is the same problem that infects Scotland post devolution. That politicians of quality are in short enough supply anyway, and having to spread them further across multiple layers of govt just makes the problem worse. I believe that one of the reasons the SNP have been able to dominate is because they committed their best to the Scottish Parliament, whereas the best in other parties still obviously had ambitions elsewhere.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2023/24 it will almost certainly be in a hung parliament with SNP support but a Tory majority still in England, in which case demand for an English parliament would surge
So why did Mr Gove scrub EVEL? That is the simple solution to such a situation, is it not? YOur party brought it in for precisely that reason.
An English Parliament is a better alternative to EVEL
Is the Government going to replace EVEL with an English Parliament? No.
It's going backwards and making matters worse, not better.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
So you are a regular attender then?
Interesting that hyufd supports an organisation that is so left wing.....
Nothing to gain from doing so, only people to upset.
Not an option for me as people know I got the job because of my Parliamentary background, but I make a fetish of not expressing a view on party political subjects, partly because we work for a charity but mainly because it'd be awkward if we vehemently disagreed. I don't talk politcs with my neighbours either, for the same reason, and that's common among canvassers, who often prefer not to canvass people they know.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
So you are a regular attender then?
Interesting that hyufd supports an organisation that is so left wing.....
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Er. Ever heard of Luitherans? Scottish Presbyterians? Huguenots?
Scotland is now also out of the EU, most French are Catholic still.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
This bank holiday business. Boris is smart. He knows he won't have to make good on the speculation.
I think plenty of people will think it is sending totally the wrong signal. Its a bit like a bad teacher trying to be popular by cancelling school. Trouble is the kids still have to pass the exams. A proper Conservative would praise work, not skiving off. Its why the Shires may well be on the brink of a revolt.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
Wow I've seen some absolutely delusional stuff written on Brexit down the years, mainly from Scott, but this puts it all in the shade. 😂😂😂😂
I will defend scott for once he is never written or pasted a tweet this ridiculous even he has limits of credulity
Whilst we have strayed onto history, there is only one area I am a bit Obsessive orderly and that is in books. It is an ambition to read and own a collection of books on British history ( social as well as political and war stuff) that span the time of say the Romans to present. Ideally I woudl like books to go into detail about a small part of that span but get a full set of books covering the span . The Dominic Sandbrook books cover the fifties to the early eighties and also got the Simon Heffer ones covering the victorian period. Any suggestions to fill any of that span? This is a long term project /obsession of mine!
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
No but I do object it to having devolved powers England does not
I really don't understand why we couldn't have a much simpler system than the present one. Westminster is elected as now, but only handles matters not devolved. The national parliaments just comprise the Westminster MPs of each nation. The English parliament could meet in the House of Commons, the others at Holyrood/Cardiff/Stormont. Obviously sittings would be timed so the UK parliament and National Parliaments didn't clash.
This solves a lot of problems - it's like EVEL but equal for each nation. It doesn't require an extra layer of troughing politicians, and solves the problem with parties either sending their also-rans to Westminster (SNP) or Cardiff (all of them apart from PC). I can't see why it shouldn't work, but obviously such a policy would lead to much squealing from some of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish snouts which would get thrown out of the trough.
The reason that the policy wouldn't work (despite being democratic, neat, and fair in a strictly numerical sense), is that it ignores the Welsh and Scottish sense of nationhood, and the sense, justified or otherwise, that those nations are dominated and constantly in danger of being swallowed up by England.
I think that's why the solution should be a 'Council of the Isles' consisting of the leaders of Scotland, Wales, England, NI, and the UK, to rubber-stamp key foreign policy, defence, and strategic decisions taken by the UK Government and already passed by the UK Parliament. It would be a council that would put the home nations on an equal footing, despite England's demographic dominance.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
Or just admit that this religion malarkey is a load of old bollocks and disband?
Absolutely not, the Church of England should be the backbone of the nation
Gosh you expect to most spineless of christian institutions to be the backbone of the nation....no wonder the nation has been going to pot
It should be that does not mean it is at the moment
No it really shouldn't be faith should have absolutely nothing to do with nation the sooner we disestablish faith from politics the better.
Absolutely not.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
So you are a regular attender then?
Interesting that hyufd supports an organisation that is so left wing.....
Its congregation isn't, 58% of Anglicans voted Tory in 2017 for example compared to only 40% of Catholics who voted Tory, so the Anglican Tory vote is well above the national Tory vote but the Catholic Tory vote slightly below it
Comments
There is a sovereign of the United Kingdom.
If all the devolved parliaments are closed down there is no need for an English Parliament, if however we are to retain them then we do need an English parliament too
I understand there is concern in Whitehall over what to do about the sheer number of people expected to be told to isolate in the coming days.
This could be a big problem over next 5 weeks after Sajid Javid announced 10 day quarantine for double jabbed wont end until Aug 16
The Department for Health privately confirmed to others in Whitehall it is looking at the scheme
Chancellor Rishi Sunak confirmed one plan this morning: to make the Covid app bluetooth function less sensitive. There were 356,036 app alerts in England in week to June 30 - up 62%
Look at the stats
In the week to June 30, 135,685 people tested positive
and
281,500 people who had come into contact with Covid patients were identified via NHS Test and Trace and told to isolate
Now imagine 100,000 cases a day as Javid predicted- that's 700,000 a week infected and 1.4 million a week then doing isolation. Curbing app wont help this.
One source said gvt modelling done under Hancock suggested this scale cd potentially compromise transport and healthcare
So what could they do?
Some believe test-to-release will be the answer.
Reports looked good.
Michael Gove benefited after being pinged post Porto holiday
And a pilot scheme in Liverpool found 3200 key worker staff days protected from quarantine
BUT senior government sources tonight downplay that option.
They say test-and-release isn't the focus, and the government is primarily looking at changing the app.
Lets see - given those expected stats - if that holds.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1413224477450817536
Someone is having fun.
But yes, they were a daft idea that made things worse but had a psychological effect to make people feel safe.
I think the asymmetric nature of devolution both denies the English their own decision-making process (which might become a huge issue at some point in the future) and can be used by the devolved states to stoke their own grievances.
The obvious solution is some sort of constitutional convention, to report in 2023 and be put to a referendum on the same day as the planned GE in 2024.
Independence can be ruled out, the acceptable alternatives are either full Union as was or an English Parliament with maybe devomax for Holyrood too
Remember, Charles II was declared as King of Scots in February 1649 and he reigned until 1651 while England was a republic, albeit Scotland was the conquered by Cromwell and he was forced to flee.
*Well, technically 1801.
To quote the late Rumsfeld there could of course be some "unknown unknown" that throws us into danger, like the original Covid did at the start of last year, but from the data we have before us both the known knowns and known unknowns show the current path is not high risk.
There is a secondary reason why England wouldn’t benefit from an English Parliament is that within the U.K. Parliament they control the purse strings. Scotland (and Northern Ireland, Wales) may benefit from things like the Barnett formula, but ultimately it is only the U.K. Parliament that can determine if the overall pot should be increased. If the U.K. Parliament suddenly decides that it needs to increase NHS spending by 10bn it can do so. Scotland may benefit disproportionally from that, but they can’t initiate it in the first place.
Don't be ridiculous.
What's needed is a Jesse Owens type moment. Not sure what that would be, though.
Maybe a last minute winner for England with the players taking off their tops to reveal some nasty words directed towards Boris.
Nothing to gain from doing so, only people to upset.
"The nation."
Although a Nuremberg rally would work too. Socially distanced of course.
Euro 2020: England charged by UEFA after 'laser' penalty incident
Charles II of course returned as King of England and Scotland at the Restoration
👍👍👍👍⚽⚽⚽⚽🏴🏴🏴🏴
I think the solution is something like a 500-ish seat EP (based outside London, possibly Birmingham), a 250-ish seat UK Commons elected in a similar way to now, and a 100-seat Lords - with the latter group elected in such a way that there’s both a non-English majority, and cross-party support from each state. Term limit on the Lords too. Extensive tax-raising and borrowing powers for the states, much as in the USA.
Charles II had the same style as Charles I, James VI & I and James VII & II By the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.
The monarch of England and the monarch of Scotland was abolished under Queen Anne who became the first Queen of Great Britain. There's never been a King or Queen of England or Scotland since.
Westminster is elected as now, but only handles matters not devolved.
The national parliaments just comprise the Westminster MPs of each nation.
The English parliament could meet in the House of Commons, the others at Holyrood/Cardiff/Stormont. Obviously sittings would be timed so the UK parliament and National Parliaments didn't clash.
This solves a lot of problems - it's like EVEL but equal for each nation. It doesn't require an extra layer of troughing politicians, and solves the problem with parties either sending their also-rans to Westminster (SNP) or Cardiff (all of them apart from PC).
I can't see why it shouldn't work, but obviously such a policy would lead to much squealing from some of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish snouts which would get thrown out of the trough.
For an ardent monarchist you really don't understand how the monarchy actually works.
A personal Union is totally different from a merged crown.
The first is where one person holds two jobs at once. The second is where those jobs are both abolished and become one job.
The Crowns of Scotland and England were legal entities represented by the person of the Sovereign. They still existed independently until 1707 even though one person held both. Just as the crown of Ireland did until 1801. That was why there were two separate parliaments, not the other way around.
I think you are confusing the slang phrase ‘the Union of the crowns’ which is sometimes used to refer to James VI’s accession to the throne of England, with the reality. He was the VI and I for a reason. The reason was he and his son and grandsons all held two crowns.
Albeit, I’ve never yet known you admit you’re wrong even when you’ve been demonstrably talking nonsense - the Straits of Hormuz or your lecturing Richard on what qualifications an engineer need both spring to mind. So I don’t know why I’m bothering.
Good night all.
Zero Covid extremists are of course calling it high risk, that doesn't make it so.
AIUI farmed salmon is roaring back (double(?) by volume, somewhat lower on profitably), but shellfish etc have not done anything like so well if recovered at all.
Indeed arguably the fact the Church of England is our established church is part of the origin for Brexit, it was the break with Rome under the Reformation and Papal authority which marked England as distinct from most of the rest of the continent
These days, he appears to have gone completely nuts - with scrubbing EVEL being just one of his many many stupid actions (although his getting right on board the climate change train is probably going to do more harm to the country and all his other folly put together).
*not
It's going backwards and making matters worse, not better.
If Freedom Day gets altered in anyway, some people on here are going to explode harder than Owen Jones did when Labour didn't lose in B&S.
@qz
·
2h
Thread Thread
A new Covid-19 variant is now on the radar of several countries.
The Lambda variant, or C.37, believed to have originated from Peru, was designated as a “variant of interest” by the
@WHO
on June 14.
Roughly. Very roughly.
Lutheranism is strong in Scandinavia and Norway, which is also not in the EU and other Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are outside the Eurozone.
Lutheranism has a significant presence in northern Germany too but Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in Germany
I think that's why the solution should be a 'Council of the Isles' consisting of the leaders of Scotland, Wales, England, NI, and the UK, to rubber-stamp key foreign policy, defence, and strategic decisions taken by the UK Government and already passed by the UK Parliament. It would be a council that would put the home nations on an equal footing, despite England's demographic dominance.
http://www.brin.ac.uk/religious-affiliation-and-party-choice-at-the-2017-general-election/