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.
*not
If you think the 19% wanting permanent curfews after 10pm are the young, feel free to convince yourself.
‘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. 😂😂😂😂
Historically he has a point. The rather falstuan pact between the reformers and Henry the 8th to break with Rome set in motion at lot of that which ultimately defines the English identity.
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:
You know he has just spent the last five years boring everyone sh1tless about what a bad idea Brexit is and scanning over every announcement on sausages and shellfish exports to justify his single-minded obsession. Makes me laugh.
‘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
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.
Precisely the point, where its people we know we rein in our opinions, as do they in order to rub along well. Last time I let them lose was a couple of new years ago and I ended up walking out of the new years party which its been the same group for 20 years. It was just after the shootings in the church in america where the security was armed and took down the attackers and the host couldn't keep a muzzle on and was ranting about why were the security guards carrying guns in a church. I tried reasonable responses saying things like "well churches are targets" he wasn't having any of it. To him it was how dare security at a church be armed....not well if they hadnt been a lot more people would have died
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
‘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. 😂😂😂😂
Historically he has a point. The rather falstuan pact between the reformers and Henry the 8th to break with Rome set in motion at lot of that which ultimately defines the English identity.
Yes and while 60% of British Anglicans voted for Brexit, over 50% of British Catholics voted to Remain in the EU, so the legacy of the Reformation still stands today in Brexit
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.
Sajid Javid "uncharted territory". Chris Whitty "inevitably some degree of uncertainty". Both this week. Are you living in some alternative time stream?
‘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.
Actually of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (and her other realms and territories)
‘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. 😂😂😂😂
Historically he has a point. The rather falstuan pact between the reformers and Henry the 8th to break with Rome set in motion at lot of that which ultimately defines the English identity.
Not sure where this thread erupted from.
Speculation - how bad would the English Civil War have been without the Reformation?
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.
Sajid Javid "uncharted territory". Chris Whitty "inevitably some degree of uncertainty". Both this week. Are you living in some alternative time stream?
No I agree with both of them. It is uncharted territory and there is some degree of uncertainty.
That is not the same as saying "high risk". High risk means something different to some degree of uncertainty.
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
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.
We were assured by experts in the field that it was impossible to export fish into the EU from outside it.
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
Like many a good backbencher though, Nick's worked hard to achieve that. So he could be loyal to Blair and loyal to Corbyn. 😉
‘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
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
I personally try to avoid politics (certainly party political stuff ) at work not least because i manage people and feel unfair if my views get more traction or respect because of that when it is not related to work. Most people at least pretend to agree with the boss so no need to extend this to the boss's politics imo.
That said happy to argue at senior leadership meetings for organisational decisions based on my instinct sometimes which can stray into politics if not party politics .That I see more of a duty tbh.Sometimes I get my way other times I don't which is fine but no use in being in senior management if you don't argue what you believe in
‘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. 😂😂😂😂
Historically he has a point. The rather falstuan pact between the reformers and Henry the 8th to break with Rome set in motion at lot of that which ultimately defines the English identity.
Not sure where this thread erupted from.
Speculation - how bad would the English Civil War have been without the Reformation?
The English bit or the whole thing? In Scotland it started with Charles I trying to apply Henry VIII's personal papacy setup to the Scottish Reformation. So it certainly all kicked off because of the Reformation - or rather because of the C of E (which is a catholic church, but I'm not going to start that particualr hare again cos it is my bedtime).
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.
If the ones on fast food counters stop other customers' saliva getting onto my food, let them stay. Likewise in pubs, given the placement of beer taps.
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
It's amazing people getting cancelled for wanting low taxes.
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
‘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. 😂😂😂😂
Historically he has a point. The rather falstuan pact between the reformers and Henry the 8th to break with Rome set in motion at lot of that which ultimately defines the English identity.
Not sure where this thread erupted from.
Speculation - how bad would the English Civil War have been without the Reformation?
The English bit or the whole thing? In Scotland it started with Charles I trying to apply Henry VIII's personal papacy setup to the Scottish Reformation. So it certainly all kicked off because of the Reformation - or rather because of the C of E (which is a catholic church, but I'm not going to start that particualr hare again cos it is my bedtime).
I actually meant the English bit - did not study the Scottish history of that period before I moved on to sane subjects at about 14
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!
If you'd be willing to extend it to Europe for the interwar years, Zara Steiner's Lights that failed/The triumph of the dark are perhaps the best detailed surveys I have read.
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
It's amazing people getting cancelled for wanting low taxes.
Well indeed.
On social issues I'm fairly what you could call "woke" but over the years I've been called heartless, evil, a murderer and more for wanting low taxes.
Going into Tory Conference its not been unusual to be spat at.
‘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. 😂😂😂😂
Historically he has a point. The rather falstuan pact between the reformers and Henry the 8th to break with Rome set in motion at lot of that which ultimately defines the English identity.
Not sure where this thread erupted from.
Speculation - how bad would the English Civil War have been without the Reformation?
The English bit or the whole thing? In Scotland it started with Charles I trying to apply Henry VIII's personal papacy setup to the Scottish Reformation. So it certainly all kicked off because of the Reformation - or rather because of the C of E (which is a catholic church, but I'm not going to start that particualr hare again cos it is my bedtime).
I actually meant the English bit - did not study the Scottish history of that period before I moved on to sane subjects at about 14
Well, a lot of it was Puritan/Independent vs High Church types in England. I need to read up more on that aspect myself - been reading about the Independent's Westcountry successors in later years.
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
‘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).
The Established Church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) not the Scottish Episcopal, which is actually the only the third largest church (after Cof S and RC).
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
So essentially out in the world you're a bulging pressure cooker that comes to places like this to EXPLODE?
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.
*not
If you think the 19% wanting permanent curfews after 10pm are the young, feel free to convince yourself.
Probably a good chunk of the 19 per cent wanting permanent curfews do not know what the word curfew means or were otherwise confused by the question. Unlike the French, we never had a curfew and nor has there been much agitation for one.
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
It's amazing people getting cancelled for wanting low taxes.
Supporting Brexit is enough to get you cancelled in some arty circles, by itself. You'd be mad to broadcast that opinion
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
Like many a good backbencher though, Nick's worked hard to achieve that. So he could be loyal to Blair and loyal to Corbyn. 😉
Nick’s a good egg. He and I likely agree on almost nothing, but always politely and fairly.
It’s also good to see former MPs quietly lobbying on behalf of a small animal welfare charity - rather than Oxfam, Facebook, Putin and Xi, which appear to be somewhat more common endeavours of those recently defeated at the ballot box.
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
Like many a good backbencher though, Nick's worked hard to achieve that. So he could be loyal to Blair and loyal to Corbyn. 😉
Nick’s a good egg. He and I likely agree on almost nothing, but always politely and fairly.
It’s also good to see former MPs quietly lobbying on behalf of a small animal welfare charity - rather than Oxfam, Facebook, Putin and Xi, which appear to be somewhat more common endeavours of those recently defeated at the ballot box.
Indeed, to be clear I was joking hence the wink emoji.
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
I love it, it's one of the most enjoyable things about elections in the UK, that vast resevoir of quiet patriotic right-wing voters that gives the like of Corbyn a kicking.
‘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).
The Established Church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) not the Scottish Episcopal, which is actually the only the third largest church (after Cof S and RC).
On a point of PBV pedantry, the C of S was disestablished in 1929 (in a bit of a fuidge admittedly).
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.
*not
If you think the 19% wanting permanent curfews after 10pm are the young, feel free to convince yourself.
I don't have to convince myself, I can see what the poll says
"Interestingly, while COVID is still seen as a risk support for restrictions tends to be stronger among older age groups, but that age difference disappears when we ask about support for restrictions remaining in place permanently (and if anything, older groups actually become more opposed)." Ipsos own commentary
‘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?
Every Sunday at 8am unless away
You're recently wed. Don't you have other stuff to be doing on a Sunday morning?
Oh for the simpler times of early June when Delta was just a localised Bolton bump that was basically over.
Panic ye not. The rising hospital inpatient figures are merely reflective of the tally of the bedridden sick increasing from very low to low in a greater number of localities than was previously the case. This is of no comfort to the sick themselves, of course, but for wider society the vaccines are working and things are continuing to go well.
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Some certainly think or thought so, including Dr Paisley.
Indeed for some Brexiteers the EU aimed to finish off what Philip IInd and the Armada were unable to complete in 1588.
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.
Sajid Javid "uncharted territory". Chris Whitty "inevitably some degree of uncertainty". Both this week. Are you living in some alternative time stream?
No I agree with both of them. It is uncharted territory and there is some degree of uncertainty.
That is not the same as saying "high risk". High risk means something different to some degree of uncertainty.
So, to cash the metaphor, travelling in country without a map because nobody has yet made one is only low or medium risk behaviour, is it? Bearing in mind that the person saying this, like everybody who ever said anything, "has an agenda" - in this case, to minimise the risk involved?
‘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?
Every Sunday at 8am unless away
You're recently wed. Don't you have other stuff to be doing on a Sunday morning?
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
Like many a good backbencher though, Nick's worked hard to achieve that. So he could be loyal to Blair and loyal to Corbyn. 😉
Nick’s a good egg. He and I likely agree on almost nothing, but always politely and fairly.
It’s also good to see former MPs quietly lobbying on behalf of a small animal welfare charity - rather than Oxfam, Facebook, Putin and Xi, which appear to be somewhat more common endeavours of those recently defeated at the ballot box.
I don't doubt Nick's own deeply held convictions for a second, but the vegetarian/vegan agenda is an extremely 'common endeavour' with ex and current politicians, and fills the coffers of American agribusiness, or of course it wouldn't get half the airtime it does.
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
I love it, it's one of the most enjoyable things about elections in the UK, that vast resevoir of quiet patriotic right-wing voters that gives the like of Corbyn a kicking.
One of the highlights of the 2019 election was the Novara Media live channel, where they had totally convinced themselves that, as they had ‘never’ met any Tories, Corbyn was going to win a landslide.
The penny finally dropped about 3am, when one of the female contributors said something like “Are we just a bunch of posh c***ts talking to each other?”
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Some certainly think or thought so, including Dr Paisley.
Indeed for some Brexiteers the EU aimed to finish off what Philip IInd and the Armada were unable to complete in 1588.
The tables for this poll are amazing reading. Firstly, there is surprisingly little age (or any demographic) gradient in most of the answers - the exact opposite of my expectations.
But there are some exceptions, including the question on permanently closing casinos and nightclubs. Old people strongly oppose, but a plurality of 16-24 year olds support! I trust this means that a lot of people in nightclubs secretly hate their friends for forcing them to go and want an excuse to never go again.
Oh for the simpler times of early June when Delta was just a localised Bolton bump that was basically over.
Panic ye not. The rising hospital inpatient figures are merely reflective of the tally of the bedridden sick increasing from very low to low in a greater number of localities than was previously the case. This is of no comfort to the sick themselves, of course, but for wider society the vaccines are working and things are continuing to go well.
I am more poking fun at the very confident pronouncements made on here in early June.
Scotland (at 385 currently) is about to go past double the level of hospital patients that someone predicted it would top out at on here.
What I love about the confident "covid is over" predictions is how often they have been made by the same people with the same level of confidence every time.
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
Like many a good backbencher though, Nick's worked hard to achieve that. So he could be loyal to Blair and loyal to Corbyn. 😉
Nick’s a good egg. He and I likely agree on almost nothing, but always politely and fairly.
It’s also good to see former MPs quietly lobbying on behalf of a small animal welfare charity - rather than Oxfam, Facebook, Putin and Xi, which appear to be somewhat more common endeavours of those recently defeated at the ballot box.
Indeed, to be clear I was joking hence the wink emoji.
I like you both too! Generally we're all pretty amicable on PB these days, aren't we, except for MalcolmG doing his thing?
Also, if we agree on the basics like fairness and democracy, it doesn't really matter if we have different views on taxation or railway ownership or even wokeness. Vive la difference, as we Europeans say.
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Some certainly think or thought so, including Dr Paisley.
Indeed for some Brexiteers the EU aimed to finish off what Philip IInd and the Armada were unable to complete in 1588.
It has been interesting listening to the chat about different churches.
Those who think that the setups are not influential on the wider society are some way off in my view - they provide the model, and perhaps a conduit through history, for a lot of the 'plumbing'. Though there were also significant differences earlier than the Reformation.
It's quite an interesting comparison between the CofE and the Episopalians in the USA (whatever they are calling themselves these days).
Like political systems - as ever the Americans are convinced they are the cutting edge of progress, whilst preserving many antiquated values and habits and some things that everybody else pretty much outgrew centuries ago. Grand Juries, ffs?
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.
In the arts - from humble flint-knappers to grand theatrical types - all the leftwingers/Remainers loudly proclaim their politics, while the rightwingers stay quiet and low profile, and never venture an opinion, in case they get cancelled
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
When I worked in the Civil Service for a couple of years, it was the first time I had heard party politics brought up openly . Obviously the ones who gobbed off were anti tories and usually hard left and i noticed a lot of people were reluctant to go against it . i thought it a bit off frankly
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Some certainly think or thought so, including Dr Paisley.
Indeed for some Brexiteers the EU aimed to finish off what Philip IInd and the Armada were unable to complete in 1588.
Mm, thanks. Interesting to see that the Speccy agreed, or at least pubvlished that thesis.
The irony being that Brexit begat PM Boris, who we have been led to understand actually is a Papist PM.
Nobody expects...
Do you know, it hadn't occurred to me to wonder how that might have influenced the attitudes of certain elements in NI to Mr Johnson (Mr Blair kept it a lot quieter, I've been rold here for precisely that reason). Though there is plenty already to be going on 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
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?
Every Sunday at 8am unless away
You're recently wed. Don't you have other stuff to be doing on a Sunday morning?
Not in the morning no and my wife is a chaplain
We have had false dawns in the past and I have held my fire, but I'm calling it now: that post is peak PB.
New chap ran out with the running club this evening who I ran with for a couple of miles en route, asked him if he played any other sports, turned out he just signed for a new club https://twitter.com/Harveygilmour48
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
‘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?
Every Sunday at 8am unless away
Fair play
Every Sunday at 11am for me save for the 4th Sunday which is Evensong and is 6pm in Summer and 4pm in Winter.
‘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?
Every Sunday at 8am unless away
Fair play
Every Sunday at 11am for me save for the 4th Sunday which is Evensong and is 6pm in Summer and 4pm in Winter.
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
Like many a good backbencher though, Nick's worked hard to achieve that. So he could be loyal to Blair and loyal to Corbyn. 😉
Nick’s a good egg. He and I likely agree on almost nothing, but always politely and fairly.
It’s also good to see former MPs quietly lobbying on behalf of a small animal welfare charity - rather than Oxfam, Facebook, Putin and Xi, which appear to be somewhat more common endeavours of those recently defeated at the ballot box.
Indeed, to be clear I was joking hence the wink emoji.
I like you both too! Generally we're all pretty amicable on PB these days, aren't we, except for MalcolmG doing his thing?
Also, if we agree on the basics like fairness and democracy, it doesn't really matter if we have different views on taxation or railway ownership or even wokeness. Vive la difference, as we Europeans say.
Interesting that the extremes have gone. I guess on PB there were never the holders of those views, but rather the reaction to them.
Do you know, it hadn't occurred to me to wonder how that might have influenced the attitudes of certain elements in NI to Mr Johnson (Mr Blair kept it a lot quieter, I've been rold here for precisely that reason). Though there is plenty already to be going on there.
I did hear that the DUP took a dislike to Boris Johnson way back to the referendum, apparently he appeared to be disorganised, and made incorrect statements about Norn Iron/Ireland.
On a moral level they despised him for the frequent abortions he has participated in and his general lack of moral hygiene.
New chap ran out with the running club this evening who I ran with for a couple of miles en route, asked him if he played any other sports, turned out he just signed for a new club https://twitter.com/Harveygilmour48
Is he not doing enough running in pre-season training for his liking? Is he some sort of Forest Gump?
Do you know, it hadn't occurred to me to wonder how that might have influenced the attitudes of certain elements in NI to Mr Johnson (Mr Blair kept it a lot quieter, I've been rold here for precisely that reason). Though there is plenty already to be going on there.
I did hear that the DUP took a dislike to Boris Johnson way back to the referendum, apparently he appeared to be disorganised, and made incorrect statements about Norn Iron/Ireland.
On a moral level they despised him for the frequent abortions he has participated in and his general lack of moral hygiene.
The more you think about it, the bigger the DUP's own goal looks.
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
Like many a good backbencher though, Nick's worked hard to achieve that. So he could be loyal to Blair and loyal to Corbyn. 😉
Nick’s a good egg. He and I likely agree on almost nothing, but always politely and fairly.
It’s also good to see former MPs quietly lobbying on behalf of a small animal welfare charity - rather than Oxfam, Facebook, Putin and Xi, which appear to be somewhat more common endeavours of those recently defeated at the ballot box.
Indeed, to be clear I was joking hence the wink emoji.
I like you both too! Generally we're all pretty amicable on PB these days, aren't we, except for MalcolmG doing his thing?
Also, if we agree on the basics like fairness and democracy, it doesn't really matter if we have different views on taxation or railway ownership or even wokeness. Vive la difference, as we Europeans say.
I would say most agree on fairness and democracy. The trouble is our definitions of fairness and democracy differ. I get very annoyed when people talk for example of "paying a fair tax" not because I necessarily disagree that people should pay a fair tax but because I am pretty sure my definition of fair and theirs will differ wildly. When you say fair it is meaningless whether its you saying it or me saying it. Give figures if for example you think a fair tax is everyone earning over 30k should pay 90% income tax its very different to me thinking everyone earning over 30k should pay 30% and thats a fair tax. Fair in this context is a term we agree on but a term without meaning
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Some certainly think or thought so, including Dr Paisley.
Indeed for some Brexiteers the EU aimed to finish off what Philip IInd and the Armada were unable to complete in 1588.
Mm, thanks. Interesting to see that the Speccy agreed, or at least pubvlished that thesis.
The irony being that Brexit begat PM Boris, who we have been led to understand actually is a Papist PM.
Nobody expects...
I’d forgotten about the revelation of BJ’s conversion to Catholicism, seems like an age ago. Presumably he’ll wear this new skin with all the conviction and sincerity he brings to the others.
‘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 main problem with that idea is FPTP. There would be periods when the majorities in the devolved Parliaments would be absurd. I think there might be alternative electoral systems that would solve that problem.
It would be interesting to have the First Minister of Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland/England share the same chamber as the UK PM on UK sitting days.
Listening to the review of foreign sport media of England team performance.... apparently many countries press are very negative about the style of England play and why so many of the talented players aren't playing...and that there is some giant conspiracy between UEFA and England....other than the French, who have generally been positive. Something isn't right in the world!
Do you know, it hadn't occurred to me to wonder how that might have influenced the attitudes of certain elements in NI to Mr Johnson (Mr Blair kept it a lot quieter, I've been rold here for precisely that reason). Though there is plenty already to be going on there.
I did hear that the DUP took a dislike to Boris Johnson way back to the referendum, apparently he appeared to be disorganised, and made incorrect statements about Norn Iron/Ireland.
On a moral level they despised him for the frequent abortions he has participated in and his general lack of moral hygiene.
The DUP would almost certainly abstain in 2023/24 now if there was a hung parliament, even if that meant Starmer became PM (Starmer would in any case align more closely to the SM and CU removing the Irish Sea border by default).
They would not prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017.
As I have said before and as OGH has pointed out the Tories have to win another outright majority at the next general election to stay in power
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!
Do you know, it hadn't occurred to me to wonder how that might have influenced the attitudes of certain elements in NI to Mr Johnson (Mr Blair kept it a lot quieter, I've been rold here for precisely that reason). Though there is plenty already to be going on there.
I did hear that the DUP took a dislike to Boris Johnson way back to the referendum, apparently he appeared to be disorganised, and made incorrect statements about Norn Iron/Ireland.
On a moral level they despised him for the frequent abortions he has participated in and his general lack of moral hygiene.
The more you think about it, the bigger the DUP's own goal looks.
Yup, I do have a former tutor who is convinced that the DUP would have been so pro EU/EC if the founding treaty was called anything but the Treaty of Rome.
We forget Ian Paisley's anti Catholic bigotry.
"I denounce you, Anti-Christ! I refuse you as Christ's enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine" - [Paisley] addressing Pope John Paul II on a visit to the European Parliament October 1988.
This Romish man of sin is now in hell! - Paisley on the death of Pope John XXIII
35% want a permanent requirement of 10 days' quarantine for anyone "returning from abroad", regardless of any Covid-19 risk. That would stop me going abroad - at least until the day I decide I don't want to live in a country with so many people who think that way, and I leave never to return. Presumably it would apply to foreigners arriving in Britain too, so basically nobody would come on holiday here any more. And 19% want a permanent curfew after 10pm, again regardless of any Covid-19 risk. As for "vaccine passports" - supported as a permanent measure by 46% of respondents - what on earth is the point of them if there is no risk from the disease that was vaccinated against? I realise that's a massive great hairy Spartan "if", but that was the explicit premise of the pollsters' question.
Covid 19-84!
Is there a regional breakdown? Surely those figures aren't so high in Britain's "global" capital city?
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
Denmark and Sweden are not in the Eurozone, Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU at all and all are mainly Lutheran. Catholicism is still the main religion in Germany.
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Is that not because they know they have to switch sometime and currently they get a grant and probably the type of people you know buy brand new every 3 years anyway?
Speaking of Ireland, they held the Dublin Bay South by-election today. STV is used, and aiui the count tomorrow will be livestreamed (not sure where, and I won't be watching it).
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
You know the feeling you get when something seems to have changed in everyday life but it is too late to ask why or when it happened for fear of looking stupid well I have this with the country that I was happily calling the Czech Republic until noticing the word Czechia appearing on here more and more frequently ? Is the name change official then - am I so last decade on this?
Quite. And even if people disagree on the second sentence, everyone will be able to find something they support that shows the first sentence is true. Following isn't leading. We criticise those who slavishly chase poll ratings after all, because there's more to governance than that.
Channel Four broadcasting the 1966 final in full colour on Saturday is a great shout. But I hope they don’t bottle it - Matterface has to record an alternative commentary. ‘Some people are the the pitch. 9 of them I think. Or is it 10? Oh it’s over’
The overton window has been seriously shifted by covid.....be interesting to see what other areas of life / views have shifted.
The environment.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
I wonder if that reaches the wallet of the individuals concerned?
Yup, plenty of them are buying/ordering electric vehicles.
That 1% BIK isn’t going to last forever!
Is that not because they know they have to switch sometime and currently they get a grant and probably the type of people you know buy brand new every 3 years anyway?
The group of people overwhelmingly buying electric cars, are the self-employed or those who own a business. The cost of lease plus BIK (company car tax) on a £90k Porsche Taycan, is roughly the same as on a £35k Golf GTI, if you’re a 40% taxpayer.
‘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
So the EU is basically a papist institution. I'm glad we've got that sorted.
Except Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia are all mostly Lutheran as is much of Germany, while the Netherlands is mostly Calvinist, and Bulgaria and Romania are Orthodox, There are large protestant minorities in Czechia and Hungary too. So the idea that GBNI is some kind of unique Protestant hold out is rubbish.
You know the feeling you get when something seems to have changed in everyday life but it is too late to ask why or when it happened for fear of looking stupid well I have this with the country that I was happily calling the Czech Republic until noticing the word Czechia appearing on here more and more frequently ? Is the name change official then - am I so last decade on this?
I used Czechia rather than The Czech Republic when posting Euro 2020 prices simply because it made the table a bit neater if every country had a one word name of a reasonable length. I used to work with Czech colleagues but don't recall ever using Czechia then. Aiui both names are acceptable and official.
19% wanting a permanent curfew. Ffsake who are these people.
As I'm sure has been suggested, it may well be the simpler answer is that choice, for many, was a proxy for 'I am very serious about doing whatever it takes to stop this pandemic' as virtue signalling rather than literal.
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
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).
The Established Church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) not the Scottish Episcopal, which is actually the only the third largest church (after Cof S and RC).
Of course the proper Brexit model for a church is Congregationalist. Democratic internally and independent externally.
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.
It’s a bit difficult to hide your politics completely, if you’ve spent a couple of decades of your life as an elected politician!
Like many a good backbencher though, Nick's worked hard to achieve that. So he could be loyal to Blair and loyal to Corbyn. 😉
Nick’s a good egg. He and I likely agree on almost nothing, but always politely and fairly.
It’s also good to see former MPs quietly lobbying on behalf of a small animal welfare charity - rather than Oxfam, Facebook, Putin and Xi, which appear to be somewhat more common endeavours of those recently defeated at the ballot box.
Indeed, to be clear I was joking hence the wink emoji.
I like you both too! Generally we're all pretty amicable on PB these days, aren't we, except for MalcolmG doing his thing?
Comments
Meaghan Kall
@kallmemeg
·
4h
*NEW* Vaccine surveillance report
Updated estimates of averted infections & deaths due to vaccination programme.
{Modelled, England only, to June 25}
Microbe 8.1 MILLION infections prevented
Skull and crossbones 30 THOUSAND deaths prevented
The rather falstuan pact between the reformers and Henry the 8th to break with Rome set in motion at lot of that which ultimately defines the English identity.
It is an absolutely toxic environment, for both sides. Arguably it is worse for the Left, as they get the impression EVERYONE agrees with them, whereas this is really not true. And the Left is surprised time and again when they lose elections and plebiscites
http://www.brin.ac.uk/how-religious-groups-voted-at-the-2016-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership/
Christina Pagel
Chris
Susan Michie
Chris
Stephen Reicher
Chris
Deepti Gurdasani
And Chris.
I think the clue is in the name.
Speculation - how bad would the English Civil War have been without the Reformation?
That is not the same as saying "high risk". High risk means something different to some degree of uncertainty.
Don't ask me how I know.
That said happy to argue at senior leadership meetings for organisational decisions based on my instinct sometimes which can stray into politics if not party politics .That I see more of a duty tbh.Sometimes I get my way other times I don't which is fine but no use in being in senior management if you don't argue what you believe in
It's a bit complicated.
On social issues I'm fairly what you could call "woke" but over the years I've been called heartless, evil, a murderer and more for wanting low taxes.
Going into Tory Conference its not been unusual to be spat at.
It’s also good to see former MPs quietly lobbying on behalf of a small animal welfare charity - rather than Oxfam, Facebook, Putin and Xi, which appear to be somewhat more common endeavours of those recently defeated at the ballot box.
"Interestingly, while COVID is still seen as a risk support for restrictions tends to be stronger among older age groups, but that age difference disappears when we ask about support for restrictions remaining in place permanently (and if anything, older groups actually become more opposed)." Ipsos own commentary
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/majority-britons-support-extending-certain-covid-19-restrictions-not-forever
Indeed for some Brexiteers the EU aimed to finish off what Philip IInd and the Armada were unable to complete in 1588.
http://www.martinstabe.com/2005/03/16/eu-a-papist-plot/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlbmIMbKZa4
The penny finally dropped about 3am, when one of the female contributors said something like “Are we just a bunch of posh c***ts talking to each other?”
But there are some exceptions, including the question on permanently closing casinos and nightclubs. Old people strongly oppose, but a plurality of 16-24 year olds support! I trust this means that a lot of people in nightclubs secretly hate their friends for forcing them to go and want an excuse to never go again.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-07/ipsos-mori-economist-coronavirus-tables-2021.pdf?fbclid=IwAR10TabsS2y159f-WimhnOBdd0767lPDT8yLBCpS5TdgMuOMb_ZM2iRLMtE
Scotland (at 385 currently) is about to go past double the level of hospital patients that someone predicted it would top out at on here.
What I love about the confident "covid is over" predictions is how often they have been made by the same people with the same level of confidence every time.
Also, if we agree on the basics like fairness and democracy, it doesn't really matter if we have different views on taxation or railway ownership or even wokeness. Vive la difference, as we Europeans say.
Nobody expects...
Those who think that the setups are not influential on the wider society are some way off in my view - they provide the model, and perhaps a conduit through history, for a lot of the 'plumbing'. Though there were also significant differences earlier than the Reformation.
It's quite an interesting comparison between the CofE and the Episopalians in the USA (whatever they are calling themselves these days).
Like political systems - as ever the Americans are convinced they are the cutting edge of progress, whilst preserving many antiquated values and habits and some things that everybody else pretty much outgrew centuries ago. Grand Juries, ffs?
On a moral level they despised him for the frequent abortions he has participated in and his general lack of moral hygiene.
I've lost count of the people I know who have become tree huggers because of Covid-19.
They saw all those places that got better because human activity changed because of Covid-19.
Presumably he’ll wear this new skin with all the conviction and sincerity he brings to the others.
It would be interesting to have the First Minister of Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland/England share the same chamber as the UK PM on UK sitting days.
They would not prop up Boris as they propped up May in 2017.
As I have said before and as OGH has pointed out the Tories have to win another outright majority at the next general election to stay in power
(Actually, it is for: "aged 18 to 34 or aged 50 or over" which seems odd!)
https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/rollout/
We forget Ian Paisley's anti Catholic bigotry.
"I denounce you, Anti-Christ! I refuse you as Christ's enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine" - [Paisley] addressing Pope John Paul II on a visit to the European Parliament October 1988.
This Romish man of sin is now in hell! - Paisley on the death of Pope John XXIII
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29171017
35% want a permanent requirement of 10 days' quarantine for anyone "returning from abroad", regardless of any Covid-19 risk. That would stop me going abroad - at least until the day I decide I don't want to live in a country with so many people who think that way, and I leave never to return. Presumably it would apply to foreigners arriving in Britain too, so basically nobody would come on holiday here any more. And 19% want a permanent curfew after 10pm, again regardless of any Covid-19 risk. As for "vaccine passports" - supported as a permanent measure by 46% of respondents - what on earth is the point of them if there is no risk from the disease that was vaccinated against? I realise that's a massive great hairy Spartan "if", but that was the explicit premise of the pollsters' question.
Covid 19-84!
Is there a regional breakdown? Surely those figures aren't so high in Britain's "global" capital city?
Eastern Europe was never part of the original EEC but Poland of course has one of the largest Catholic populations in Europe.
Catholic Ireland of course remains firmly in the EU and Eurozone.
Of the majority Catholic nations in Europe all are in the EU and all but Poland are in the Eurozone.
Of the majority Protestant nations in Europe more are outside the EU and Eurozone ie the UK, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, than those which are in the EU and Eurozone ie only the Netherlands and Finland, Estonia and Latvia
I've recently jumped aboard that particular wagon.
There was a time I used to drive nothing but one man global warming machines.
That 6 litre S600 was something else.
Ditto the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, that was a sports car on a 4x4 floor plan.
https://twitter.com/KarimPalant/status/1413248871640322052
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1413248588201828353?s=19
A law could then be passed forcing them to follow the restrictions they say they wanted.
A little envious of an S600, albeit not for the depreciation on it.