Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Chris Packham or one of his mates is on about it every year. Apparently, too, the 'wildcats' are very close genetically to domestic cats, so when the latter go feral, as they do, the two groups (?sub-species) interbreed and without doing a genetic test it's impossible to tell whether you're dealing with a 'pure' wildcat or a feral moggy, or, of course, a mixture.
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
I hear there's good money to be made being an 'influencer'. How much those who seem to make this a full time job actually influence anyone is debatable.
I like to think Philip and HY are employed by warring factions at Con Central Office, fighting over the soul* of the party. (In)correctHB was employed by the Corbynite NEC, but managed to survive the cull and get a position with Starmer NEC. SNP (and even an Alba) employees. The LDs play a clever game by not obviously employing any posters directly, but sponsoring occasional thread headers.
Me, I'm engaged in an ethnographic research project on the disfunctionality of online communities in the 21st century and the continued dominance of old white men in political discourse
*heh, yep 'soul' of the Conservative party, I know
My personal opinion is that everyone here, who is not me, is an alter-ego of an English author and journalist. He plays out different characters as practice for his novels. Occasionally one of the alter egos is heavily implied as being the man himself, I'm not sure why this happens, but possibly to maintain the illusion.
I'd go a step further. The entirety of PB, and all of its denizens, are all the drug-induced hallucinogenic dreams of said English author and journalist, who has been lying in a Peruvian mountain drain for the last twenty years.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Yes. They are rarer than almost all the big cats. Whilst the usual suspects were campaigning to save tigers, our own cat species was dying out, and very few people seemed to be bothered.
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
I hear there's good money to be made being an 'influencer'. How much those who seem to make this a full time job actually influence anyone is debatable.
I like to think Philip and HY are employed by warring factions at Con Central Office, fighting over the soul* of the party. (In)correctHB was employed by the Corbynite NEC, but managed to survive the cull and get a position with Starmer NEC. SNP (and even an Alba) employees. The LDs play a clever game by not obviously employing any posters directly, but sponsoring occasional thread headers.
Me, I'm engaged in an ethnographic research project on the disfunctionality of online communities in the 21st century and the continued dominance of old white men in political discourse
*heh, yep 'soul' of the Conservative party, I know
My personal opinion is that everyone here, who is not me, is an alter-ego of an English author and journalist. He plays out different characters as practice for his novels. Occasionally one of the alter egos is heavily implied as being the man himself, I'm not sure why this happens, but possibly to maintain the illusion.
I'd go a step further. The entirety of PB, and all of its denizens, are all the drug-induced hallucinogenic dreams of said English author and journalist, who has been lying in a Peruvian mountain drain for the last twenty years.
I think we need another meet-up, to disprove this theory.
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
Typical hours awake per week 115 hrs Typical job 40 hrs per week
Typical time when people could choose to post on here 75 hrs, someone who didn't sleep much and was working 32 hrs per week (neither that unusual), might have 90 available hrs.
Is it really confusing you? Or are you disapproving of their time management and/or pb addiction?
Not disapproving of their time management or pb addiction. Actually a little impressed with both.
Not sure of your analysis though as there are many here permanently during the working day which I certainly couldn't have done when working (for an employer).
On Wednesday 18 March 2020, with just two days’ notice, Boris Johnson, in the second of his televised broadcasts from Downing Street, announced that England’s 24,000 schools were to close “until further notice” from that Friday evening. Exams, due to take place three months later, were cancelled.
What followed was easily the most disruptive period in children’s education since at least the start of the Second World War. Schools closed only to be opened, closed, and then re-opened again. Exams were cancelled, not once but twice, with knock- on effects to university admissions that will be felt for years to come. Parents, heads and teachers struggled – with access to laptops for home schooling, with the home schooling itself, and with coronavirus testing regimes for pupils and staff. Free school meals became a burning political issue. When it came to education, U-turn was to follow U-turn. Well into March 2021, and indeed beyond, pupils taking GCSEs, A-levels and BTecs remained unclear about precisely how they were to be assessed. At times it felt as though the school system was in chaos.
What follows is an analysis of what went wrong – and a few things that went right – in the hope that some lessons might be learnt should the education system ever have to go through anything similar again.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Yes. They are rarer than almost all the big cats. Whilst the usual suspects were campaigning to save tigers, our own cat species was dying out, and very few people seemed to be bothered.
Main problem is domestic moggies.
Trying to stop cats from breeding when they want to must be harder than trying to heard them.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
On Wednesday 18 March 2020, with just two days’ notice, Boris Johnson, in the second of his televised broadcasts from Downing Street, announced that England’s 24,000 schools were to close “until further notice” from that Friday evening. Exams, due to take place three months later, were cancelled.
What followed was easily the most disruptive period in children’s education since at least the start of the Second World War. Schools closed only to be opened, closed, and then re-opened again. Exams were cancelled, not once but twice, with knock- on effects to university admissions that will be felt for years to come. Parents, heads and teachers struggled – with access to laptops for home schooling, with the home schooling itself, and with coronavirus testing regimes for pupils and staff. Free school meals became a burning political issue. When it came to education, U-turn was to follow U-turn. Well into March 2021, and indeed beyond, pupils taking GCSEs, A-levels and BTecs remained unclear about precisely how they were to be assessed. At times it felt as though the school system was in chaos.
What follows is an analysis of what went wrong – and a few things that went right – in the hope that some lessons might be learnt should the education system ever have to go through anything similar again.
Yeah, apparently there was a global pandemic on. That does not mean HMG got everything right, or everything wrong, as the report acknowledges.
I do find this post amusing, because you've previously been very vocal about your view that Labour policy from 1997 onwards made zero contribution to the UK's experience from 2007 onwards, on the basis that everything was entirely the fault of the global financial crisis.
What time does today’s pointlessly circular argument on Scottish Independence start? I think I’ll skip the repeat of the Brexit “debate” too.
Sorry, got up on the wrong side of bed today…
Would you prefer a discussion on Brussels Sprouts exports?
In all honesty, yes
Can't we just open a discussion on
- The Reformation - Dreyfus - Schleswig-Holstein Question
Pick one, any one.
I pick The Reformation.
John Knox was an English agent. Any thoughts?
Engaged by whom? Catholic Mary I or Protestant Elizabeth I? He pissed on his chips with the latter as a result of "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women" (even though it was aimed at the former) and was banned from England as a result. As he himself said "To me it is written that my First Blast hath blown from me all my friends in England.". In 1559, he was unable to travel through England to Scotland on his return from Geneva.
Also the English Reformation was a mere rearrangement of the deckchairs compared to what happened in Scotland. If he had been an English agent then the episcopy would have been retained at least.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Is the wildcat reference part of a complicated "Sturgeon too scared to call an illegal referendum" joke?
Scottish Government PR machine in overdrive to try to persuade people that the shameful record of drug deaths under their governance is actually someone else's fault, and they they are actually the brave underdogs fighting for the right to improve lives. Revoltingly dishonest.
I get a similar, related issue about being a university lecturer. Anyone who has been an undergrad thinks they know what university is like. They are wrong. UG is just one small part of university life. If I had a pound for everyone who thinks we all close down for three months when the students go home in June I'd be a lot better off. Universities are not just schools for older people. We live and die on research (funding and publication). Summer is time to try to achieve some of that with marginally fewer distractions. It is only marginally though - wrapping up the previous year (marking, collating, getting grades agree etc) and then planning next year goes all through summer. Next week sees the annual chaos of A level results. My prediction - expect problems with too many students getting places... Already one medical school has been trying bribes (money plus free rent if the student defers) to cope with this. They won't be the last.
I'm fortunate to work in a department that is almost free of undergrads (and associated lecturing/marking work - although lots of postgrad supervision). Does mean lecturer posts are devilishly rare and so - unusually - there are a majority of research only positions all the way up the food chain. The downside is that you really have to bring in research funding otherwise your job evaporates pretty quickly as there's no baseline lecturing work to keep you on the books.
Interesting discussion. As a student at uni I was annoyed by the emphasis on lecturers doing research (most of which was ending up in a publication in some journal or other with no follow-up), with the really good lecturers who were interested in students not having the prestige of the research specialists. In fact, the ones who weren't quite so outstanding were often better lecturers, as they understood what was difficult - the boffins swanned through everything briskly without lingering on the tough parts.
My feeling is still that unis should be mostly about teaching, with research a potentially valuable by-product, not the other way round. The fact that research is (somewhat) easier to measure distorts the funding paradigm, I think.
Often true, I think. Some of the new universities with less research emphasis do well on the TEF. When I worked at one of those I had a colleague who had come from a Russell Group uni as he wanted mainly to be a teacher and he was very good.
In research intensive unis you need to be good at research funding, being average at teaching won't really hinder career.
- “… need to be good at research funding…”
That’s the most depressing thing I’ve read today, and we’d just heard about an outbreak of Plague.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
An independence referendum with no legal effect. Effectively a glorified opinion poll like the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which was not recognised by the Spanish government rather than a referendum legally recognised by the UK government like the 2014 independence referendum
Keir Starmer would sit down with Nicola Sturgeon to tackle the climate change emergency but has ruled out any deal with the SNP leader on the constitution.
Ahead of a two-day campaign visit to Scotland, during which he will attack the nationalist government for failing to reach green targets, the Labour leader made it clear he is willing to talk with Sturgeon on anything but the independence question.
It is his prerogative to reject his only feasible route to office, and according to the Daily Record (cough) that is exactly what he has chosen to do. This is (supposedly) a betting blog, so the wagers will now flood in. Not.
The last thing that the SNP wants is a successful Labour government in Westminster. It ruins one of the central arguments the party makes for independence. If the SNP wants to actually vote with the Tories to prevent the creation of a progressive redistributive, minority Labour government that is their prerogative - but it's a decision they would have to justify to Scottish voters at the subsequent general election.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Keir Starmer would sit down with Nicola Sturgeon to tackle the climate change emergency but has ruled out any deal with the SNP leader on the constitution.
Ahead of a two-day campaign visit to Scotland, during which he will attack the nationalist government for failing to reach green targets, the Labour leader made it clear he is willing to talk with Sturgeon on anything but the independence question.
It is his prerogative to reject his only feasible route to office, and according to the Daily Record (cough) that is exactly what he has chosen to do. This is (supposedly) a betting blog, so the wagers will now flood in. Not.
The last thing that the SNP wants is a successful Labour government in Westminster. It ruins one of the central arguments the party makes for independence. If the SNP wants to actually vote with the Tories to prevent the creation of a progressive redistributive, minority Labour government that is their prerogative - but it's a decision they would have to justify to Scottish voters at the subsequent general election.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
An independence referendum with no legal effect. Effectively a glorified opinion poll like the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which was not recognised by the Spanish government rather than a referendum legally recognised by the UK government like the 2014 independence referendum
'Legal'. A whole can of worms there.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to Westminster.
So Sturgeon could hold a wildcat referendum but even if it was Yes the UK government could legally ignore the result and legally it would have no impact on the union whatever the result unless the UK government decided it did
Keir Starmer would sit down with Nicola Sturgeon to tackle the climate change emergency but has ruled out any deal with the SNP leader on the constitution.
Ahead of a two-day campaign visit to Scotland, during which he will attack the nationalist government for failing to reach green targets, the Labour leader made it clear he is willing to talk with Sturgeon on anything but the independence question.
It is his prerogative to reject his only feasible route to office, and according to the Daily Record (cough) that is exactly what he has chosen to do. This is (supposedly) a betting blog, so the wagers will now flood in. Not.
The last thing that the SNP wants is a successful Labour government in Westminster. It ruins one of the central arguments the party makes for independence. If the SNP wants to actually vote with the Tories to prevent the creation of a progressive redistributive, minority Labour government that is their prerogative - but it's a decision they would have to justify to Scottish voters at the subsequent general election.
No, 2+2 does not equal 5. Nice try though.
Did we not have a thread on that a day or so ago?
On HYUFDmathics? Yes, in connexion with Brussels Sprouts and how a surplus of Australian sprouts infallibly means a shortage thereof.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
Scottish Government PR machine in overdrive to try to persuade people that the shameful record of drug deaths under their governance is actually someone else's fault, and they they are actually the brave underdogs fighting for the right to improve lives. Revoltingly dishonest.
I get a similar, related issue about being a university lecturer. Anyone who has been an undergrad thinks they know what university is like. They are wrong. UG is just one small part of university life. If I had a pound for everyone who thinks we all close down for three months when the students go home in June I'd be a lot better off. Universities are not just schools for older people. We live and die on research (funding and publication). Summer is time to try to achieve some of that with marginally fewer distractions. It is only marginally though - wrapping up the previous year (marking, collating, getting grades agree etc) and then planning next year goes all through summer. Next week sees the annual chaos of A level results. My prediction - expect problems with too many students getting places... Already one medical school has been trying bribes (money plus free rent if the student defers) to cope with this. They won't be the last.
I'm fortunate to work in a department that is almost free of undergrads (and associated lecturing/marking work - although lots of postgrad supervision). Does mean lecturer posts are devilishly rare and so - unusually - there are a majority of research only positions all the way up the food chain. The downside is that you really have to bring in research funding otherwise your job evaporates pretty quickly as there's no baseline lecturing work to keep you on the books.
Interesting discussion. As a student at uni I was annoyed by the emphasis on lecturers doing research (most of which was ending up in a publication in some journal or other with no follow-up), with the really good lecturers who were interested in students not having the prestige of the research specialists. In fact, the ones who weren't quite so outstanding were often better lecturers, as they understood what was difficult - the boffins swanned through everything briskly without lingering on the tough parts.
My feeling is still that unis should be mostly about teaching, with research a potentially valuable by-product, not the other way round. The fact that research is (somewhat) easier to measure distorts the funding paradigm, I think.
Often true, I think. Some of the new universities with less research emphasis do well on the TEF. When I worked at one of those I had a colleague who had come from a Russell Group uni as he wanted mainly to be a teacher and he was very good.
In research intensive unis you need to be good at research funding, being average at teaching won't really hinder career.
- “… need to be good at research funding…”
That’s the most depressing thing I’ve read today, and we’d just heard about an outbreak of Plague.
Oh, it's quite true, as I know from friends and relatives in unis and cognate institutions.
Plague: a bacterium, so not such a worry (so long as it doesn't develop antibiotic resistance). It's the viruses in the rodents that are the worry. Hantaviruses etc.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Yes. They are rarer than almost all the big cats. Whilst the usual suspects were campaigning to save tigers, our own cat species was dying out, and very few people seemed to be bothered.
Main problem is domestic moggies.
Trying to stop cats from breeding when they want to must be harder than trying to heard them.
SNIP
(It should be compulsory in the wildcat hotspots)
There's a few places where they can be found in the NE, probably not that far from RochdalePioneers. Clashindarroch Forest near Huntly is one, I believe, although the wind turbines are encroaching...
What time does today’s pointlessly circular argument on Scottish Independence start? I think I’ll skip the repeat of the Brexit “debate” too.
Sorry, got up on the wrong side of bed today…
Would you prefer a discussion on Brussels Sprouts exports?
In all honesty, yes
Can't we just open a discussion on
- The Reformation - Dreyfus - Schleswig-Holstein Question
Pick one, any one.
I pick The Reformation.
John Knox was an English agent. Any thoughts?
John Knox was one of those people, Like Cato the Younger, who embraced their alleged* principles to the point that objective observers couldn't work out whether they were being principled, or being annoying twats. Or both.
*Both seemed to be able to jettison principle in a nano-second when they convinced themselves it was a Just Cause. Cato bribing when opposing the populares, for example.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Technological solutions to the border issues are possible but there's nowhere in the world where it has been implemented. you're talking somewhere around 10-20 years before it becomes a possibility (assuming someone puts the cash into it).
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Yes. They are rarer than almost all the big cats. Whilst the usual suspects were campaigning to save tigers, our own cat species was dying out, and very few people seemed to be bothered.
Main problem is domestic moggies.
Trying to stop cats from breeding when they want to must be harder than trying to heard them.
SNIP
(It should be compulsory in the wildcat hotspots)
There's a few places where they can be found in the NE, probably not that far from RochdalePioneers. Clashindarroch Forest near Huntly is one, I believe, although the wind turbines are encroaching...
Wonder how compulsory snips would go down there, also in the proposed English reintroduction areas:
What time does today’s pointlessly circular argument on Scottish Independence start? I think I’ll skip the repeat of the Brexit “debate” too.
Sorry, got up on the wrong side of bed today…
Would you prefer a discussion on Brussels Sprouts exports?
In all honesty, yes
Can't we just open a discussion on
- The Reformation - Dreyfus - Schleswig-Holstein Question
Pick one, any one.
I pick The Reformation.
John Knox was an English agent. Any thoughts?
John Knox was one of those people, Like Cato the Younger, who embraced their alleged* principles to the point that objective observers couldn't work out whether they were being principled, or being annoying twats. Or both.
*Both seemed to be able to jettison principle in a nano-second when they convinced themselves it was a Just Cause. Cato bribing when opposing the populares, for example.
Wonderful statue of him in New College quadrangle. He's buried in the Supreme Court (I think) car park (formerly the High Kirk's yard) in Edinburgh.
Does anyone know which other countries are conducting such surveys? This rather explains why cases are falling despite vaccination not covering "absolutely everybody".
A survey that included children and broke down into age groups would answer the question definitively concerning "herd immunity"
There are also a substantial number in there of people with only one dose of the vaccine, which only gives partial protection against Delta.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Surely even the NS is not *that* crazy?
You wouldn't give the vaccine brief to Piers Corbyn.
Can somebody document that Scottish Greens are more like German Greens than English / Welsh Greens?
“The Greens of England and Wales lean more to the left on social and economic issues. They also promote religious freedom and equal rights for everybody including the LGBTQ community. On the other hand, the Irish Greens maintained their progressive stance, but a compromise was ordered to remain relevant. The Scottish greens programmes reflect that the party is flexible with its ideology, but still maintaining their core principles and they serve as alternatives.”
The Green parties in Britain: a comparative analysis
Now here's a headline you really don't ever want to read:
"Chipmunks near Lake Tahoe test positive for the plague"
Between escalating nuclear stockpiles, a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical climate, indications of Cold War II, a multi-year pandemic, the Greenland ice sheet close to total failure, the Arctic soon history, self-sufficiency being unfashionable, trade friction beginning to hamper food supplies, a population explosion and concomitant annihilation of other species and habitats and astonishingly poor world leaders, one wonders if we’re not about to get an uncomfortably realistic exposition of life in the Middle Ages.
… and now The Plague.
The only thing missing is the asteroid strike or imminent destruction of Japan, California and the Pacific rim by earthquake and associated tsunamis.
I am slightly shocked to learn that the average age of a civilisation is only 336 years!! That’s tiny! And then ponder how long ago The Enlightenment was.
Great civilisations are not murdered. Instead, they take their own lives.
A more pertinent question is whether we'll be recognisably human in a century's time.
The prime minister is recognisably simian.
It's only 8.30 and you are already insulting the Prime Minister. A pretty lane insult anyway.
Well, he's an anthropoid ape. As are all the rest of us. More specifically, we living hominines are all neotenic chimpanzees with a few detail changes.
Re the chipmunks, bubonic plague has been endemic in [edit] rodents in the mid-west for decades, maybe centuries, so it's nothing very new. (It even became endemic in part of Essex a century or so ago, but the gmt was very prompt in controlling it, so ...).
When I visited Mongolia about twenty years ago we were warned not to go near the marmots as they carry bubonic plague.
Being retired, and (I hope only temporarily) with reduced mobility, therefore having time, I looked up Carnyx's reference to Essex rats and the plague, and find it was indeed about a century, but in defence of my home county the outbreak appears to have been centred in Suffolk, around Ipswich. Possibly seaborne therefore, Ipswich being a port at the time
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Yes. They are rarer than almost all the big cats. Whilst the usual suspects were campaigning to save tigers, our own cat species was dying out, and very few people seemed to be bothered.
Main problem is domestic moggies.
Trying to stop cats from breeding when they want to must be harder than trying to heard them.
SNIP
(It should be compulsory in the wildcat hotspots)
There's a few places where they can be found in the NE, probably not that far from RochdalePioneers. Clashindarroch Forest near Huntly is one, I believe, although the wind turbines are encroaching...
Wonder how compulsory snips would go down there, also in the proposed English reintroduction areas:
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
Scotland may choose to have a currency pegged to the pound (in fact that's what'd happen initially) but they'd have no input to the BoE. it worked for the Republic of Ireland for 50 years (until the ERM). it would probably be Scotland's responsibility to maintain that peg. it'd be reasonably easy with support from the rUK but it'd be like it was with RoI (and is now with Jersey/Guensey/IoM) Scottish coins/notes wouldn't be accepted in rUK while rUK sterling would probably be accepted in Scotland
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Yes. They are rarer than almost all the big cats. Whilst the usual suspects were campaigning to save tigers, our own cat species was dying out, and very few people seemed to be bothered.
Main problem is domestic moggies.
Trying to stop cats from breeding when they want to must be harder than trying to heard them.
SNIP
(It should be compulsory in the wildcat hotspots)
There's a few places where they can be found in the NE, probably not that far from RochdalePioneers. Clashindarroch Forest near Huntly is one, I believe, although the wind turbines are encroaching...
Wonder how compulsory snips would go down there, also in the proposed English reintroduction areas:
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
We are all post-Brexit now and that has educated many. The next Scottish independence referendum debates will take place in the light of that additional knowledge. The other change is that an independent Scotland can't simply fast track into the EU to solve most of the freedom of movement and trade issues with rUK.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Technological solutions to the border issues are possible but there's nowhere in the world where it has been implemented. you're talking somewhere around 10-20 years before it becomes a possibility (assuming someone puts the cash into it).
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
I hear there's good money to be made being an 'influencer'. How much those who seem to make this a full time job actually influence anyone is debatable.
I like to think Philip and HY are employed by warring factions at Con Central Office, fighting over the soul* of the party. (In)correctHB was employed by the Corbynite NEC, but managed to survive the cull and get a position with Starmer NEC. SNP (and even an Alba) employees. The LDs play a clever game by not obviously employing any posters directly, but sponsoring occasional thread headers.
Me, I'm engaged in an ethnographic research project on the disfunctionality of online communities in the 21st century and the continued dominance of old white men in political discourse
*heh, yep 'soul' of the Conservative party, I know
My personal opinion is that everyone here, who is not me, is an alter-ego of an English author and journalist. He plays out different characters as practice for his novels. Occasionally one of the alter egos is heavily implied as being the man himself, I'm not sure why this happens, but possibly to maintain the illusion.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Surely all referenda have the problem of working out who is eligible to take part?
Not as if the moggies have a passport to wave, I suppose.
It turns out that wildcats are endangered in Scotland (and not found in the rest of the UK): https://savingwildcats.org.uk/
Yes. They are rarer than almost all the big cats. Whilst the usual suspects were campaigning to save tigers, our own cat species was dying out, and very few people seemed to be bothered.
Main problem is domestic moggies.
Trying to stop cats from breeding when they want to must be harder than trying to heard them.
SNIP
(It should be compulsory in the wildcat hotspots)
There's a few places where they can be found in the NE, probably not that far from RochdalePioneers. Clashindarroch Forest near Huntly is one, I believe, although the wind turbines are encroaching...
Wonder how compulsory snips would go down there, also in the proposed English reintroduction areas:
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
On Wednesday 18 March 2020, with just two days’ notice, Boris Johnson, in the second of his televised broadcasts from Downing Street, announced that England’s 24,000 schools were to close “until further notice” from that Friday evening. Exams, due to take place three months later, were cancelled.
What followed was easily the most disruptive period in children’s education since at least the start of the Second World War. Schools closed only to be opened, closed, and then re-opened again. Exams were cancelled, not once but twice, with knock- on effects to university admissions that will be felt for years to come. Parents, heads and teachers struggled – with access to laptops for home schooling, with the home schooling itself, and with coronavirus testing regimes for pupils and staff. Free school meals became a burning political issue. When it came to education, U-turn was to follow U-turn. Well into March 2021, and indeed beyond, pupils taking GCSEs, A-levels and BTecs remained unclear about precisely how they were to be assessed. At times it felt as though the school system was in chaos.
What follows is an analysis of what went wrong – and a few things that went right – in the hope that some lessons might be learnt should the education system ever have to go through anything similar again.
Yeah, apparently there was a global pandemic on. That does not mean HMG got everything right, or everything wrong, as the report acknowledges.
I do find this post amusing, because you've previously been very vocal about your view that Labour policy from 1997 onwards made zero contribution to the UK's experience from 2007 onwards, on the basis that everything was entirely the fault of the global financial crisis.
Labour did not cause the global financial crisis. Nor did the current Conservative government cause the global Covid pandemic.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
London has one problem and one problem only: its cost. On almost any budget, you can have a better life in a nicer place in any other region. But if money is no object, it can't be beaten. It really is an amazing city. Actually, one other problem: it is a long way away from all of the UK's most attractive countryside, which is clustered in the north and west of the country. If you fancy a day in the hills your choices are at the pleasantly low-key end of the spectrum.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
The worst thing about this pandemic for me personally has been that I’ve not been going into London everyday. Our current abode was a compromise with the wife when HS1 was completed and I quite liked my commute TBH. Still my favourite place in the world save, maybe, for Boston.
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
Those embarrassed by our performance are the embarrassing ones themselves. We are on course for being 4th or 5th in the world. What were you expecting?
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
You sound like a real glass-half-empty kind of guy.
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
We are all post-Brexit now and that has educated many. The next Scottish independence referendum debates will take place in the light of that additional knowledge. The other change is that an independent Scotland can't simply fast track into the EU to solve most of the freedom of movement and trade issues with rUK.
Brexit has strengthened the case for Scottish independence, but also increased the cost. On balance it probably makes independence less likely, because the theoretical case for independence is already clear, but the Scots are careful people and the costs are probably the deciding factor at the margin. The net result: the Union persists but with the Scots increasingly miserable participants, the sucker punch of being told to vote no in 2014 to stay in the EU only to be dragged out by the English a festering and legitimate source of grievance. An unhappy marriage indeed.
The last time I was at South Mimms there were lakes of piss everywhere, two fat women brawling and what looked a people trafficking operation going on in the car park.
On Wednesday 18 March 2020, with just two days’ notice, Boris Johnson, in the second of his televised broadcasts from Downing Street, announced that England’s 24,000 schools were to close “until further notice” from that Friday evening. Exams, due to take place three months later, were cancelled.
What followed was easily the most disruptive period in children’s education since at least the start of the Second World War. Schools closed only to be opened, closed, and then re-opened again. Exams were cancelled, not once but twice, with knock- on effects to university admissions that will be felt for years to come. Parents, heads and teachers struggled – with access to laptops for home schooling, with the home schooling itself, and with coronavirus testing regimes for pupils and staff. Free school meals became a burning political issue. When it came to education, U-turn was to follow U-turn. Well into March 2021, and indeed beyond, pupils taking GCSEs, A-levels and BTecs remained unclear about precisely how they were to be assessed. At times it felt as though the school system was in chaos.
What follows is an analysis of what went wrong – and a few things that went right – in the hope that some lessons might be learnt should the education system ever have to go through anything similar again.
Yeah, apparently there was a global pandemic on. That does not mean HMG got everything right, or everything wrong, as the report acknowledges.
I do find this post amusing, because you've previously been very vocal about your view that Labour policy from 1997 onwards made zero contribution to the UK's experience from 2007 onwards, on the basis that everything was entirely the fault of the global financial crisis.
Labour did not cause the global financial crisis. Nor did the current Conservative government cause the global Covid pandemic.
And would you agree that, just because "Labour did not cause the global financial crisis", that "does not mean HMG got everything right"?
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
We are the only country to go to the games after the one they had hosted and got more medals than in the games they hosted. we were always going to be coming down from the high of Rio. certain sports are also in transition (Rowing and Cycling being the prime examples) where the older athletes are all either retired or past their prime and the younger athletes are not in their prime yet.
Lottery funding will ensure that we don't go back to the low of Atlanta any time soon but we will probably average over the next few games between Sydney and Beijing (probably nearer to Beijing)
What time does today’s pointlessly circular argument on Scottish Independence start? I think I’ll skip the repeat of the Brexit “debate” too.
Sorry, got up on the wrong side of bed today…
In fairness, the agreement with the SGP has changed matters and we're still thinking it through. Apart from one poster and his repeated rants about gender politics.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
Not quite - it's the least shit of 80 shitholes around the globe.
I'm just amused by London apparently having 2.5 restaurants per person.
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
We are 4 medals away from matching Beijing with loads of prospects left. I'll offer you 2/1 on us not beating 51 medals (our count in 2008) - max bet £250 (to win £500 from me).
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
London has one problem and one problem only: its cost. On almost any budget, you can have a better life in a nicer place in any other region. But if money is no object, it can't be beaten. It really is an amazing city. Actually, one other problem: it is a long way away from all of the UK's most attractive countryside, which is clustered in the north and west of the country. If you fancy a day in the hills your choices are at the pleasantly low-key end of the spectrum.
You are over simplifying here, London has many problems, housing, pollution, traffic, distance to the coast as well as countryside. Most people actually enjoy London the most in their twenties when they are in debt and on low incomes.
SIR Keir Starmer would happily team up with Nicola Sturgeon to help tackle the climate crisis but has ruled out any SNP deal over independence.
The Labour leader has stressed he would happily work with the First Minister ahead of the COP26 global climate conference in Glasgow, insisting that leadership ahead of the event “requires that kind of diplomacy”.
SIR Keir Starmer would happily team up with Nicola Sturgeon to help tackle the climate crisis but has ruled out any SNP deal over independence.
The Labour leader has stressed he would happily work with the First Minister ahead of the COP26 global climate conference in Glasgow, insisting that leadership ahead of the event “requires that kind of diplomacy”.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
More bollox on Scotland, you missed the share of all the assets at home and abroad , including the tax havens, that will more than cover any pension liabilities.
Scottish Government PR machine in overdrive to try to persuade people that the shameful record of drug deaths under their governance is actually someone else's fault, and they they are actually the brave underdogs fighting for the right to improve lives. Revoltingly dishonest.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Surely even the NS is not *that* crazy?
You wouldn't give the vaccine brief to Piers Corbyn.
Can somebody document that Scottish Greens are more like German Greens than English / Welsh Greens?
“The Greens of England and Wales lean more to the left on social and economic issues. They also promote religious freedom and equal rights for everybody including the LGBTQ community. On the other hand, the Irish Greens maintained their progressive stance, but a compromise was ordered to remain relevant. The Scottish greens programmes reflect that the party is flexible with its ideology, but still maintaining their core principles and they serve as alternatives.”
The Green parties in Britain: a comparative analysis
AFAICS, the biggest problem for the Green's is that their sensible policies are now little different from all the other parties. The Green Lunch has been eaten.
Now here's a headline you really don't ever want to read:
"Chipmunks near Lake Tahoe test positive for the plague"
Between escalating nuclear stockpiles, a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical climate, indications of Cold War II, a multi-year pandemic, the Greenland ice sheet close to total failure, the Arctic soon history, self-sufficiency being unfashionable, trade friction beginning to hamper food supplies, a population explosion and concomitant annihilation of other species and habitats and astonishingly poor world leaders, one wonders if we’re not about to get an uncomfortably realistic exposition of life in the Middle Ages.
… and now The Plague.
The only thing missing is the asteroid strike or imminent destruction of Japan, California and the Pacific rim by earthquake and associated tsunamis.
I am slightly shocked to learn that the average age of a civilisation is only 336 years!! That’s tiny! And then ponder how long ago The Enlightenment was.
Great civilisations are not murdered. Instead, they take their own lives.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
Not quite - it's the least shit of 80 shitholes around the globe.
I'm just amused by London apparently having 2.5 restaurants per person.
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
It is definitely obtuse
Of course loads of people love living in cities. Personally, I love going to them, and having the opportunity to leave again.
I doubt 3/4 of the world's population love living in Cities, though. Many live in cities simply because 19th and 20th century industrial and service industry practices accelerated the process of concentration into larger and larger urban settlements around the globe.
I point at the alacrity with which a great many people have leaped to remote working as evidence for this latent desire *not* to be City dwellers.
[Note that I am making no unsupported claims for "a majority" of people wanting to leave Cities, just that it may not be so much of a 'choice'.]
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
That games was an absolute shambles for British sport, Pinsent and Redgrave salvaging a solitary gold. I think the powers that be looked back at those games thought 'Never again' and actually gave our athletes and sportspeople the funding needed. The one sport we do need to fix up for the next games is the rowing !
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Technological solutions to the border issues are possible but there's nowhere in the world where it has been implemented. you're talking somewhere around 10-20 years before it becomes a possibility (assuming someone puts the cash into it).
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
Yep - it doesn't exist. And yet Tory Brexiteers proposed it as the immediate solution to the intra-Irish border issue and they shouted when the EU said fine, will you accept the status quo until it is implemented...
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
That games was an absolute shambles for British sport, Pinsent and Redgrave salvaging a solitary gold. I think the powers that be looked back at those games thought 'Never again' and actually gave our athletes and sportspeople the funding needed. The one sport we do need to fix up for the next games is the rowing !
I think we had six fourth places in the rowing. They are still competitive.
Unmissable. The book is superb, as is the films that go with it which give a wonderful account of the realities of war, occupation and liberation.
This one seems to have been made in collaboration with an Italian company but there was also an earlier documentary about Norman Lewis on the BBC where he talked about his life, travels and writing. I have it on video but it really should be shown again.
"The Gallery" by an American writer, John Horne Burns, a fictionalised account based on his time in the US army in North Africa and Naples is also wonderful. It captures the reality of Naples and soldiers' lives in a way which is remarkable and very moving.
Now here's a headline you really don't ever want to read:
"Chipmunks near Lake Tahoe test positive for the plague"
Between escalating nuclear stockpiles, a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical climate, indications of Cold War II, a multi-year pandemic, the Greenland ice sheet close to total failure, the Arctic soon history, self-sufficiency being unfashionable, trade friction beginning to hamper food supplies, a population explosion and concomitant annihilation of other species and habitats and astonishingly poor world leaders, one wonders if we’re not about to get an uncomfortably realistic exposition of life in the Middle Ages.
… and now The Plague.
The only thing missing is the asteroid strike or imminent destruction of Japan, California and the Pacific rim by earthquake and associated tsunamis.
I am slightly shocked to learn that the average age of a civilisation is only 336 years!! That’s tiny! And then ponder how long ago The Enlightenment was.
Great civilisations are not murdered. Instead, they take their own lives.
Scottish Government PR machine in overdrive to try to persuade people that the shameful record of drug deaths under their governance is actually someone else's fault, and they they are actually the brave underdogs fighting for the right to improve lives. Revoltingly dishonest.
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
That games was an absolute shambles for British sport, Pinsent and Redgrave salvaging a solitary gold. I think the powers that be looked back at those games thought 'Never again' and actually gave our athletes and sportspeople the funding needed. The one sport we do need to fix up for the next games is the rowing !
Rowing looks bad from a purely medal basis but they did get 6 fourth places and only 2 crews failing to reach the final.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Technological solutions to the border issues are possible but there's nowhere in the world where it has been implemented. you're talking somewhere around 10-20 years before it becomes a possibility (assuming someone puts the cash into it).
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
Yep - it doesn't exist. And yet Tory Brexiteers proposed it as the immediate solution to the intra-Irish border issue and they shouted when the EU said fine, will you accept the status quo until it is implemented...
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
We are all post-Brexit now and that has educated many. The next Scottish independence referendum debates will take place in the light of that additional knowledge. The other change is that an independent Scotland can't simply fast track into the EU to solve most of the freedom of movement and trade issues with rUK.
Brexit has strengthened the case for Scottish independence, but also increased the cost. On balance it probably makes independence less likely, because the theoretical case for independence is already clear, but the Scots are careful people and the costs are probably the deciding factor at the margin. The net result: the Union persists but with the Scots increasingly miserable participants, the sucker punch of being told to vote no in 2014 to stay in the EU only to be dragged out by the English a festering and legitimate source of grievance. An unhappy marriage indeed.
I partly agree. They were dragged out by the English AND Welsh and there is a sizeable anti-EU minority north of the border that probably cuts across party lines. Will the EU issue burn as strongly in the future? How much of the pro-EU feeling is just another anti-English nationalist grievance? Something will have to give between SNP political dominance and staying in the Union in the medium term.
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
That games was an absolute shambles for British sport, Pinsent and Redgrave salvaging a solitary gold. I think the powers that be looked back at those games thought 'Never again' and actually gave our athletes and sportspeople the funding needed. The one sport we do need to fix up for the next games is the rowing !
The current state of rowing was caused by the removal of everyone associated with a style of coaching. Steve Redgrave himself was told to go away - he is now coaching the... Chinese.
The interviews where one crewman practically broke down and described how horrible the previous coaches were and the rest of the crew disagreed strongly, expresses the reasons and the situation.
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
That games was an absolute shambles for British sport, Pinsent and Redgrave salvaging a solitary gold. I think the powers that be looked back at those games thought 'Never again' and actually gave our athletes and sportspeople the funding needed. The one sport we do need to fix up for the next games is the rowing !
I don't think Atlanta was quite the disaster everyone remembers it as. Sure, it was a poor performance, but it wasn't that much worse than what we'd done in the 60s and 70s. It was the fact that we only won one gold that stood out.
And didn't the lottery funding start before Atlanta?
Unmissable. The book is superb, as is the films that go with it which give a wonderful account of the realities of war, occupation and liberation.
This one seems to have been made in collaboration with an Italian company but there was also an earlier documentary about Norman Lewis on the BBC where he talked about his life, travels and writing. I have it on video but it really should be shown again.
"The Gallery" by an American writer, John Horne Burns, a fictionalised account based on his time in the US army in North Africa and Naples is also wonderful. It captures the reality of Naples and soldiers' lives in a way which is remarkable and very moving.
Just going to second the review of The Gallery: I read it a couple of months ago on @cyclefree 's recommendation and it's very impressive.
SIR Keir Starmer would happily team up with Nicola Sturgeon to help tackle the climate crisis but has ruled out any SNP deal over independence.
The Labour leader has stressed he would happily work with the First Minister ahead of the COP26 global climate conference in Glasgow, insisting that leadership ahead of the event “requires that kind of diplomacy”.
Unmissable. The book is superb, as is the films that go with it which give a wonderful account of the realities of war, occupation and liberation.
This one seems to have been made in collaboration with an Italian company but there was also an earlier documentary about Norman Lewis on the BBC where he talked about his life, travels and writing. I have it on video but it really should be shown again.
"The Gallery" by an American writer, John Horne Burns, a fictionalised account based on his time in the US army in North Africa and Naples is also wonderful. It captures the reality of Naples and soldiers' lives in a way which is remarkable and very moving.
It was flagged up in Richard E Grant's "Write about the World" yesterday, BBC4 9pm, which was entirely about Naples. Grant would like to have been born Italian.
Now here's a headline you really don't ever want to read:
"Chipmunks near Lake Tahoe test positive for the plague"
Between escalating nuclear stockpiles, a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical climate, indications of Cold War II, a multi-year pandemic, the Greenland ice sheet close to total failure, the Arctic soon history, self-sufficiency being unfashionable, trade friction beginning to hamper food supplies, a population explosion and concomitant annihilation of other species and habitats and astonishingly poor world leaders, one wonders if we’re not about to get an uncomfortably realistic exposition of life in the Middle Ages.
… and now The Plague.
The only thing missing is the asteroid strike or imminent destruction of Japan, California and the Pacific rim by earthquake and associated tsunamis.
I am slightly shocked to learn that the average age of a civilisation is only 336 years!! That’s tiny! And then ponder how long ago The Enlightenment was.
Great civilisations are not murdered. Instead, they take their own lives.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
More bollox on Scotland, you missed the share of all the assets at home and abroad , including the tax havens, that will more than cover any pension liabilities.
I've not seen any comprehensive data on this but I'd be surprised if it was enough to cover both pension liabilities and the hole in the day to day spending in Scotland. if it was enough I'd also be surprised if it was possible to use it both as collateral for national debt and to liquidate it to fund other things.
Comments
Main problem is domestic moggies.
Not sure of your analysis though as there are many here permanently during the working day which I certainly couldn't have done when working (for an employer).
I wonder where are going to hold real enquiries?
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Also the English Reformation was a mere rearrangement of the deckchairs compared to what happened in Scotland. If he had been an English agent then the episcopy would have been retained at least.
That’s the most depressing thing I’ve read today, and we’d just heard about an outbreak of Plague.
So Sturgeon could hold a wildcat referendum but even if it was Yes the UK government could legally ignore the result and legally it would have no impact on the union whatever the result unless the UK government decided it did
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
Plague: a bacterium, so not such a worry (so long as it doesn't develop antibiotic resistance). It's the viruses in the rodents that are the worry. Hantaviruses etc.
(It should be compulsory in the wildcat hotspots)
There's a few places where they can be found in the NE, probably not that far from RochdalePioneers. Clashindarroch Forest near Huntly is one, I believe, although the wind turbines are encroaching...
*Both seemed to be able to jettison principle in a nano-second when they convinced themselves it was a Just Cause. Cato bribing when opposing the populares, for example.
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-04-24/european-wildcats-to-be-released-across-england
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-04-24/european-wildcats-to-be-released-across-england
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_John_Knox_in_New_College_Edinburgh.JPG
There are also a substantial number in there of people with only one dose of the vaccine, which only gives partial protection against Delta.
The Green parties in Britain: a comparative analysis
https://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/201952/THE GREEN PARTIES IN BRITAIN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Made me very glad my two have both had the op.
Edit: I’m assuming you are talking about the cats, not their owners…
Sadlyno, she wasn’t.It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
Actually, one other problem: it is a long way away from all of the UK's most attractive countryside, which is clustered in the north and west of the country. If you fancy a day in the hills your choices are at the pleasantly low-key end of the spectrum.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/04/revealed-the-best-and-worst-motorway-services-in-the-uk/
Germany + France 14 G 18 S 23 B
The net result: the Union persists but with the Scots increasingly miserable participants, the sucker punch of being told to vote no in 2014 to stay in the EU only to be dragged out by the English a festering and legitimate source of grievance. An unhappy marriage indeed.
Lottery funding will ensure that we don't go back to the low of Atlanta any time soon but we will probably average over the next few games between Sydney and Beijing (probably nearer to Beijing)
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
(Offer open for 10 hours)
SIR Keir Starmer would happily team up with Nicola Sturgeon to help tackle the climate crisis but has ruled out any SNP deal over independence.
The Labour leader has stressed he would happily work with the First Minister ahead of the COP26 global climate conference in Glasgow, insisting that leadership ahead of the event “requires that kind of diplomacy”.
But Sir Keir has argued that the Scottish Government’s focus should remain recovery from the pandemic and tackling the climate emergency rather than the constitution.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19490083.keir-starmer-rules-snp-independence-deal-nicola-sturgeon/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/04/scottish-forests-could-save-red-squirrel-from-extinction
AFAICS, the biggest problem for the Green's is that their sensible policies are now little different from all the other parties. The Green Lunch has been eaten.
5 Great graphic. Where is it from?
Of course loads of people love living in cities. Personally, I love going to them, and having the opportunity to leave again.
I doubt 3/4 of the world's population love living in Cities, though. Many live in cities simply because 19th and 20th century industrial and service industry practices accelerated the process of concentration into larger and larger urban settlements around the globe.
I point at the alacrity with which a great many people have leaped to remote working as evidence for this latent desire *not* to be City dwellers.
[Note that I am making no unsupported claims for "a majority" of people wanting to leave Cities, just that it may not be so much of a 'choice'.]
There is a fantastic documentary about Norman Lewis's superlative war book "Naples '44" on BBC iPlayer. Available for a year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09gvjc2
Unmissable. The book is superb, as is the films that go with it which give a wonderful account of the realities of war, occupation and liberation.
This one seems to have been made in collaboration with an Italian company but there was also an earlier documentary about Norman Lewis on the BBC where he talked about his life, travels and writing. I have it on video but it really should be shown again.
"The Gallery" by an American writer, John Horne Burns, a fictionalised account based on his time in the US army in North Africa and Naples is also wonderful. It captures the reality of Naples and soldiers' lives in a way which is remarkable and very moving.
Not sure who is behind 'The Why Axis'.
Be warned the price increases heading our way from October this year are eyewatering
In my case the best deal saw an almost 50% increase in the daily unit rate and I eventually went with EDF who were marginally the best for our usage
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
The interviews where one crewman practically broke down and described how horrible the previous coaches were and the rest of the crew disagreed strongly, expresses the reasons and the situation.
And didn't the lottery funding start before Atlanta?
I have little doubt the real greens will make short shift of his sudden conversion
No wonder we're a shambles.