Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Kamala Harris declining sharply in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,068


    1) There is no "currency union" currently. There is a single currency for a single country. London parties last time around said there would be no currency union with iScotland.
    2) The act of Union created the common travel and customs area - repealing that ends both. What it is replaced with is not within the gift of the Scottish government. Also, see below.
    3) Positive immigration militates against a common travel area.
    4) EU membership militates against a common customs area.

    Have to pick at a few of these. "A single currency for a single country". Not in practice. Whilst the local issues of Sterling are technically Sterling, in practice they are not. Sterling notes printed outside England tend not to be acceptable outside their local nation whether than be NornIron or Jersey or sadly even Scotland.

    All these local issues are in a de facto currency union. Some of them - the Scottish pound as example - have to back up notes issued with BofE securities, but the smaller ones - Isle of Man etc - don't even have to do that.

    The idea that iScotland must walk away from "the UK's Pound" just isn't true as there isn't a UK pound. English notes are accepted anywhere, non-English notes are not and have different legal status. If iScotland continues to back up its local sterling issue as it does now what is the difference?

    As for the others, yes the current arrangements end. But de facto? You say that "positive immigration militates against a common travel area". And yet Ireland has freedom of movement AND common travel with the UK - so your statement is wrong de facto if not de jure.
    Do Scottish people have any difficulty paying for things in England if they use credit or debit cards (like most of us do for most purchases)? Indeed, try using a Bank of England £50 note to pay for anything in most English shops.

    The currency we use is not defined by the notes and coins we use; they are just a method of payment.
    And the same is true in any of the places that use Sterling that aren't England. I can spend Sterling by debit card on the Isle of Man without any problem because shops on the non-UK IOM accept it for payment. An iScotland where you pay your taxes in Sterling would be the same.

    Lot of places accept foreign currency. Odd as you say that you can't usually spend British currency (a £50) in Britain...
    If you're outside greater London you never see a £50 note. If you don't see them you can't tell a fake. I am in my fourties and have seen less than 10 £50 notes in my life. The majority of those being when helping out as a volunteer at a beer festival.
  • YoungTurkYoungTurk Posts: 158
    edited August 4
    malcolmg said:

    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    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.
    You halfwit , we don't give a crap about minutiae, that is all part of the negotiations, as RP said , Fatso gave away NI with his digital border , we will just extend across the water and though our land border, problem solved. Stop shaking like a big jelly and worrying about things you have no clue about.
    "If at first you don't suceed,/
    In wi' the boot/
    And then wi' the heid./"

    Clearly willpower and national destiny will conquer all, and as for actual relations with real live foreign countries, only a big jessie would go on about such points.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,468

    Chris said:

    A sobering report from REACT:
    https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/90800/2/react1_r13_final_preprint_final.pdf

    44% of infections were estimated to be in the fully vaccinated. Figure 5 shows that the hospitalisation rate per infection is now back to almost exactly where it has been through most of the pandemic (after a temporary dip, presumably owing to vaccination, between March and May this year). The death rate per infection is lower than it was at the beginning of the year, but also rose when the Delta variant became dominant. The figures are broken down by age (over/under 65) in Figure 6.

    And yet the case numbers are falling, along with hospitalisations.


    Does the study estimate how many of the cases in the vaccinated originated from an unvaccinated individual? Be interesting / useful to know. I suspect vaccinated -> vaccinated will be a much lower risk.
    On page 6 they report lower viral loads in those infected who had been vaccinated, though the finding doesn't sound very robust. That might imply less transmission from the vaccinated, though a study from the USA recently found no difference.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,495
    malcolmg said:

    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    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.
    What absolute bollox , a whiny "the Scots are careful people", your absolute arse and you claim to be Scottish. Have you ever been there, I would love to know where all these careful people are.
    Malcolm, I was born and raised in Fife although I haven't lived in Scotland since 1994.
    I don't think "careful" is an insult. I am in favour of independence and I think the long-term case for it is very strong. But there will be significant costs in the short run associated with establishing a currency and closing the fiscal deficit, now further complicated by border/trade issues thanks to Brexit. I think it is these kind of bread and butter considerations that accounted for the 55:45 vote against independence in 2014. Heart vs head if you like, I think if the vote had been done on the heart alone, the big picture of what kind of country Scotland could be outside the shackles of the UK, the result would have been different.
    To win the referendum next time the yes camp needs to find a way of answering these kinds of questions. I don't think my post really deserved your somewhat intemperate response.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,861
    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Quincel said:

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

    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.
    Good morning

    I agree with you about an indyref2 mandate but I genuinely believe it will not happen this side of the next GE

    @HYUFD make lots of antagonistic comments on the subject but in truth we are little over 2 and a half years from GE 24 believe it or not and that is not long, especially with covid still an issue

    Furthermore and notwithstanding the gung-ho nature of the Nationalists they have not even started to provide an answer to the big issues including

    Currency
    Hard border
    Pensions
    The timing of re-admittance to the EU
    Investment decision deferred due to unknowns and uncertainty


    (to name a few)


    Additionally, there has been a drift away by the Scots themselves to even holding indyref2, let alone voting for it, that it seems to me that it is unlikely to happen anytime soon
    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...
    1) There is no "currency union" currently. There is a single currency for a single country. London parties last time around said there would be no currency union with iScotland.
    2) The act of Union created the common travel and customs area - repealing that ends both. What it is replaced with is not within the gift of the Scottish government. Also, see below.
    3) Positive immigration militates against a common travel area.
    4) EU membership militates against a common customs area.
    The weird thing about the Sindy debate is that obviously there are similarities with Brexit, and positions may be reversed on it (eg UK/Indy Scotland not being able to guarantee what the EU/rUK will agree to, or assuming they will do it as it is in their interest) but it's only rarely we acknowledge the similarities and explain why it wi be different, usually just employing the same tactics as Brexit, in reverse (eg opportunities not difficulty from borders, or it now mattering if one area does not vote in favour).
    The unexplored group in Scotland are Yes voters that have switched to No and the Conservatives following the Brexit vote. Apparently not an insignificant number, to set against those going the other way - No Voters, switched to Yes following the Brexit vote.

    I should add the demographic divide of Yes/No is completely different from Remain/Leave. It is not mainly driven by age or educational attainment. Two groups were heavily No: the over 65s and those born outside Scotland. Every other group was nearly evenly split.

    Since 2014 it looks like younger demographics have moved heavily to Yes.
    Any Scottish Independence vote is going to be a question of hearts vs minds.

    The heart may be saying leaving the UK / England is the best thing possible, the mind will say it's going to be a complete nightmare.

    Ironically I don't think Brexit has been bad enough that the mind will currently win.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,495
    spudgfsh said:


    1) There is no "currency union" currently. There is a single currency for a single country. London parties last time around said there would be no currency union with iScotland.
    2) The act of Union created the common travel and customs area - repealing that ends both. What it is replaced with is not within the gift of the Scottish government. Also, see below.
    3) Positive immigration militates against a common travel area.
    4) EU membership militates against a common customs area.

    Have to pick at a few of these. "A single currency for a single country". Not in practice. Whilst the local issues of Sterling are technically Sterling, in practice they are not. Sterling notes printed outside England tend not to be acceptable outside their local nation whether than be NornIron or Jersey or sadly even Scotland.

    All these local issues are in a de facto currency union. Some of them - the Scottish pound as example - have to back up notes issued with BofE securities, but the smaller ones - Isle of Man etc - don't even have to do that.

    The idea that iScotland must walk away from "the UK's Pound" just isn't true as there isn't a UK pound. English notes are accepted anywhere, non-English notes are not and have different legal status. If iScotland continues to back up its local sterling issue as it does now what is the difference?

    As for the others, yes the current arrangements end. But de facto? You say that "positive immigration militates against a common travel area". And yet Ireland has freedom of movement AND common travel with the UK - so your statement is wrong de facto if not de jure.
    Do Scottish people have any difficulty paying for things in England if they use credit or debit cards (like most of us do for most purchases)? Indeed, try using a Bank of England £50 note to pay for anything in most English shops.

    The currency we use is not defined by the notes and coins we use; they are just a method of payment.
    And the same is true in any of the places that use Sterling that aren't England. I can spend Sterling by debit card on the Isle of Man without any problem because shops on the non-UK IOM accept it for payment. An iScotland where you pay your taxes in Sterling would be the same.

    Lot of places accept foreign currency. Odd as you say that you can't usually spend British currency (a £50) in Britain...
    If you're outside greater London you never see a £50 note. If you don't see them you can't tell a fake. I am in my fourties and have seen less than 10 £50 notes in my life. The majority of those being when helping out as a volunteer at a beer festival.
    There's a cash machine on Park Lane that dispenses fifties. It gave me a bit of a shock.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,861
    felix said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Item 3872 in Brexit Is Awful Because...

    Oh

    ‘The government’s replacement for the Europe-wide Erasmus student exchange scheme appears to have got off to a flying start

    ‘According to the DfE’s estimates, 120 universities have applied for a share of the £110m Turing scheme, alongside schools and further education colleges, to fund work and study placements. The 40,000 total is said to include 28,000 placements for university students in 2021-22, more than the 18,300 placements that took place under the Erasmus scheme in the 2018-19th academic year’

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/04/students-apply-to-uk-version-of-erasmus-foreign-study-scheme?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Time will tell, but the whole Erasmus complaint seemed very dependent on any follow up scheme - if there wasn't one at all, that would have been bad, if there was one but it was under par in some way bad but not as much, but if the replacement works well the complaints will have seemed a bit histrionic.
    Some apples and pears thinking going on here.
    Applications do not equal placements.

    And, the funding is less generous.

    Let’s see.
    Precisely the point - it may well not be as stallar as that report summary suggests. Nevertheless, the initial complaints are quite likely to be overblown as they were treating the situation as if there was no replacement at all (whether or not they said as much), so the government cannot help but exceed expectations.
    As far as I can tell (one needs huge energy to wade across the mythologising bullshit of the British press), the EU stitched themselves up by offering Erasmus on too-expensive terms.

    I bemoan, though, the lost opportunities for British students to study in Europe - honouring a tradition that dates back to the Grand Tour.

    I see EU admissions to U.K. universities has collapsed by 50% this year, too.

    Sad!
    That may well be pandemic related of course.
    You really don't think needing to find £22,000 upfront each year rather than "borrowing" £9,250 may not have had an impact on EU student numbers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,584
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Quincel said:

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

    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.
    Good morning

    I agree with you about an indyref2 mandate but I genuinely believe it will not happen this side of the next GE

    @HYUFD make lots of antagonistic comments on the subject but in truth we are little over 2 and a half years from GE 24 believe it or not and that is not long, especially with covid still an issue

    Furthermore and notwithstanding the gung-ho nature of the Nationalists they have not even started to provide an answer to the big issues including

    Currency
    Hard border
    Pensions
    The timing of re-admittance to the EU
    Investment decision deferred due to unknowns and uncertainty


    (to name a few)


    Additionally, there has been a drift away by the Scots themselves to even holding indyref2, let alone voting for it, that it seems to me that it is unlikely to happen anytime soon
    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...
    1) There is no "currency union" currently. There is a single currency for a single country. London parties last time around said there would be no currency union with iScotland.
    2) The act of Union created the common travel and customs area - repealing that ends both. What it is replaced with is not within the gift of the Scottish government. Also, see below.
    3) Positive immigration militates against a common travel area.
    4) EU membership militates against a common customs area.
    The weird thing about the Sindy debate is that obviously there are similarities with Brexit, and positions may be reversed on it (eg UK/Indy Scotland not being able to guarantee what the EU/rUK will agree to, or assuming they will do it as it is in their interest) but it's only rarely we acknowledge the similarities and explain why it wi be different, usually just employing the same tactics as Brexit, in reverse (eg opportunities not difficulty from borders, or it now mattering if one area does not vote in favour).
    The unexplored group in Scotland are Yes voters that have switched to No and the Conservatives following the Brexit vote. Apparently not an insignificant number, to set against those going the other way - No Voters, switched to Yes following the Brexit vote.

    I should add the demographic divide of Yes/No is completely different from Remain/Leave. It is not mainly driven by age or educational attainment. Two groups were heavily No: the over 65s and those born outside Scotland. Every other group was nearly evenly split.

    Since 2014 it looks like younger demographics have moved heavily to Yes.
    Any Scottish Independence vote is going to be a question of hearts vs minds.

    The heart may be saying leaving the UK / England is the best thing possible, the mind will say it's going to be a complete nightmare.

    Ironically I don't think Brexit has been bad enough that the mind will currently win.
    If the heart was key Scots would already have voted for independence in 2014, now they have to add a hard border with England too to the mind in terms of a Scexit post Brexit
  • CandyCandy Posts: 51



    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's hard to work out how much true pro-EU feeling there is in either Scotland or Northern Ireland.

    Take the Oxford (or "English") vaccine. Scots and Northern Irish were as keen to get jabbed with it as the English and Welsh - while in the EU, Germans and French, Greeks and Finns etc were walking out of vaccine centres when they discovered AZ was on offer.

    If their mentality was really "EU" rather than British, Scots would surely have been refusing AZ the same way as other EU people. But on this crucial life or death issue, their gut instinct was British.

    So I wonder whether the supposed "pro-EU" feeling in Scotland is just opinion writers spinning a narrative.
  • NEW THREAD

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,130
    Carnyx said:

    Sturgeon on R4 complaining that other leaders (Starmer, Johnson) aren't showing Scotland respect.....as ever conflating herself and the SNP with Scotland.

    She is the First Minister - it's not just her or the SNP.
    You can reasonably view a Prime Ministerial visit, when the PM has refused a requested meeting, as somewhat disrespectful - but I'm not clear what business it is of hers, under the current constitutional arrangements, to weigh in on a visit by the leader of the opposition.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,630
    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

    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.
    Good morning

    I agree with you about an indyref2 mandate but I genuinely believe it will not happen this side of the next GE

    @HYUFD make lots of antagonistic comments on the subject but in truth we are little over 2 and a half years from GE 24 believe it or not and that is not long, especially with covid still an issue

    Furthermore and notwithstanding the gung-ho nature of the Nationalists they have not even started to provide an answer to the big issues including

    Currency
    Hard border
    Pensions
    The timing of re-admittance to the EU
    Investment decision deferred due to unknowns and uncertainty


    (to name a few)


    Additionally, there has been a drift away by the Scots themselves to even holding indyref2, let alone voting for it, that it seems to me that it is unlikely to happen anytime soon
    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...
    They should come up with answers. Answers are entirely possible, plenty of countries have become independent before.

    Currency your answer doesn't work, since there's literally no such thing as "the existing sterling currency union".

    Sterling is a currency for the unitary state of the United Kingdom, ultimately controlled by the Bank of England, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Westminster Parliament. The Euro has a collegiate union decision making process because it is a currency union, sterling does not.
    Pedant mode, but there is a Sterling currency union for the overseas territories. The UK is a part of that, but Scotland is not in its own right.
    Were Scotland to become independent, there is exactly one currency option. They would create the Groat, and would peg it at 1:1 with the Pound Sterling for at least the first three years. After that, they would either join the Euro, or they would let it float, or they would simply follow the Danish route of a permanent peg to their near neighbor.

    Of course, such a policy would require a great deal of fiscal rectitude, to convince the markets that the Groat was a stable currency. But this system worked for the Estonians (and others), and I’m sure it could work for Scotland.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,130

    Mr. Pioneers, Hamilton's also been bloody lucky this year. With all being equal, Verstappen would be 40-50 points ahead.

    I don't buy the 'amazing drive' line. The Hamilton-Mercedes combination is miles faster than everyone except Verstappen's Red Bull. He drove well but not incredibly.

    Mr. Eagles, to be fair, Singapore then was absolutely sodden. Budapest was slightly damp.

    You might also look at the ten lap wheel to wheel dice between Alonso and Hamilton, which didn't end in tears, and reflect that young Max has a bit to learn.
This discussion has been closed.