Intriguingly, the final medal table is a pretty good proxy for The Five Greatest Countries on Earth
USA China Japan Great Britain Russia
That’s basically the UN Security Council right there. The five most powerful and influential nations, the five most culturally dominant countries, with the most important languages, the best universities, the grandest art, the most epic history, the biggest and bravest empires, basically the flower of humanity.
Beneath them come the funny little EU provinces - ‘Italy’, ‘France’ - pretty and well-meaning but not of great seriousness. Below them there’s just a lot of places no one has ever heard of, with weird pickled veg for breakfast.
Odd how sport mimics and underlines reality.
I’d much rather be part of a Switzerland - small, prosperous, rule of law, democratic - than a China or a Russia.
Switzerland isn't in the EU and is terribly dull. I've lived there and been more than most other people, unsurprisingly given that my wife is Swiss.
I used to spend time in Lutzern and Grindelwald when I was younger. Much more than a week now and it’s hard work…
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
But Lugano is different - basically Italy with Swiss taxes.
I love Locarno - just beautiful by the Lake with the ferries down to Stresa where you can stand in the room were the Stresa Pact was signed and wonder how we might have avoided World War 2.
I’ve only been there a couple of times but Como and the whole of that region are great
Intriguingly, the final medal table is a pretty good proxy for The Five Greatest Countries on Earth
USA China Japan Great Britain Russia
That’s basically the UN Security Council right there. The five most powerful and influential nations, the five most culturally dominant countries, with the most important languages, the best universities, the grandest art, the most epic history, the biggest and bravest empires, basically the flower of humanity.
Beneath them come the funny little EU provinces - ‘Italy’, ‘France’ - pretty and well-meaning but not of great seriousness. Below them there’s just a lot of places no one has ever heard of, with weird pickled veg for breakfast.
Odd how sport mimics and underlines reality.
I’d much rather be part of a Switzerland - small, prosperous, rule of law, democratic - than a China or a Russia.
SecurityCouncil: France, not Japan
France should be banned from hosting the Olympics if they are going to be behave like this....
BREAKING: The Gold medal for biggest d*ckhead of the Tokyo Olympics goes to French marathon runner Morhad Amdouni who deliberately knocks over all the water for his fellow competitors…Unbelievable! https://t.co/D4IwmlAHlL
Twitter will have failed if no one has commented that any post from Piers Morgan talking about a gold medal for being a dickhead that does not include the words 'I've won a' is incorrect.
That French bottle-strewing ‘cheat’ is getting absolutely torn apart on Twitter. It’s not just the tomfool Morgan. Indeed it first went viral in Japan
I fear for his sponsorship deal with Nike. He’s got a few people saying it was an accident, but it really really doesn’t look accidental
And for the people saying “it’s hard to pick up the bottles” I’d assume this is something the runners practice… as no one else seems to be struggling
They have dedicated training sessions to practice picking up at refueling stations, as at the pace they run at (its basically what normal people would be sprinting at) stopping to pick up your bottle, a bag of ice, a cap etc isn't an option. And this isn't some amateur park run, these are the best of the best hardened elite distance runners.
He also, very deftly, manages to pick up the very last bottle - after knocking down all the others. It’s even worse in slo-mo
In L'Equipe they call it "ravitaillement maladroit" - an "awkward refuelling"
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic
I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.
I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.
It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.
In fact that specific inconsistency/contradiction is so prevalent, it might even be called a consistency.
Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
Wouldn't they become a new entity of "Southern Scotland" if precedent is followed?
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
Wouldn't they become a new entity of "Southern Scotland" if precedent is followed?
Probably, but still part of the UK
Although I think the Debatable Lands sounds better
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
Wouldn't they become a new entity of "Southern Scotland" if precedent is followed?
Probably, but still part of the UK
Although I think the Debatable Lands sounds better
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
Wouldn't they become a new entity of "Southern Scotland" if precedent is followed?
Probably, but still part of the UK
Although I think the Debatable Lands sounds better
Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.
I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM! What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
I distrust and dislike referenda in the UK, but if was to become a well established thing then they're not so bad. So in Switzerland I guess it's common practice to have to gen-up on the issue and then vote.
In the UK though we choose to defer the decisions to wise men and women who can find time to weigh the issues and can be trusted to decide on our behalf. They certainly find the time to weigh the issues.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
That decision was not made by a public vote! It also ignored the fact that Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic and Nationalist majorities at the time of the 1918 election.
I distrust and dislike referenda in the UK, but if was to become a well established thing then they're not so bad. So in Switzerland I guess it's common practice to have to gen-up on the issue and then vote.
In the UK though we choose to defer the decisions to wise men and women who can find time to weigh the issues and can be trusted to decide on our behalf. They certainly find the time to weigh the issues.
Really? What’s happened to these ‘wise men and women’ and how were they replaced by the current lot of fools?
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
That decision was not made by a public vote! It also ignored the fact that Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic and Nationalist majorities at the time of the 1918 election.
Fermanagh North actually elected an Irish Unionist MP in 1918 even if Fermanagh South had a Sinn Fein MP, Tyrone South had a Unionist MP too.
If you look at the map of which seats were won by Sinn Fein and the IPP (ie virtually all of what became the Free State apart from Trinity College, Dublin) and which states were won by Irish Unionists and Labour Unionists (virtually all of what became Northern Ireland apart from a few exceptions like West Belfast and part of Fermanagh and Tyrone) it was about right
For me I think the research focus needs to be: 1. A vaccine that prevents transmission. 2. Treatments for the vulnerable who are unable to be vaccinated.
Absolutely.
I thought the current research suggested the antibodies created by the AZ vaccination (two doses) were still going well so what is the point of a third or "booster" vaccination?
In any case, if the two doses of AZ don't prevent an individual contracting or transmitting the Delta variant (while accepting the effects of infection are relatively mild in the majority of cases), what's a third dose of the same vaccine going to achieve?
I distrust and dislike referenda in the UK, but if was to become a well established thing then they're not so bad. So in Switzerland I guess it's common practice to have to gen-up on the issue and then vote.
In the UK though we choose to defer the decisions to wise men and women who can find time to weigh the issues and can be trusted to decide on our behalf. They certainly find the time to weigh the issues.
Really? What’s happened to these ‘wise men and women’ and how were they replaced by the current lot of fools?
I'll admit that the patch in the Tory garden labelled 'wise men and women' may be a little barren at the moment. (Apart from Patel who I think is a future PM despite the fact everyone else doesn't)
On the referendum just thinking back to the terrible remain campaign and Obama's ill judged "back of the queue" comment. Since then US policy wrt the EU looks a lot more like what Trump left behind than what Obama said would happen. We're now well past the point where Biden could have undone everything Trump put in place but he hasn't and the US is far, far more hostile towards the EU than it was under Obama and it has been conducting almost all of its foreign policy on a bilateral basis with the nations of the EU rather than via the EU.
It's not a huge deal and probably reflects America's first priority of securing it's primacy in Asia and the Pacific and the Brexit effect of the major diplomatic partner no longer being in it.
I just thought it was interesting how different the post-Brexit realpolitik is to what Obama and the remain campaign were hopecasting. The UK/US relationship is still far, far more important to the US and UK than either of their relationships with the EU. Both the UK and US are conducting foreign policy without involving the EU and this is being aided and abetted by Macron who sees an opportunity to put France's interests at the top of the table without interference from the other 26 nations.
It will be interesting to see how the next 10 years plays out as the UK and US increasingly put their focus on Asia and the Pacific and continue to sidestep the EU. It may force the Eurocrats into a corner and try and make a play for France's UN security council seat and a new treaty to take over all external foreign policy.
I think relations between European countries and the US are massively better than under Trump.
European countries, yes, EU no.
During the Trump era, there was the specter (and reality) of tariffs, which was a trade bloc to trade bloc thing.
In the Biden era, what is there for the EU and the US to talk about? The US is looking to the threat of China, and the EU is largely irrelevant there. I don’t think there is unfriendliness - certainly unlike Trump - it’s more that the EU is irrelevant to the issues facing the US right now.
The problem is the same as Trump faced though. In facing off with China the EU is an unreliable friend keen to cut its own deals with China, the odd genocide be damned. As this runs contrary to the main US interest of the moment this inevitably means that relations remain somewhat cool. And the deals with Russia really don't help either.
Except the single most important technology sanction - withholding of advanced semiconductor production technology - depends on the Netherlands.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
For me I think the research focus needs to be: 1. A vaccine that prevents transmission. 2. Treatments for the vulnerable who are unable to be vaccinated.
Absolutely.
I thought the current research suggested the antibodies created by the AZ vaccination (two doses) were still going well so what is the point of a third or "booster" vaccination?
In any case, if the two doses of AZ don't prevent an individual contracting or transmitting the Delta variant (while accepting the effects of infection are relatively mild in the majority of cases), what's a third dose of the same vaccine going to achieve?
Presumably it would be a different vaccine as booster - to achieve crossfire, so to speak.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic
I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.
I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.
It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.
Can’t be arsed
Not acceptable. I'm waiting.
I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There
You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously
Ok. So your Leave and your Unionism are driven by the same thing - a love of Britain.
This doesn't work. A love of Britain can't be the driver of your Leave. Obviously it can't because millions who also love Britain voted Remain. The driver of your Leave was sovereignty. That's what makes sense - and you also told me it was.
Given this, you must empathize (and strongly) with the core argument of Nat Scots for Sindy, it being the same argument and more clearcut, since Scotland is clearly not sovereign, whereas for the UK in the EU it was arguable either way.
So given you empathize (and strongly) with the argument, why are you so virulently anti those putting it? This is what I'm trying to understand. Because you are. There's no question about that.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
For me I think the research focus needs to be: 1. A vaccine that prevents transmission. 2. Treatments for the vulnerable who are unable to be vaccinated.
Absolutely.
I thought the current research suggested the antibodies created by the AZ vaccination (two doses) were still going well so what is the point of a third or "booster" vaccination?
In any case, if the two doses of AZ don't prevent an individual contracting or transmitting the Delta variant (while accepting the effects of infection are relatively mild in the majority of cases), what's a third dose of the same vaccine going to achieve?
Different mechanisms attack the virus. IANAE, but AIUI an initial dose builds up antibodies, and generates helper-T cells that are primed to recognise the virus in future. Over time, the level of antibodies fall, but when the body 'sees' the virus once more, the helper-T cells causes B-cells to generate more antibodies, whilst other types of T-cells attack.
But this takes more time than the antibodies.
So giving a third dose may generate more antibodies which will be able to attack the virus quicker if encountered. Given Delta's nastiness, that time might be critical to avoid the virus being spread, as well as helping vulnerable people fight it off quicker.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
The SNP also failed to get a majority in May at Holyrood like the majority they got in 2011 at Holyrood before Brexit
Are you fibbing again, or something?
The actual figure in that poll is 48% for Yes, as it takes about 4 seconds to check - so not a fall from 2014.
And the relevant figure for Holyrood and independence is SNP + SGP - a real majority even with one SGP MSP acting as convener of the parliament.
No it is not 48% Yes, it is only 48% Yes excluding don't knows.
Including don't knows it is actually only 44% committed Yes supporters, a 1% fall from 2014 despite Brexit.
In 2011 Salmond won an overall SNP majority without the need for the Greens
In the referendum, the DKs didn't vote by definition. So you are fiddling the comparison to suit yourself.
2011 is not relevant to 2021 except as a historical curiosity.
Most DKs before the 2014 referendum in polls actually ended up voting in the referendum and most of them ended up voting No
But you don't know that for the next one and you are just fiddling the figures. Especially as a lot of the DKs did it because they were worried about leaving the EU if they voted yes.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
The SNP also failed to get a majority in May at Holyrood like the majority they got in 2011 at Holyrood before Brexit
Are you fibbing again, or something?
The actual figure in that poll is 48% for Yes, as it takes about 4 seconds to check - so not a fall from 2014.
And the relevant figure for Holyrood and independence is SNP + SGP - a real majority even with one SGP MSP acting as convener of the parliament.
No it is not 48% Yes, it is only 48% Yes excluding don't knows.
Including don't knows it is actually only 44% committed Yes supporters, a 1% fall from 2014 despite Brexit.
In 2011 Salmond won an overall SNP majority without the need for the Greens
In the referendum, the DKs didn't vote by definition. So you are fiddling the comparison to suit yourself.
2011 is not relevant to 2021 except as a historical curiosity.
Most DKs before the 2014 referendum in polls actually ended up voting in the referendum and most of them ended up voting No
But you don't know that for the next one and you are just fiddling the figures. Especially as a lot of the DKs did it because they were worried about leaving the EU if they voted yes.
If Brexit was such a game changer those 2014 DKs would all now be staunch Yes backers post Brexit.
They aren't, clearly the fact Boris got a trade deal with the EU and we avoided No Deal has meant there has been barely any change at all from 2014 despite Brexit
I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There
You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously
4 nations? Really?
You're not keen on writing the wrong of Hingston Down ?
More seriously, there's a fifth nation - the British nation - those born here, the sons of migrants and refugees, who have no affinity to England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland but see themselves as British.
You think people like Ian Wright or Che Adams don't have an affinity with any of the home nations?
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
That decision was not made by a public vote! It also ignored the fact that Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic and Nationalist majorities at the time of the 1918 election.
Fermanagh North actually elected an Irish Unionist MP in 1918 even if Fermanagh South had a Sinn Fein MP, Tyrone South had a Unionist MP too.
If you look at the map of which seats were won by Sinn Fein and the IPP (ie virtually all of what became the Free State apart from Trinity College, Dublin) and which states were won by Irish Unionists and Labour Unionists (virtually all of what became Northern Ireland apart from a few exceptions like West Belfast and part of Fermanagh and Tyrone) it was about right
Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.
I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM! What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.
Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
The SNP also failed to get a majority in May at Holyrood like the majority they got in 2011 at Holyrood before Brexit
Are you fibbing again, or something?
The actual figure in that poll is 48% for Yes, as it takes about 4 seconds to check - so not a fall from 2014.
And the relevant figure for Holyrood and independence is SNP + SGP - a real majority even with one SGP MSP acting as convener of the parliament.
No it is not 48% Yes, it is only 48% Yes excluding don't knows.
Including don't knows it is actually only 44% committed Yes supporters, a 1% fall from 2014 despite Brexit.
In 2011 Salmond won an overall SNP majority without the need for the Greens
In the referendum, the DKs didn't vote by definition. So you are fiddling the comparison to suit yourself.
2011 is not relevant to 2021 except as a historical curiosity.
Most DKs before the 2014 referendum in polls actually ended up voting in the referendum and most of them ended up voting No
But you don't know that for the next one and you are just fiddling the figures. Especially as a lot of the DKs did it because they were worried about leaving the EU if they voted yes.
If Brexit was such a game changer those 2014 DKs would all now be staunch Yes backers post Brexit.
They aren't, clearly the fact Boris got a trade deal with the EU and we avoided No Deal has meant there has been barely any change at all from 2014 despite Brexit
But you can't just go and compare actual reported figures in one mode to those in another when reporting them on PB. You can suggest their interpretation, but to actually alter them up front in such a blatant way is quite something.
I distrust and dislike referenda in the UK, but if was to become a well established thing then they're not so bad. So in Switzerland I guess it's common practice to have to gen-up on the issue and then vote.
In the UK though we choose to defer the decisions to wise men and women who can find time to weigh the issues and can be trusted to decide on our behalf. They certainly find the time to weigh the issues.
Really? What’s happened to these ‘wise men and women’ and how were they replaced by the current lot of fools?
If we assume that the wise ones were the ones saying "we have to leave the EU, but ought to start by doing so in a gentle way that acknowledges the concerns that very many people have"... The Rory Stewarts, Nick Bolses, Ken Clarkes...We watched and shrugged as the schoolboy mob, off their heads on victory, lemonade and verbose blogs, chased them away.
I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There
You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously
4 nations? Really?
You're not keen on writing the wrong of Hingston Down ?
More seriously, there's a fifth nation - the British nation - those born here, the sons of migrants and refugees, who have no affinity to England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland but see themselves as British.
You think people like Ian Wright or Che Adams don't have an affinity with any of the home nations?
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
The SNP also failed to get a majority in May at Holyrood like the majority they got in 2011 at Holyrood before Brexit
Are you fibbing again, or something?
The actual figure in that poll is 48% for Yes, as it takes about 4 seconds to check - so not a fall from 2014.
And the relevant figure for Holyrood and independence is SNP + SGP - a real majority even with one SGP MSP acting as convener of the parliament.
No it is not 48% Yes, it is only 48% Yes excluding don't knows.
Including don't knows it is actually only 44% committed Yes supporters, a 1% fall from 2014 despite Brexit.
In 2011 Salmond won an overall SNP majority without the need for the Greens
In the referendum, the DKs didn't vote by definition. So you are fiddling the comparison to suit yourself.
2011 is not relevant to 2021 except as a historical curiosity.
Most DKs before the 2014 referendum in polls actually ended up voting in the referendum and most of them ended up voting No
But you don't know that for the next one and you are just fiddling the figures. Especially as a lot of the DKs did it because they were worried about leaving the EU if they voted yes.
If Brexit was such a game changer those 2014 DKs would all now be staunch Yes backers post Brexit.
They aren't, clearly the fact Boris got a trade deal with the EU and we avoided No Deal has meant there has been barely any change at all from 2014 despite Brexit
But you can't just go and compare actual reported figures in one mode to those in another when reporting them on PB. You can suggest their interpretation, but to actually alter them up front in such a blatant way is quite something.
Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.
I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM! What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.
Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.
Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
You're not a details man, sure..
It conveyed the meaning. Language is about communication.
But may be engage with the substance rather than just insulting others?
If certain parts of Scotland vote to remain part of England why should they be separated against their will?
The infection rate over 7 days have actually turned positive again, albeit by a very small amount. But the hospitals are emptying so we don't care.
I think the worry is that at the moment its summer and the rugrat super spreaders aren't at school. If this is "low season" level, how bad will it get during peak season. It might also be just a plateau before it falls further, but obviously could also be the start of another significant rise.
We have been rising the entire time since the start of May. It is just the football gave a massive spike that we have come down from.
The doubling time of the curve is looooopng but we are on it.
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
You're not a details man, sure..
It conveyed the meaning. Language is about communication.
But may be engage with the substance rather than just insulting others?
If certain parts of Scotland vote to remain part of England why should they be separated against their will?
Not that bothered about engaging with those who see having their blunders pointed out as 'insulting' tbh, touch of the ol' patricians there.
Anyway, haven't you got some people smugglers to report?
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?
Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic
I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.
I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.
It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.
Can’t be arsed
Not acceptable. I'm waiting.
I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There
You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously
You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.
Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic
I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.
I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.
It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.
Can’t be arsed
Not acceptable. I'm waiting.
I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There
You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously
You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.
In any case, isn't it a bit late? Ireland has already been broken up. And Calais, Gascony, Normandy, etc. etc.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?
The wacky races olympics
I've never properly considered growing a moustache, but Dick Dastardly would be my hero if I did.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
Why is having a vote anti-democratic? You are asking the same people (the people of Scotland) not some other group.
Impractical and an admin nightmare, maybe, but not anti-democratic.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?
The wacky races olympics
I've never properly considered growing a moustache, but Dick Dastardly would be my hero if I did.
I had a beard for 30 yrs and when I shaved it off I wondered why Ihad been so stupid as to have one. I looked awful. If I had had just a moustache, I would have looked frightful. Moustaches are so 19th century.
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?
The wacky races olympics
All of a sudden, that's what I want.
Sporting competition where cheating is allowed, as long as the cheating is amusing enough. A recently resigned senior political adviser in the Dick Dastardly role- it's not as if he has much else on.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
Why is having a vote anti-democratic? You are asking the same people (the people of Scotland) not some other group.
Impractical and an admin nightmare, maybe, but not anti-democratic.
If you had a general election and the losers said, "We don't accept this, we demand a revote", is that democratic? Democracy isn't just the performance of the vote - it's the acceptance of the result.
Endless theatre where people vote but the result is never accepted is not democracy. It's a potemkin version where people think that accepting the decision made plays no part in democracy, and that all you need is the performance of the vote for the cameras and results can be discarded if they're inconvenient.
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?
The wacky races olympics
I've never properly considered growing a moustache, but Dick Dastardly would be my hero if I did.
I had a beard for 30 yrs and when I shaved it off I wondered why Ihad been so stupid as to have one. I looked awful. If I had had just a moustache, I would have looked frightful. Moustaches are so 19th century.
Actually I passed a chap in the street yesterday. I'd guess he was Sri-Lankan or thereabouts in origin. Anyway he had a great moustache.
Greens 'to get a minister' under deal with SNP, email suggests
”… the New Zealand model is something which has never been tried in the UK before and the civil servants and Government lawyers need more time to finalise the technical aspects of how it will work in a Scottish Parliament context.”
… The idea, according to the First Minister and the Greens, would see co-operation over specific issues, without a formal coalition deal.
Areas of co-operation are likely to include Scottish independence, which both parties support.
Greens co-leader Lorna Slater said in May the deal could allow for long-term budgeting to be done, rather than the usual annual negotiations the SNP are forced to go through to secure budget deals when ruling as a minority administration.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
The infection rate over 7 days have actually turned positive again, albeit by a very small amount. But the hospitals are emptying so we don't care.
I think the worry is that at the moment its summer and the rugrat super spreaders aren't at school. If this is "low season" level, how bad will it get during peak season. It might also be just a plateau before it falls further, but obviously could also be the start of another significant rise.
We have been rising the entire time since the start of May. It is just the football gave a massive spike that we have come down from.
The doubling time of the curve is looooopng but we are on it.
There are so many factors in this. We are now a few weeks past the ending of all restrictions in England which will presumably have given a boost to infections again, so perhaps negating the schools being out and the footy over. All the time more immunity is building, so there is an increasing downward pressure, and it is certainly true that the pressure on the nhs, while unhelpful, has not reached anything like that seen at other times in the pandemic. It’s not easy to see what will happen in September. It’s probably too simplistic to recall last year, as now we have so much more immunity, but of course delta seems able to infect many who are double jabbed, albeit not leading to serious infection for most. So basically we don’t know. I’d note that all the modelled scenarios show a peak after reopening and then a slow decline. Hopefully this will come to pass.
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
You're not a details man, sure..
It conveyed the meaning. Language is about communication.
But may be engage with the substance rather than just insulting others?
If certain parts of Scotland vote to remain part of England why should they be separated against their will?
How could part of Scotland “remain part of England”?
If it’s in Scotland now it could change allegiance and join England, but that would be a new status, not “remaining”.
Unless of course you are letting the mask slip and admitting that UK = England.
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
You're not a details man, sure..
It conveyed the meaning. Language is about communication.
But may be engage with the substance rather than just insulting others?
If certain parts of Scotland vote to remain part of England why should they be separated against their will?
Is that not the argument that many Scots used/are using with respect to being taken out of the EU?
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
Why is having a vote anti-democratic? You are asking the same people (the people of Scotland) not some other group.
Impractical and an admin nightmare, maybe, but not anti-democratic.
If you had a general election and the losers said, "We don't accept this, we demand a revote", is that democratic? Democracy isn't just the performance of the vote - it's the acceptance of the result.
Endless theatre where people vote but the result is never accepted is not democracy. It's a potemkin version where people think that accepting the decision made plays no part in democracy, and that all you need is the performance of the vote for the cameras and results can be discarded if they're inconvenient.
There is a difference between accepting the vote and wanting another one. It is absolutely acceptable to want another vote having accepted the result of the previous one. There is also a case to be made that the EU referendum was a material change in circumstances.
But that is beside the point. A vote asking the same people the same thing may be impractical but it is by definition not anti-democratic.
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?
The wacky races olympics
I've never properly considered growing a moustache, but Dick Dastardly would be my hero if I did.
I had a beard for 30 yrs and when I shaved it off I wondered why Ihad been so stupid as to have one. I looked awful. If I had had just a moustache, I would have looked frightful. Moustaches are so 19th century.
Actually I passed a chap in the street yesterday. I'd guess he was Sri-Lankan or thereabouts in origin. Anyway he had a great moustache.
Did your chin look like you recalled after 30y?
Moustaches are actually very twentieth century. Look at any photo of men from any point in the C20 prior to about 1988 - there will be more moustaches than you remember. More than I remember, anyway. My father in law still has a moustache. He looks not unlike Lemmy from Motorhead, if he was ginger and still alive.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
The SNP also failed to get a majority in May at Holyrood like the majority they got in 2011 at Holyrood before Brexit
Are you fibbing again, or something?
The actual figure in that poll is 48% for Yes, as it takes about 4 seconds to check - so not a fall from 2014.
And the relevant figure for Holyrood and independence is SNP + SGP - a real majority even with one SGP MSP acting as convener of the parliament.
No it is not 48% Yes, it is only 48% Yes excluding don't knows.
Including don't knows it is actually only 44% committed Yes supporters, a 1% fall from 2014 despite Brexit.
In 2011 Salmond won an overall SNP majority without the need for the Greens
In the referendum, the DKs didn't vote by definition. So you are fiddling the comparison to suit yourself.
2011 is not relevant to 2021 except as a historical curiosity.
Most DKs before the 2014 referendum in polls actually ended up voting in the referendum and most of them ended up voting No
But you don't know that for the next one and you are just fiddling the figures. Especially as a lot of the DKs did it because they were worried about leaving the EU if they voted yes.
If Brexit was such a game changer those 2014 DKs would all now be staunch Yes backers post Brexit.
They aren't, clearly the fact Boris got a trade deal with the EU and we avoided No Deal has meant there has been barely any change at all from 2014 despite Brexit
That is like saying I cut both my legs off in a fit of pique, but the surgeon sewed them back on, and other than the fact I can' no longer walk nothing has changed.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
Gunboats, tanks, the Marines, Trident. They’re your toys, why not use them? Goodness knows enough Unionists have suggested it over the years.
Just put us against a wall and shoot us. We know you want to.
British Nationalists love Scotland. It’s just the bloody Scots they can’t stand.
I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There
You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously
4 nations? Really?
You're not keen on writing the wrong of Hingston Down ?
More seriously, there's a fifth nation - the British nation - those born here, the sons of migrants and refugees, who have no affinity to England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland but see themselves as British.
You think people like Ian Wright or Che Adams don't have an affinity with any of the home nations?
He was generalizing - thus wrong as all generalizations are - but his point is a valid one. 'English' as an identity is by and large less embraced cf 'British' by those of ethnic minority background than the rest of the population. I think that's the case anyway, per the relevant studies. Course, this could (probably would) change over time, and especially if the country became just England & Wales, or just England.
Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic
I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs
I am just off for a nice lunch at Troon Marina , I will miss the abuse for an hour or two , but I will return in pleasant demeanour as ever.
Don’t fret, sunshine, you’ll carry on the abuse when you get back. I’m sure a break will do you good.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Bit more than just: quite a reasonable majority at Holyrood (and Westminster too). But basically yes.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
As you suggest 52-48 is a substantially closer result than 55-45, and with big discrepancies in the constituent nations of this Union. I'd contend a single country has a better chance of overcoming disruption than a unitary state that can't quite decide how to define itself (state, country, collection of countries, nation, union of nations, Britain, UK etc), though no doubt there would have been lots of crackerjack calls from Epping for indy for Shetland etc, but these people are idiots.
I'd still refer you back to my several times made contention that without Brexit support for indy would be 40%ish and the SNP would be looking a lot less dominant than they are. The people that opened Pandora's Box were Brexiteers not Indy backers. Fair play that you reluctantly recognise that there's a case for Scots to at least be allowed to review the situation.
Including don't knows the latest indyref2 poll has Yes on just 44%, actually LESS than the 45% Yes got in 2014 despite Brexit.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Bit more than just: quite a reasonable majority at Holyrood (and Westminster too). But basically yes.
Antibodies ;produced by natural infection attack a different part of the spike protein in the virus than antibodies produced by mRNA vaccines.
Presumably people who got infected and recovered, and then got vaccinated, have two different sorts of antibodies tackling different parts of the spike protein.
And people who have been vaccinated but still get mildly ill when encountering the virus are ill because the vaccine is doing a partial job and they have to wait tlln andpuoiklborurmi
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
Er, you're forgetting that the Scottish Greens also had an independence referendum in their manifesto and that there is therefore a comfortable majority at Holyrood with the SNP for another referendum. As there is in the Scottish MPs.
And Yes polling latest is higher than in 2014, not lower. (Ignoring HYUFD's various interpretations.)
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
And the Scots - both Yes and some No voters - actually want a referendum within a ferw years.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
Gunboats, tanks, the Marines, Trident. They’re your toys, why not use them? Goodness knows enough Unionists have suggested it over the years.
Just put us against a wall and shoot us. We know you want to.
British Nationalists love Scotland. It’s just the bloody Scots they can’t stand.
No need for any of that when the Scots have already defeated the SNP in the 2014 ref. How long till you characterise the majority of Scots as "enemies"?
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
Gunboats, tanks, the Marines, Trident. They’re your toys, why not use them? Goodness knows enough Unionists have suggested it over the years.
Just put us against a wall and shoot us. We know you want to.
British Nationalists love Scotland. It’s just the bloody Scots they can’t stand.
No need for any of that when the Scots have already defeated the SNP in the 2014 ref. How long till you characterise the majority of Scots as "enemies"?
I think you are confusing referenda and elections. And the independence movement is not the same as the SNP. it included many socialists, Greens, Labour and even the odd Tory.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
Wouldn't they become a new entity of "Southern Scotland" if precedent is followed?
Probably, but still part of the UK
Although I think the Debatable Lands sounds better
What would happen if Ayrshire voted to stay with the UK?
What would the turnip thrower do?
Fat chance of that ever happening, despite the unionist fantasies, absolutely no part of Scotland will become English when independence occurs. More likely Northern England would want to join Scotland.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
You're not a details man, sure..
It conveyed the meaning. Language is about communication.
But may be engage with the substance rather than just insulting others?
If certain parts of Scotland vote to remain part of England why should they be separated against their will?
How could part of Scotland “remain part of England”?
If it’s in Scotland now it could change allegiance and join England, but that would be a new status, not “remaining”.
Unless of course you are letting the mask slip and admitting that UK = England.
Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.
I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM! What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.
Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.
Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.
Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.
But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.
Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.
If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.
Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
Not another nutjob unionist who cannot count.
I don't think he is very familiar with the SNP or SGP manifesto or the results of Holyrood and Westminster elections since 2014. Anyway, free range pork chops for dinner, with cabbage and home grown spuds, so I will be off now - have a nice evening,
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp · 2h 6. Finally, we've been seeing the most international travel since the pandemic began.
What happens next? Probably gradual increase for rest of August and then September will be a crunch point on how much immunity keeps things down on return to work, school & uni. /END
So, a tad different to the 100,000 cases a day by August iSAGE were suggesting only about three weeks ago.
We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.
What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?
The wacky races olympics
I've never properly considered growing a moustache, but Dick Dastardly would be my hero if I did.
I ran out of some key ingredients (ok wine), and ordered a Deliveroo from Sainsburys.
I got a call (from Sainsburys) saying that it had been intercepted and stolen, and that there'd thus be a delay.
I insisted that I'd want to know how the reporting to the police was happening, but they seemed reluctant to say. The order turned up (un-intercepted) 20 or so minutes later. I'm almost sure there's no police report.
I would very much like to eradicate this sort of shit. Any suggestions?
(I will of course be sending emails to Deliveroo and Sainsbury's about this, and I'll be copying in the Met. With the Met I'll also be insisting on a response.)
Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.
I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM! What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.
Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.
Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.
Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.
But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.
Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.
If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.
Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.
I'll be interested to see what you find.
A PB pedantry: 'metro' is (I believe) yoof-speak for metrosexual. No doubt the chap in question is well-groomed, but perhaps you mean metropolitan?
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp · 2h 6. Finally, we've been seeing the most international travel since the pandemic began.
What happens next? Probably gradual increase for rest of August and then September will be a crunch point on how much immunity keeps things down on return to work, school & uni. /END
So, a tad different to the 100,000 cases a day by August iSAGE were suggesting only about three weeks ago.
Pagel is probably the most sane of the lot of them. She almost admitted she was wrong the other week.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
Not another nutjob unionist who cannot count.
I don't think he is very familiar with the SNP or SGP manifesto or the results of Holyrood and Westminster elections since 2014. Anyway, free range pork chops for dinner, with cabbage and home grown spuds, so I will be off now - have a nice evening,
I am just back from lunch , I had Shetland Mussels , seabass with linguine and Pavlova. Unfortunately as I was driving I had to pass on the Pornstar Martini's. PS: Enjoy and a pleasant evening to you too.
Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic
I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.
I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.
It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.
Can’t be arsed
Not acceptable. I'm waiting.
I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There
You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously
You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.
OK, I'll have a go at this. When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).
I miss that.
Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.
That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.
But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.
*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
I can't quite unpack this one.
Especially as the fact of voting in SNP majorities at Westminster, and the nearest thing to them in a parliament whose voting system is designed to prevent that in the first place, might be a teensy hint.
Re the vaccine - trusting the scientists and medics is one thing and politics another. I don't think the EU thing came into people's decision making one way or another as to whether to have the vaccine (which was Pfizer or Moderna or AZ effectively as dished out as far as most folk were concerned, anyway).
Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.
I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM! What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.
Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.
Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.
Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.
But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.
Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.
If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.
Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.
I really cannot imagine what loving a country would feel like. I think there's a lot in the adage, Never love anything that isn't capable of loving you back.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?
What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.
My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.
The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.
Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).
Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?
Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.
I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't? Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..
I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.
Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.
I largely agree
On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence
In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North
If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland
That's not what a border poll is!
I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.
Wouldn't they become a new entity of "Southern Scotland" if precedent is followed?
Probably, but still part of the UK
Although I think the Debatable Lands sounds better
What would happen if Ayrshire voted to stay with the UK?
What would the turnip thrower do?
Fat chance of that ever happening, despite the unionist fantasies, absolutely no part of Scotland will become English when independence occurs. More likely Northern England would want to join Scotland.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Bit more than just: quite a reasonable majority at Holyrood (and Westminster too). But basically yes.
But Lugano is different - basically Italy with Swiss taxes.
I love Locarno - just beautiful by the Lake with the ferries down to Stresa where you can stand in the room were the Stresa Pact was signed and wonder how we might have avoided World War 2.
I’ve only been there a couple of times but Como and the whole of that region are great
There’s the bit of Switzerland that is Italian, separated from the other Swiss by a massive mountain range, then there’s a bit of Italy that’s Italian, then there’s a bit of Italy that’s German (Austrian), then there’s another bit that is supposedly Ladin although apart from everything having to be in three languages it feels somewhere between the Italian Italian bit and the German Italian bit. An intriguing if mixed up part of the world.
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.
A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.
Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
Not another nutjob unionist who cannot count.
I don't think he is very familiar with the SNP or SGP manifesto or the results of Holyrood and Westminster elections since 2014. Anyway, free range pork chops for dinner, with cabbage and home grown spuds, so I will be off now - have a nice evening,
I am just back from lunch , I had Shetland Mussels , seabass with linguine and Pavlova. Unfortunately as I was driving I had to pass on the Pornstar Martini's. PS: Enjoy and a pleasant evening to you too.
They sound a bit bleugh. Vanilla vodka? Passion fruit puree?
Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic
I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs
What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.
I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.
It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.
Can’t be arsed
Not acceptable. I'm waiting.
I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There
You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously
You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.
OK, I'll have a go at this. When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).
I miss that.
Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.
That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.
But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.
*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.
At least you have tried. And all the more credit.
interestingly, the Labour argument would give far more importance to Livingston - that a working class person in Livingston has everything in common with one in, say, Luton, and far more so than with, say, a Scottish Tory.
Also - the Scottish Tories were a separate party up to about 1955 - the Unionist Party - but that was Union with Ireland as much as England. Still, that nicely illustrates your thesis.
Comments
https://www.lequipe.fr/Athletisme/Actualites/Le-passage-au-ravitaillement-maladroit-de-morhad-amdouni-au-marathon-des-jo-de-tokyo/1277234
Although I think the Debatable Lands sounds better
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debatable_Lands
"No, it isn't."
"Yes, it is."
"This isn't a debate - it's just contradiction."
What would the turnip thrower do?
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM!
What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.
I distrust and dislike referenda in the UK, but if was to become a well established thing then they're not so bad. So in Switzerland I guess it's common practice to have to gen-up on the issue and then vote.
In the UK though we choose to defer the decisions to wise men and women who can find time to weigh the issues and can be trusted to decide on our behalf. They certainly find the time to weigh the issues.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1424074941381713921?s=
The SNP also failed to get a majority in May at Holyrood like the majority they got in 2011 at Holyrood before Brexit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_1st_Dáil
If you look at the map of which seats were won by Sinn Fein and the IPP (ie virtually all of what became the Free State apart from Trinity College, Dublin) and which states were won by Irish Unionists and Labour Unionists (virtually all of what became Northern Ireland apart from a few exceptions like West Belfast and part of Fermanagh and Tyrone) it was about right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election#/media/File:Irish_UK_election_1918.png
I thought the current research suggested the antibodies created by the AZ vaccination (two doses) were still going well so what is the point of a third or "booster" vaccination?
In any case, if the two doses of AZ don't prevent an individual contracting or transmitting the Delta variant (while accepting the effects of infection are relatively mild in the majority of cases), what's a third dose of the same vaccine going to achieve?
The actual figure in that poll is 48% for Yes, as it takes about 4 seconds to check - so not a fall from 2014.
And the relevant figure for Holyrood and independence is SNP + SGP - a real majority even with one SGP MSP acting as convener of the parliament.
Including don't knows it is actually only 44% committed Yes supporters, a 1% fall from 2014 despite Brexit.
In 2011 Salmond won an overall SNP majority without the need for the Greens
This doesn't work. A love of Britain can't be the driver of your Leave. Obviously it can't because millions who also love Britain voted Remain. The driver of your Leave was sovereignty. That's what makes sense - and you also told me it was.
Given this, you must empathize (and strongly) with the core argument of Nat Scots for Sindy, it being the same argument and more clearcut, since Scotland is clearly not sovereign, whereas for the UK in the EU it was arguable either way.
So given you empathize (and strongly) with the argument, why are you so virulently anti those putting it? This is what I'm trying to understand. Because you are. There's no question about that.
2011 is not relevant to 2021 except as a historical curiosity.
But this takes more time than the antibodies.
So giving a third dose may generate more antibodies which will be able to attack the virus quicker if encountered. Given Delta's nastiness, that time might be critical to avoid the virus being spread, as well as helping vulnerable people fight it off quicker.
They aren't, clearly the fact Boris got a trade deal with the EU and we avoided No Deal has meant there has been barely any change at all from 2014 despite Brexit
SF 53.1
IPP 0.5
Unionist 46.4
Total Nationalist 53.6%
Total vote across Tyrone in 1918:
SF 28.8
IPP 21.1
Ind Nat 4.7
Unionist 45.4
Total Nationalist 54.6%
'Cos I'm the England man!"
But may be engage with the substance rather than just insulting others?
If certain parts of Scotland vote to remain part of England why should they be separated against their will?
The doubling time of the curve is looooopng but we are on it.
Anyway, haven't you got some people smugglers to report?
The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.
The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).
What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?
Impractical and an admin nightmare, maybe, but not anti-democratic.
Moustaches are so 19th century.
Sporting competition where cheating is allowed, as long as the cheating is amusing enough. A recently resigned senior political adviser in the Dick Dastardly role- it's not as if he has much else on.
Basically, a live action remake of this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laff-A-Lympics
Endless theatre where people vote but the result is never accepted is not democracy. It's a potemkin version where people think that accepting the decision made plays no part in democracy, and that all you need is the performance of the vote for the cameras and results can be discarded if they're inconvenient.
Did your chin look like you recalled after 30y?
”… the New Zealand model is something which has never been tried in the UK before and the civil servants and Government lawyers need more time to finalise the technical aspects of how it will work in a Scottish Parliament context.”
… The idea, according to the First Minister and the Greens, would see co-operation over specific issues, without a formal coalition deal.
Areas of co-operation are likely to include Scottish independence, which both parties support.
Greens co-leader Lorna Slater said in May the deal could allow for long-term budgeting to be done, rather than the usual annual negotiations the SNP are forced to go through to secure budget deals when ruling as a minority administration.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/greens-to-get-a-minister-under-deal-with-snp-email-suggests-3338397
So basically we don’t know. I’d note that all the modelled scenarios show a peak after reopening and then a slow decline. Hopefully this will come to pass.
If it’s in Scotland now it could change allegiance and join England, but that would be a new status, not “remaining”.
Unless of course you are letting the mask slip and admitting that UK = England.
But that is beside the point. A vote asking the same people the same thing may be impractical but it is by definition not anti-democratic.
My father in law still has a moustache. He looks not unlike Lemmy from Motorhead, if he was ginger and still alive.
Just put us against a wall and shoot us. We know you want to.
British Nationalists love Scotland. It’s just the bloody Scots they can’t stand.
There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.
Unionist lawmakers = 57
Presiding Officer (from a pro-independence party) = 1
Hardly “just”.
And Yes polling latest is higher than in 2014, not lower. (Ignoring HYUFD's various interpretations.)
But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.
Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.
If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.
Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.
@chrischirp
·
2h
6. Finally, we've been seeing the most international travel since the pandemic began.
What happens next? Probably gradual increase for rest of August and then September will be a crunch point on how much immunity keeps things down on return to work, school & uni. /END
So, a tad different to the 100,000 cases a day by August iSAGE were suggesting only about three weeks ago.
I got a call (from Sainsburys) saying that it had been intercepted and stolen, and that there'd thus be a delay.
I insisted that I'd want to know how the reporting to the police was happening, but they seemed reluctant to say. The order turned up (un-intercepted) 20 or so minutes later. I'm almost sure there's no police report.
I would very much like to eradicate this sort of shit. Any suggestions?
(I will of course be sending emails to Deliveroo and Sainsbury's about this, and I'll be copying in the Met. With the Met I'll also be insisting on a response.)
It's insane that such things should be normal.
A PB pedantry: 'metro' is (I believe) yoof-speak for metrosexual. No doubt the chap in question is well-groomed, but perhaps you mean metropolitan?
PS: Enjoy and a pleasant evening to you too.
When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).
I miss that.
Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.
That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.
But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.
*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.
Re the vaccine - trusting the scientists and medics is one thing and politics another. I don't think the EU thing came into people's decision making one way or another as to whether to have the vaccine (which was Pfizer or Moderna or AZ effectively as dished out as far as most folk were concerned, anyway).
The dirty martini is a permitted drink.
interestingly, the Labour argument would give far more importance to Livingston - that a working class person in Livingston has everything in common with one in, say, Luton, and far more so than with, say, a Scottish Tory.
Also - the Scottish Tories were a separate party up to about 1955 - the Unionist Party - but that was Union with Ireland as much as England. Still, that nicely illustrates your thesis.