Howdy, Stranger!

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

Don’t fear for Keir – politicalbetting.com

245678

Comments

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,558
    edited August 2021
    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,904
    Stereodog said:

    Great article but I don't think the 4 year rationale works for this election cycle. To serve a four year term the Tories would need to go to the country in December again which I can't see anyone wanting. Surely they'd roll it over to the spring of 2024.

    That's a fair point, and not one I really considered. I believe the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, if not repealed, 'resets' to May elections so the next election must be by May 2024. As such, as you say, an early election would have to be after more like 3 years of the term than 4.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/1/enacted
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    Mr. xP, oh, then on that point I stand corrected.

    In the UK the democratic chamber has the whip hand on approval of legislation and proposes most of it, with the appointed/hereditary/ecclesiastical chamber able to approve and propose legislation (but unable to force the matter either way), whereas in the EU only the unelected can propose legislation.

    The UK system remains more democratically accountable and superior. Power rests primarily with the elected.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206
    FUN QUIZ

    Who…

    Was absent for the bill on climate change targets

    Was absent for the bill to eliminate transport emissions

    Voted against setting a decarbonising strategy

    Generally voted against measures to prevent climate change

    Did you get it?


    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10999/boris_johnson/uxbridge_and_south_ruislip/divisions?policy=1030

    https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1426439519566446597
  • Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206

    in the EU only the unelected can propose legislation.

    And only the elected can approve it.

    To pretend that is undemocratic is nonsense.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,948
    tlg86 said:

    Quincel said:

    IanB2 said:

    The contradiction - and possible flaw with the tip - in the article is that the more likely a 2023 election the more likely Starmer doesn’t make it to 2024.

    I might be misunderstanding you, but what is the contradiction of this? I agree that an early election is a risk for Starmer, particularly because one is more likely if the Tories are in a strong position. But I'm not advising for a bet on an early election, so I don't see what this contradicts? Unless you just mean 'The risk' when you say 'The contradiction' and I'm reading too much into your word choice.
    I think your logic is sound. An election in 2024 is most likely in my opinion.
    There’s another consideration. If it isn’t in 2024 it will either be in the winter or less than four years after the previous one.

    Both seem unlikely scenarios. When was the last time a PM with a sizeable majority called an election after just three and a half years? I’ve got Heath 1974. I think that’s the only example in the age of universal suffrage (the previous one being Baldwin 1923). Depends a bit on how you count Eden in 1955 or May 2017, but both had quite small majorities and pressing reasons to dissolve Parliament: Eden was in a burst of popularity after replacing Churchill and May had been under pressure over her budget proposals.

    Similarly, will Johnson call an election in winter unless he has to? Allowing 2019 as a time he did have to, it isn’t popular with activists or voters. Too dark, wet, cold and unpleasant for campaigning. I think he will avoid it if he can (if he’s still there).

    The change would be if there’s a new PM in 2023 who like Eden will gamble on a honeymoon period.
  • Agreed with Quincel.

    It will be Tears for Keir on election night, not before.
  • Without going round in the same tired circles it is patently obvious that the English had fallen out of love with the political settlement of the 80s, 90s and 00s. A change of government wasn't going to resolve this paradigm shift, they had to change and change big - hence the growth in demand for a referendum.

    This had been seeded over a long period by big money who wanted to turn Britain into Singapore on Thames, hence the endless "bendy bananas" bullshit. My point is that regardless of the whys and wherefores of the two campaigns, there was a need - or needs - that Brexit filled. At least on paper...!

    The challenge for now is the post-Brexit settlement. The UK has been pushed to the absolute edge of tolerance both in NI and Scotland. The UK has voluntarily shut down its customs area. Trade with both the EEA and ROI is in flux.

    Putting it simply, at the start of this new political era, as we haven't yet settled the need for change vs the previous era and haven't yet resolved the settlement from Brexit (whilst destabilising the UK at the same time), it is more probable than not that further change to the status quo is coming.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658

    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

    Would you be happy to have a currency union with Scotland where the BoE is the lender of last resort for banks in a foreign country? Should the rUK taxpayers continue to subsidise Scotland?

    Ultimately the currency and social security make Scottish independence an order of magnitude more serious than Brexit. It’s not nasty right-wingers like me who are responsible for that. It’s just the reality of the situation.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206

    Putting it simply, at the start of this new political era, as we haven't yet settled the need for change vs the previous era and haven't yet resolved the settlement from Brexit (whilst destabilising the UK at the same time), it is more probable than not that further change to the status quo is coming.

    Which is why Brexiteers are so insistent that Brexit is "over and done"

    They haven't accepted the reality that it has only just begun.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,948

    Scott_xP said:

    geoffw said:

    MD : "Who elected Von Der Leyen?"
    As one of the Elect there was no need for her to be elected.

    Who elected Claire Fox?
    Boris Johnson. He currently holds the position of sole voter for HoL membership.
    One person, one vote.

    Boris Johnson is the Person, and he gets the Vote.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    Mr. xP, no, it isn't.

    If you present a vegetarian with menu options of a bacon sarnie and pork chops and give them the vote, that doesn't mean they have a free choice.

    The creation of laws as a proposition is not some small matter, an additional, nice to have little extra.

    To put that in context, if it were the situation in the UK then political parties would be literally unable to even have (let alone renege upon) manifesto commitments because the proposition of laws would be a matter for other people.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Foxy said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I think that you are over cooking it a bit, but elements of truth in there.

    England is a strange place nowadays, and one divided against itself. I cannot see the Union surviving for much longer.

    On the currency, Indy Scotland should join the Euro, but stay in the CTA. It works for Ireland. Probably need to have direct ferries to the continent again because of the land border to England. There will be teething problems disentangling from the Union, but in the long term better for Scotland to go its own way.

    I have English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry, so will have some regrets at the end of British identity. I have always been more comfortable as British than English as an identity, but so it goes.

    Once one has one’s apron on and starts gaily chopping the shallots, the creative juices begin to flow.

    England has always been a strange place; it’s just getting stranger, which I suppose was the whole point of Brexit. But as you say, the stranger England Proper gets, the weaker Greater England gets.

    The direct ferries to the mainland will be fantastic for business. Convenient for ordinary passengers too, but that is a subsidiary consideration. Did you know that there is not a single direct passenger ferry from England or Scotland to Scandinavia? All gone in the last two decades, primarily due to Ryanair and Norwegian imo. Hopefully one consequence of the environmental crackdown on air transport will be the resurgence of shipping.

    On your final para re “end of British identity”, I disagree. Living side by side as respectful independent countries we can begin to build a true sense of Britishness, with all the ugly baggage absent. And Englishness will develop for the better when it is no longer the preserve of the right, but truly national.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 1,904

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    That wasn’t always the discourse but it seems increasingly to have resulted to it..
  • Quincel said:

    Foxy said:

    On topic 😀

    I am rather enjoying @Quincel Saturday headers, particularly with their emphasis on political betting!

    I agree that Starmer is very likely to fight the next election. The problem is that election may well be prior to 2024, and instant resignation of unsuccessful leaders after elections has become the norm. Personally, I think this regrettable as parties need some time to reflect before choosing a new leader. There is no need for hasty choices.

    On the one hand Starmer is wooden and unable to clearly communicate any vision for the party or country, and his flat-lining polls evidence that. This makes him unlikely to win enough seats to be next PM. In the less likely situation where the Tories lose their majority though, that lack of ideology and blank canvas is ideal for forming a coalition.

    I think that Starmer would be a far better PM than he is as Leader of the Opposition. Labour could have done far better though.

    Many thanks for this! I am trying to make a specific tip every week, though that's not going to be possible forever. I also agree this is much less safe than my normal bets, my natural 'sweet spot' is probably 1/2 bets which I think are more like 80% likely to win. But at longer than evens I do think it is value. There's probably a safer, but lower return, combo of backing Starmer to survive to 2024 and laying next election in 2024 at around 1/2 on Betfair/Smarkets.

    Absolutely agree that if Starmer loses an election in 2023 it is very unlikely he'll be leader for more than a couple of weeks. There's always a small chance he'd remain during the leadership election, which might drag from an autumn election to early 2024 - but he'd probably step down within days and a caretaker leader handle that phase.
    I think it would depend on how Labour loses. If vote share and seats both improve, the 2017 precedent is that Starmer could stay on. It would be more about whether he wants to or not. I think Miliband probably could have survived in 2015, too - if he’d chosen to. In retrospect, it probably would have been better for Labour if he had and I say that as someone who thought he was awful. As things stand, it’s hard to see a replacement for Starmer inside the PLP who could get past the membership and do better among ordinary voters. The far-left doesn’t have one, that is for sure.

  • Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
    Ah, so you're just not bothering with the persuasive arguments that you could easily make.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,767
    "Oregon will deploy at least 500 National Guard troops to help its hospitals deal with a flood of coronavirus patients, as the state faces the largest wave of infections it has seen during the pandemic, the state’s governor said on Friday.

    The governor, Kate Brown, said that hospitals were at risk of becoming overwhelmed, with 733 Oregonians hospitalized with severe cases of Covid-19, including 185 in intensive care."

    NYTimes
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    edited August 2021
    Mr. Pioneers, I disagree with that. The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain. For a long time I thought they'd win 60-40, at a canter.

    The contemptible approach of overblown scare attempts coupled with some casual contempt for the majority of the electorate (putting 'Nigel Farage's' before 'Little Englanders' doesn't make it a smart phrase when every vote counts) self-harmed Remain a lot. They then made a critical error by a bus fixation and making the dumb argument that "we're not spending a huge huge sum we're just spending a huge sum" rather than "yes it's a lot of money, look at these great benefits".

    The critical mistake was Labour's in 2007. A referendum on Lisbon would've been lost, and acted as a pressure valve, indicating discontent with the status quo and providing the impetus for an attempt at reform and improving the situation.

    But, just as pro-EU MPs did after the result, the europhile side opposed anything approaching compromise and ended up with, for them, the worst possible outcome.

    Edited extra bit: this make me wonder: is compromise the friend of the pro-EU cause and the enemy of the anti-EU side? Hmm.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,488
    Scott_xP said:

    in the EU only the unelected can propose legislation.

    And only the elected can approve it.

    To pretend that is undemocratic is nonsense.
    Indeed, and to complain about EU centralisation while advocating directly elected President and more powers to the Europarliament is rather self contradictory.

    Personally, I would favour more direct EU democracy if we were to Rejoin, but at present the division of powers in the EU between national heads of state, Commission and Parliament prevents any of the trio being over powerful. Such restraints are features of federal systems, and have some benefits over our system wher power in the Commons is minimally restrained, if at all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,948
    edited August 2021
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

    Would you be happy to have a currency union with Scotland where the BoE is the lender of last resort for banks in a foreign country? Should the rUK taxpayers continue to subsidise Scotland?

    Ultimately the currency and social security make Scottish independence an order of magnitude more serious than Brexit. It’s not nasty right-wingers like me who are responsible for that. It’s just the reality of the situation.
    So does Brexit itself, of course. Had the UK still been in the EU, there would have been a mechanism for a continued single market, customs union and arguably currency union that didn’t involve being run from London. That, of course, was central to the a Good a Friday Agreement. Leaving aside, for the moment, the uncertainty as to how long Scotland would have had to wait for EU membership, that’s a plausible narrative that divorce wouldn’t involve an immediate, messy break.

    Now - it would. And that’s true if Scotland joins the EU or just goes it alone. The only way to continue in a single market with a England for an independent Scotland would be to accept the ongoing dictation of London over its trade, fiscal and health and safety policies. Which would probably be less independence in practice than Scotland has now and would therefore be unthinkable. As Ireland found from 1949 to 1979. As Britain would have found had Daniel Hannan been telling the truth about staying in the single market.

    The fact that the SNP don’t seem to want to admit that these options would involve very tough choices for Scotland says all we really need to know - that they don’t have an answer.

    Which is odd, because again the example of Ireland does show that it can be achieved - given time - if you are willing to put up with the pain in transition. The key is, like the Irish, you must feel that the alternative (continuing as part of the UK) is worse.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490
    Foxy said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I think that you are over cooking it a bit, but elements of truth in there.

    England is a strange place nowadays, and one divided against itself. I cannot see the Union surviving for much longer.

    On the currency, Indy Scotland should join the Euro, but stay in the CTA. It works for Ireland. Probably need to have direct ferries to the continent again because of the land border to England. There will be teething problems disentangling from the Union, but in the long term better for Scotland to go its own way.

    I have English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry, so will have some regrets at the end of British identity. I have always been more comfortable as British than English as an identity, but so it goes.

    So if you're voting for Scottish independence you're voting to join the Euro?

    Interesting.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    in the EU only the unelected can propose legislation.

    And only the elected can approve it.

    To pretend that is undemocratic is nonsense.
    Indeed, and to complain about EU centralisation while advocating directly elected President and more powers to the Europarliament is rather self contradictory.

    Personally, I would favour more direct EU democracy if we were to Rejoin, but at present the division of powers in the EU between national heads of state, Commission and Parliament prevents any of the trio being over powerful. Such restraints are features of federal systems, and have some benefits over our system wher power in the Commons is minimally restrained, if at all.
    I think the contradiction works both ways. When it comes to it, the federalists can’t quite bring themselves to go the whole way. They look at Trump in the USA and the trends in Europe and worry that the people might elect the wrong person.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 18,903
    Quincel said:

    Foxy said:

    On topic 😀

    I am rather enjoying @Quincel Saturday headers, particularly with their emphasis on political betting!

    I agree that Starmer is very likely to fight the next election. The problem is that election may well be prior to 2024, and instant resignation of unsuccessful leaders after elections has become the norm. Personally, I think this regrettable as parties need some time to reflect before choosing a new leader. There is no need for hasty choices.

    On the one hand Starmer is wooden and unable to clearly communicate any vision for the party or country, and his flat-lining polls evidence that. This makes him unlikely to win enough seats to be next PM. In the less likely situation where the Tories lose their majority though, that lack of ideology and blank canvas is ideal for forming a coalition.

    I think that Starmer would be a far better PM than he is as Leader of the Opposition. Labour could have done far better though.

    Many thanks for this! I am trying to make a specific tip every week, though that's not going to be possible forever. I also agree this is much less safe than my normal bets, my natural 'sweet spot' is probably 1/2 bets which I think are more like 80% likely to win. But at longer than evens I do think it is value. There's probably a safer, but lower return, combo of backing Starmer to survive to 2024 and laying next election in 2024 at around 1/2 on Betfair/Smarkets.

    Absolutely agree that if Starmer loses an election in 2023 it is very unlikely he'll be leader for more than a couple of weeks. There's always a small chance he'd remain during the leadership election, which might drag from an autumn election to early 2024 - but he'd probably step down within days and a caretaker leader handle that phase.
    Another good Quincel piece - I'm sure he's right (assuming Starmer doesn't run into no major health issues, which nobody can ever rule out, but he seems healthy). There is a slow drift away from membership from people (mostly but not all on the left) who feel they don't really see the point at the moment, but I don't actually know anyone who is calling for a leader replacement. There's quite a lot riding on the conference speech, though, in terms of giving members something to look forward to.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

    Would you be happy to have a currency union with Scotland where the BoE is the lender of last resort for banks in a foreign country? Should the rUK taxpayers continue to subsidise Scotland?

    Ultimately the currency and social security make Scottish independence an order of magnitude more serious than Brexit. It’s not nasty right-wingers like me who are responsible for that. It’s just the reality of the situation.

    As I say, compromise on both sides is necessary. I can see a level of continuing subsidy from south to north being in England’s interests, but a blank cheque is not feasible or desirable. I agree that the level if interdependence is much greater and makes the problem solving harder. That’s why both genuine goodwill and the willingness to agree a phased separation would be absolutely paramount. As I also say, I realise it won’t happen. Confrontation suits too many agendas.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    edited August 2021

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
    Ah, so you're just not bothering with the persuasive arguments that you could easily make.
    Hey, I’ve been told this very morn that the English aren’t bovvered. Don’t really see the point of persuading people who don’t have a vote, especially if they don’t care in the first place.

    PB’s main political function pour moi is a constant reminder of the the types whose votes have imposed Brexit, BJ and the Conservative & Peronist party on my country. Keeps one on one’s toes.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,193
    edited August 2021

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

    Would you be happy to have a currency union with Scotland where the BoE is the lender of last resort for banks in a foreign country? Should the rUK taxpayers continue to subsidise Scotland?

    Ultimately the currency and social security make Scottish independence an order of magnitude more serious than Brexit. It’s not nasty right-wingers like me who are responsible for that. It’s just the reality of the situation.

    As I say, compromise on both sides is necessary. I can see a level of continuing subsidy from south to north being in England’s interests, but a blank cheque is not feasible or desirable. I agree that the level if interdependence is much greater and makes the problem solving harder. That’s why both genuine goodwill and the willingness to agree a phased separation would be absolutely paramount. As I also say, I realise it won’t happen. Confrontation suits too many agendas.

    I’d love to see some polling on whether rUK residents would be happy to continue subsidising a country that’s just voted to leave.

    Mind you, we could classify it as foreign aid...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,488

    Foxy said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I think that you are over cooking it a bit, but elements of truth in there.

    England is a strange place nowadays, and one divided against itself. I cannot see the Union surviving for much longer.

    On the currency, Indy Scotland should join the Euro, but stay in the CTA. It works for Ireland. Probably need to have direct ferries to the continent again because of the land border to England. There will be teething problems disentangling from the Union, but in the long term better for Scotland to go its own way.

    I have English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry, so will have some regrets at the end of British identity. I have always been more comfortable as British than English as an identity, but so it goes.

    So if you're voting for Scottish independence you're voting to join the Euro?

    Interesting.
    I won't be voting for it, as I am not registered to vote in Scotland, but yes joining the Euro is the best option for Indy Scotland.

    Apart from promising to join being a condition of membership the Euro is a solid reserve currency, and not liable to local debasement. Indeed lack of ability to debate the coinage is one of the criticisms people make of the Euro crisis of a decade ago.

    Scotland would need to balance its budget, but individuals and institutions would be assured that their money retains value
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,904
    edited August 2021

    Starmer's problem is that he isn't really a politician, and it shows.

    I actually wouldn't disagree with this, for the record. I've been surprised at how slowly he's learned, too.
  • Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
    Ah, so you're just not bothering with the persuasive arguments that you could easily make.
    Hey, I’ve been told this very morn that the English aren’t bovvered. Don’t really see the point of persuading people who don’t have a vote, especially if they don’t care in the first place.

    PB’s main political function pour moi is a constant reminder of the the types whose votes have imposed Brexit, BJ and the Conservative & Peronist party on my country. Keeps one on one’s toes.
    Scottish unionists post on here; some may even lurk. Who knows, you could even be able to persuade one or two of them. They might use your convincing arguments on others with a vote..

    But you seem certain of, and happy with, your self diagnosis of crippling impotence..
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,856
    Scott_xP said:

    FUN QUIZ

    Who…

    Was absent for the bill on climate change targets

    Was absent for the bill to eliminate transport emissions

    Voted against setting a decarbonising strategy

    Generally voted against measures to prevent climate change

    Did you get it?


    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10999/boris_johnson/uxbridge_and_south_ruislip/divisions?policy=1030

    https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1426439519566446597

    He did oppose the third runway at Heathrow, though. So we can give him credit for the fact that particular proposal being scrapped.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490

    Mr. Pioneers, I disagree with that. The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain. For a long time I thought they'd win 60-40, at a canter.

    The contemptible approach of overblown scare attempts coupled with some casual contempt for the majority of the electorate (putting 'Nigel Farage's' before 'Little Englanders' doesn't make it a smart phrase when every vote counts) self-harmed Remain a lot. They then made a critical error by a bus fixation and making the dumb argument that "we're not spending a huge huge sum we're just spending a huge sum" rather than "yes it's a lot of money, look at these great benefits".

    The critical mistake was Labour's in 2007. A referendum on Lisbon would've been lost, and acted as a pressure valve, indicating discontent with the status quo and providing the impetus for an attempt at reform and improving the situation.

    But, just as pro-EU MPs did after the result, the europhile side opposed anything approaching compromise and ended up with, for them, the worst possible outcome.

    Edited extra bit: this make me wonder: is compromise the friend of the pro-EU cause and the enemy of the anti-EU side? Hmm.

    Yes, this. The arrogant europhiles have only themselves to blame for Brexit. They consistently refused to listen or compromise on anything. For years.

    I think they secretly know this, deep down, which is why they get so angry about it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,948
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I think that you are over cooking it a bit, but elements of truth in there.

    England is a strange place nowadays, and one divided against itself. I cannot see the Union surviving for much longer.

    On the currency, Indy Scotland should join the Euro, but stay in the CTA. It works for Ireland. Probably need to have direct ferries to the continent again because of the land border to England. There will be teething problems disentangling from the Union, but in the long term better for Scotland to go its own way.

    I have English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry, so will have some regrets at the end of British identity. I have always been more comfortable as British than English as an identity, but so it goes.

    So if you're voting for Scottish independence you're voting to join the Euro?

    Interesting.
    I won't be voting for it, as I am not registered to vote in Scotland, but yes joining the Euro is the best option for Indy Scotland.

    Apart from promising to join being a condition of membership the Euro is a solid reserve currency, and not liable to local debasement. Indeed lack of ability to debate the coinage is one of the criticisms people make of the Euro crisis of a decade ago.

    Scotland would need to balance its budget, but individuals and institutions would be assured that their money retains value
    I don’t think it would be impossible to debase the Euro. It would just need all the major economies of Europe to agree to it at once.

    It wasn’t possible in 2008 because the Germans would have been damaged by it and so wouldn’t agree to it.

    What was impossible was for the smaller nations caught in debt traps, partly caused by the Euro, to devalue their own currencyand inflate to get out of the hole they were in. Which meant they had to take other much more painful options to get out of them.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,488

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

    Would you be happy to have a currency union with Scotland where the BoE is the lender of last resort for banks in a foreign country? Should the rUK taxpayers continue to subsidise Scotland?

    Ultimately the currency and social security make Scottish independence an order of magnitude more serious than Brexit. It’s not nasty right-wingers like me who are responsible for that. It’s just the reality of the situation.

    As I say, compromise on both sides is necessary. I can see a level of continuing subsidy from south to north being in England’s interests, but a blank cheque is not feasible or desirable. I agree that the level if interdependence is much greater and makes the problem solving harder. That’s why both genuine goodwill and the willingness to agree a phased separation would be absolutely paramount. As I also say, I realise it won’t happen. Confrontation suits too many agendas.

    I don't think that continued subsidy is viable, but I think a Sindy deal on allocation of the national debt, payment of military pensions, and rental of military bases for 10 years transition would amount to much the same in practice.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I think that you are over cooking it a bit, but elements of truth in there.

    England is a strange place nowadays, and one divided against itself. I cannot see the Union surviving for much longer.

    On the currency, Indy Scotland should join the Euro, but stay in the CTA. It works for Ireland. Probably need to have direct ferries to the continent again because of the land border to England. There will be teething problems disentangling from the Union, but in the long term better for Scotland to go its own way.

    I have English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry, so will have some regrets at the end of British identity. I have always been more comfortable as British than English as an identity, but so it goes.

    So if you're voting for Scottish independence you're voting to join the Euro?

    Interesting.
    I won't be voting for it, as I am not registered to vote in Scotland, but yes joining the Euro is the best option for Indy Scotland.

    Apart from promising to join being a condition of membership the Euro is a solid reserve currency, and not liable to local debasement. Indeed lack of ability to debate the coinage is one of the criticisms people make of the Euro crisis of a decade ago.

    Scotland would need to balance its budget, but individuals and institutions would be assured that their money retains value
    I wonder what the successful Scottish financial services sector, almost wholly integrated within the wider British one, and in particular London, would have to say about that.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
    Ah, so you're just not bothering with the persuasive arguments that you could easily make.
    Hey, I’ve been told this very morn that the English aren’t bovvered. Don’t really see the point of persuading people who don’t have a vote, especially if they don’t care in the first place.

    PB’s main political function pour moi is a constant reminder of the the types whose votes have imposed Brexit, BJ and the Conservative & Peronist party on my country. Keeps one on one’s toes.
    Scottish unionists post on here; some may even lurk. Who knows, you could even be able to persuade one or two of them. They might use your convincing arguments on others with a vote..

    But you seem certain of, and happy with, your self diagnosis of crippling impotence..
    Thank you for a sight of your particular arsehole. You certainly seem curiously animated by the issue.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206

    The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain.

    Only in theory.

    If facts mattered. If honesty and integrity mattered.

    They couldn't defeat the tidal wave of bullshit from BoZo and Cummings.

    And now here we are.
  • TazTaz Posts: 4,789

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
    Ah, so you're just not bothering with the persuasive arguments that you could easily make.
    Hey, I’ve been told this very morn that the English aren’t bovvered. Don’t really see the point of persuading people who don’t have a vote, especially if they don’t care in the first place.

    PB’s main political function pour moi is a constant reminder of the the types whose votes have imposed Brexit, BJ and the Conservative & Peronist party on my country. Keeps one on one’s toes.
    Scottish unionists post on here; some may even lurk. Who knows, you could even be able to persuade one or two of them. They might use your convincing arguments on others with a vote..

    But you seem certain of, and happy with, your self diagnosis of crippling impotence..
    Thank you for a sight of your particular arsehole. You certainly seem curiously animated by the issue.
    Lol at the state of this mug.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,488
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I think that you are over cooking it a bit, but elements of truth in there.

    England is a strange place nowadays, and one divided against itself. I cannot see the Union surviving for much longer.

    On the currency, Indy Scotland should join the Euro, but stay in the CTA. It works for Ireland. Probably need to have direct ferries to the continent again because of the land border to England. There will be teething problems disentangling from the Union, but in the long term better for Scotland to go its own way.

    I have English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry, so will have some regrets at the end of British identity. I have always been more comfortable as British than English as an identity, but so it goes.

    So if you're voting for Scottish independence you're voting to join the Euro?

    Interesting.
    I won't be voting for it, as I am not registered to vote in Scotland, but yes joining the Euro is the best option for Indy Scotland.

    Apart from promising to join being a condition of membership the Euro is a solid reserve currency, and not liable to local debasement. Indeed lack of ability to debate the coinage is one of the criticisms people make of the Euro crisis of a decade ago.

    Scotland would need to balance its budget, but individuals and institutions would be assured that their money retains value
    I don’t think it would be impossible to debase the Euro. It would just need all the major economies of Europe to agree to it at once.

    It wasn’t possible in 2008 because the Germans would have been damaged by it and so wouldn’t agree to it.

    What was impossible was for the smaller nations caught in debt traps, partly caused by the Euro, to devalue their own currencyand inflate to get out of the hole they were in. Which meant they had to take other much more painful options to get out of them.
    I think those other ways of rebalancing economies structurally are better in the long run. No country prospers by serially debasing it's currency as an alternative to economic reform. See Argentina for an example.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

    Would you be happy to have a currency union with Scotland where the BoE is the lender of last resort for banks in a foreign country? Should the rUK taxpayers continue to subsidise Scotland?

    Ultimately the currency and social security make Scottish independence an order of magnitude more serious than Brexit. It’s not nasty right-wingers like me who are responsible for that. It’s just the reality of the situation.

    As I say, compromise on both sides is necessary. I can see a level of continuing subsidy from south to north being in England’s interests, but a blank cheque is not feasible or desirable. I agree that the level if interdependence is much greater and makes the problem solving harder. That’s why both genuine goodwill and the willingness to agree a phased separation would be absolutely paramount. As I also say, I realise it won’t happen. Confrontation suits too many agendas.

    I’d love to see some polling on whether rUK residents would be happy to continue subsidising a country that’s just voted to leave.

    Mind you, we could classify it as foreign aid...

    I think that’s exactly the issue. Any continuing transfers are not politically sellable, even if the benefits of doing it could deliver far more value.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,121

    Mr. Pioneers, I disagree with that. The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain. For a long time I thought they'd win 60-40, at a canter.

    The contemptible approach of overblown scare attempts coupled with some casual contempt for the majority of the electorate (putting 'Nigel Farage's' before 'Little Englanders' doesn't make it a smart phrase when every vote counts) self-harmed Remain a lot. They then made a critical error by a bus fixation and making the dumb argument that "we're not spending a huge huge sum we're just spending a huge sum" rather than "yes it's a lot of money, look at these great benefits".

    The critical mistake was Labour's in 2007. A referendum on Lisbon would've been lost, and acted as a pressure valve, indicating discontent with the status quo and providing the impetus for an attempt at reform and improving the situation.

    But, just as pro-EU MPs did after the result, the europhile side opposed anything approaching compromise and ended up with, for them, the worst possible outcome.

    Edited extra bit: this make me wonder: is compromise the friend of the pro-EU cause and the enemy of the anti-EU side? Hmm.

    Yes, this. The arrogant europhiles have only themselves to blame for Brexit. They consistently refused to listen or compromise on anything. For years.

    I think they secretly know this, deep down, which is why they get so angry about it.
    Why are you guys still wanging on about Brexit?

    It’s supposed to be a good thing so there should be no “blame”. Milk and honey is incoming and we’re all going to love it. Chill.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,198

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    The people of Hartlepool would not have voted remain if we'd somehow managed to disguise our utter disgust for them.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,121

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    You won. You need to get over it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,948
    Scott_xP said:

    The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain.

    Only in theory.

    If facts mattered. If honesty and integrity mattered.

    They couldn't defeat the tidal wave of bullshit from BoZo and Cummings.

    And now here we are.
    Alas, neither side in the EU referendum could lay claim to honesty or integrity. As we have seen since, most of the Remain campaign’s claims were untrue as well. Some of them were downright silly (economic collapse the day after etc.)

    It was a dreadfully low point for political discourse in this country. The senior members of both campaigns should have been locked up for fraud.

    And the scary thing is I think we haven’t bottomed out yet.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    Mr. xP, absolute nonsense, I'm afraid.

    There was no mere theoretical chance, Remain not only could've, they should've won the referendum. They buggered it up by running a campaign almost as bad as May's in 2017 and even then came very close to actually winning.

    Pretending the just and righteous were thwarted by the undefeatable deceits of the evil enemy is an absolute abdication of responsibility and a rewriting of history (thereby preventing the obvious lessons of the past to be learned for future advantage).

    One thing that would've helped, and also made sense, would've been Cameron insisting on an actual prospectus (EEA membership or not, etc) from the official Leave campaign. It remains bizarre this didn't happen as it would've been beneficial for the pro-EU side and also entirely legitimate.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,193

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    It probably will. It's all a case of numbers. Not all the people who voted brexit were thick and racists.

    A lot of people voted BNP and NF for racist reasons. If I was a politician I would be very uncomfortable about changing my stance to accomodate those views. I suppose that means I have very little chance of being elected, but that's my view, and I'm very happy with it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,584
    edited August 2021

    Quincel said:

    Foxy said:

    On topic 😀

    I am rather enjoying @Quincel Saturday headers, particularly with their emphasis on political betting!

    I agree that Starmer is very likely to fight the next election. The problem is that election may well be prior to 2024, and instant resignation of unsuccessful leaders after elections has become the norm. Personally, I think this regrettable as parties need some time to reflect before choosing a new leader. There is no need for hasty choices.

    On the one hand Starmer is wooden and unable to clearly communicate any vision for the party or country, and his flat-lining polls evidence that. This makes him unlikely to win enough seats to be next PM. In the less likely situation where the Tories lose their majority though, that lack of ideology and blank canvas is ideal for forming a coalition.

    I think that Starmer would be a far better PM than he is as Leader of the Opposition. Labour could have done far better though.

    Many thanks for this! I am trying to make a specific tip every week, though that's not going to be possible forever. I also agree this is much less safe than my normal bets, my natural 'sweet spot' is probably 1/2 bets which I think are more like 80% likely to win. But at longer than evens I do think it is value. There's probably a safer, but lower return, combo of backing Starmer to survive to 2024 and laying next election in 2024 at around 1/2 on Betfair/Smarkets.

    Absolutely agree that if Starmer loses an election in 2023 it is very unlikely he'll be leader for more than a couple of weeks. There's always a small chance he'd remain during the leadership election, which might drag from an autumn election to early 2024 - but he'd probably step down within days and a caretaker leader handle that phase.
    I think it would depend on how Labour loses. If vote share and seats both improve, the 2017 precedent is that Starmer could stay on. It would be more about whether he wants to or not. I think Miliband probably could have survived in 2015, too - if he’d chosen to. In retrospect, it probably would have been better for Labour if he had and I say that as someone who thought he was awful. As things stand, it’s hard to see a replacement for Starmer inside the PLP who could get past the membership and do better among ordinary voters. The far-left doesn’t have one, that is for sure.

    Labour are up a gum-tree irrespective of who is the leader. Starmer is naive, ineffective and dull, which generates much invective on PB, but the current toxicity of Labour's brand post Corbyn unfortunately also reflects on future and current leaders, whoever they may be. Corbyn destroyed the brand!

    After only 31 years in government over the last century I am no longer sure the Labour Party was ever fit for purpose. A left of centre Party that mirrors the Conservatives raison d'etre, i.e. to retain power at all costs, is needed under FPTP. Labour, with their hard left demanding constant opposition, inside or outside of power are hopeless at this, and they always have been.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    ‘Plymouth shooter's family lived in Scotland and violent dad was jailed for attacking fisherman’

    …Davison snr , described as a “violent and dangerous individual”, was sentenced to eight months in jail after he after pled guilty to assaulting a fellow crewman by biting him in the cheek like “an animal that holds on to its prey”. The attack, which happened in 2014, happened on the UK-registered scallop fishing boat King Explorer while it was working 30 miles south of Scalloway in July that year.

    … Davison said he felt isolated on the fishing vessel when he realised that he was the only British man among a Polish crew.

    … Davison turned on the passenger after he asked him to stop, pushing him too, shouting, “f***ing shut up” and “f***ing n****r”.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plymouth-shooter-spent-time-scotland-24757691.amp

    Nice family. Wonder if they voted ‘Remain’?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

    Would you be happy to have a currency union with Scotland where the BoE is the lender of last resort for banks in a foreign country? Should the rUK taxpayers continue to subsidise Scotland?

    Ultimately the currency and social security make Scottish independence an order of magnitude more serious than Brexit. It’s not nasty right-wingers like me who are responsible for that. It’s just the reality of the situation.

    As I say, compromise on both sides is necessary. I can see a level of continuing subsidy from south to north being in England’s interests, but a blank cheque is not feasible or desirable. I agree that the level if interdependence is much greater and makes the problem solving harder. That’s why both genuine goodwill and the willingness to agree a phased separation would be absolutely paramount. As I also say, I realise it won’t happen. Confrontation suits too many agendas.

    I don't think that continued subsidy is viable, but I think a Sindy deal on allocation of the national debt, payment of military pensions, and rental of military bases for 10 years transition would amount to much the same in practice.
    I thought one of the big things driving the SNP was that they wanted to get rid of the nukes. I suppose everyone has their price, but it’s ironic that their one card to play also happens to be one of their reasons for wanting independence. As you say, it’s one way that some form of subsidy could continue.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,948
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I think that you are over cooking it a bit, but elements of truth in there.

    England is a strange place nowadays, and one divided against itself. I cannot see the Union surviving for much longer.

    On the currency, Indy Scotland should join the Euro, but stay in the CTA. It works for Ireland. Probably need to have direct ferries to the continent again because of the land border to England. There will be teething problems disentangling from the Union, but in the long term better for Scotland to go its own way.

    I have English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry, so will have some regrets at the end of British identity. I have always been more comfortable as British than English as an identity, but so it goes.

    So if you're voting for Scottish independence you're voting to join the Euro?

    Interesting.
    I won't be voting for it, as I am not registered to vote in Scotland, but yes joining the Euro is the best option for Indy Scotland.

    Apart from promising to join being a condition of membership the Euro is a solid reserve currency, and not liable to local debasement. Indeed lack of ability to debate the coinage is one of the criticisms people make of the Euro crisis of a decade ago.

    Scotland would need to balance its budget, but individuals and institutions would be assured that their money retains value
    I don’t think it would be impossible to debase the Euro. It would just need all the major economies of Europe to agree to it at once.

    It wasn’t possible in 2008 because the Germans would have been damaged by it and so wouldn’t agree to it.

    What was impossible was for the smaller nations caught in debt traps, partly caused by the Euro, to devalue their own currencyand inflate to get out of the hole they were in. Which meant they had to take other much more painful options to get out of them.
    I think those other ways of rebalancing economies structurally are better in the long run. No country prospers by serially debasing it's currency as an alternative to economic reform. See Argentina for an example.
    They are if they work. Germany itself is a good example. A difficult five years in the late 90s due to the lingering issues from reunification. By 2008, one of the most successful economies in the world.

    If they don’t, however...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206

    Why are you guys still wanging on about Brexit?

    It’s supposed to be a good thing so there should be no “blame”. Milk and honey is incoming and we’re all going to love it. Chill.

    The triumph of Brexit is almost as great as the victory in Afghanistan...
  • Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
    Ah, so you're just not bothering with the persuasive arguments that you could easily make.
    Hey, I’ve been told this very morn that the English aren’t bovvered. Don’t really see the point of persuading people who don’t have a vote, especially if they don’t care in the first place.

    PB’s main political function pour moi is a constant reminder of the the types whose votes have imposed Brexit, BJ and the Conservative & Peronist party on my country. Keeps one on one’s toes.
    Scottish unionists post on here; some may even lurk. Who knows, you could even be able to persuade one or two of them. They might use your convincing arguments on others with a vote..

    But you seem certain of, and happy with, your self diagnosis of crippling impotence..
    Thank you for a sight of your particular arsehole. You certainly seem curiously animated by the issue.
    I'd just like to see an occasional reasoned argument from the woad wagers. I don't suppose I'll find one in your posts..
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,856

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    You won. You need to get over it.
    How long will they keep on raging before they finally accept that they won?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,488

    Mr. Pioneers, I disagree with that. The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain. For a long time I thought they'd win 60-40, at a canter.

    The contemptible approach of overblown scare attempts coupled with some casual contempt for the majority of the electorate (putting 'Nigel Farage's' before 'Little Englanders' doesn't make it a smart phrase when every vote counts) self-harmed Remain a lot. They then made a critical error by a bus fixation and making the dumb argument that "we're not spending a huge huge sum we're just spending a huge sum" rather than "yes it's a lot of money, look at these great benefits".

    The critical mistake was Labour's in 2007. A referendum on Lisbon would've been lost, and acted as a pressure valve, indicating discontent with the status quo and providing the impetus for an attempt at reform and improving the situation.

    But, just as pro-EU MPs did after the result, the europhile side opposed anything approaching compromise and ended up with, for them, the worst possible outcome.

    Edited extra bit: this make me wonder: is compromise the friend of the pro-EU cause and the enemy of the anti-EU side? Hmm.

    Yes, this. The arrogant europhiles have only themselves to blame for Brexit. They consistently refused to listen or compromise on anything. For years.

    I think they secretly know this, deep down, which is why they get so angry about it.
    Nah. It is the Brexiters that exhibit all the anger. I just heckle from the cheap seats, and throw rotten fruit when it amuses me.

    Johnsons deal was obviously a crap deal, indeed both him and Frost now say so! I don't think it any worse than any of the other crap deals that were seriously discussed once May drew her red lines.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206

    One thing that would've helped, and also made sense, would've been Cameron insisting on an actual prospectus (EEA membership or not, etc) from the official Leave campaign. It remains bizarre this didn't happen as it would've been beneficial for the pro-EU side and also entirely legitimate.

    Another fantasy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490

    Mr. Pioneers, I disagree with that. The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain. For a long time I thought they'd win 60-40, at a canter.

    The contemptible approach of overblown scare attempts coupled with some casual contempt for the majority of the electorate (putting 'Nigel Farage's' before 'Little Englanders' doesn't make it a smart phrase when every vote counts) self-harmed Remain a lot. They then made a critical error by a bus fixation and making the dumb argument that "we're not spending a huge huge sum we're just spending a huge sum" rather than "yes it's a lot of money, look at these great benefits".

    The critical mistake was Labour's in 2007. A referendum on Lisbon would've been lost, and acted as a pressure valve, indicating discontent with the status quo and providing the impetus for an attempt at reform and improving the situation.

    But, just as pro-EU MPs did after the result, the europhile side opposed anything approaching compromise and ended up with, for them, the worst possible outcome.

    Edited extra bit: this make me wonder: is compromise the friend of the pro-EU cause and the enemy of the anti-EU side? Hmm.

    Yes, this. The arrogant europhiles have only themselves to blame for Brexit. They consistently refused to listen or compromise on anything. For years.

    I think they secretly know this, deep down, which is why they get so angry about it.
    Why are you guys still wanging on about Brexit?

    It’s supposed to be a good thing so there should be no “blame”. Milk and honey is incoming and we’re all going to love it. Chill.
    Oh, I've totally moved on. I'm now focussed on issues like climate change, how to maintain a cohesive British identity in the face of rapid social change, trying to inject some sanity into the purist orthodoxies of Wokeness, and the threat to the West from the rise of China.

    I was just commenting and agreeing with Morris's past analysis.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655

    Mr. xP, no, it isn't.

    If you present a vegetarian with menu options of a bacon sarnie and pork chops and give them the vote, that doesn't mean they have a free choice.

    The creation of laws as a proposition is not some small matter, an additional, nice to have little extra.

    To put that in context, if it were the situation in the UK then political parties would be literally unable to even have (let alone renege upon) manifesto commitments because the proposition of laws would be a matter for other people.

    Dont mention bacon sarnies to Ed Miliband...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,121
    Brexiteers are increasingly like mackems boasting about beating Newcastle 6 times in a row whilst languishing in division 3
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,948

    Mr. xP, no, it isn't.

    If you present a vegetarian with menu options of a bacon sarnie and pork chops and give them the vote, that doesn't mean they have a free choice.

    The creation of laws as a proposition is not some small matter, an additional, nice to have little extra.

    To put that in context, if it were the situation in the UK then political parties would be literally unable to even have (let alone renege upon) manifesto commitments because the proposition of laws would be a matter for other people.

    Dont mention bacon sarnies to Ed Miliband...
    Put food near a Miliband and they go bananas.

    Have a good morning.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 1,904

    ‘Plymouth shooter's family lived in Scotland and violent dad was jailed for attacking fisherman’

    …Davison snr , described as a “violent and dangerous individual”, was sentenced to eight months in jail after he after pled guilty to assaulting a fellow crewman by biting him in the cheek like “an animal that holds on to its prey”. The attack, which happened in 2014, happened on the UK-registered scallop fishing boat King Explorer while it was working 30 miles south of Scalloway in July that year.

    … Davison said he felt isolated on the fishing vessel when he realised that he was the only British man among a Polish crew.

    … Davison turned on the passenger after he asked him to stop, pushing him too, shouting, “f***ing shut up” and “f***ing n****r”.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plymouth-shooter-spent-time-scotland-24757691.amp

    Nice family. Wonder if they voted ‘Remain’?

    ‘Plymouth shooter's family lived in Scotland and violent dad was jailed for attacking fisherman’

    …Davison snr , described as a “violent and dangerous individual”, was sentenced to eight months in jail after he after pled guilty to assaulting a fellow crewman by biting him in the cheek like “an animal that holds on to its prey”. The attack, which happened in 2014, happened on the UK-registered scallop fishing boat King Explorer while it was working 30 miles south of Scalloway in July that year.

    … Davison said he felt isolated on the fishing vessel when he realised that he was the only British man among a Polish crew.

    … Davison turned on the passenger after he asked him to stop, pushing him too, shouting, “f***ing shut up” and “f***ing n****r”.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plymouth-shooter-spent-time-scotland-24757691.amp

    Nice family. Wonder if they voted ‘Remain’?

    What an absolutely ridiculous comment.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    Best (ie worst) take yet. Can’t fault his incel expert credentials mind.

    https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/1426198829330833408?s=21
  • Scott_xP said:

    The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain.

    Only in theory.

    If facts mattered. If honesty and integrity mattered.

    They couldn't defeat the tidal wave of bullshit from BoZo and Cummings.

    And now here we are.
    Do you ever feel remorse for being a cheerleader to all Cameron's lies ?

    To take a single example do you regret ra-ra-raring when Cameron lied about 'halving the bill' when he agreed to pay it all ?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,451
    "Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is planning a snap election for Sept. 20 to seek voter approval for the government's costly plans to combat COVID-19, four sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

    Trudeau is set to make the announcement on Sunday, said the sources, who requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the situation. Trudeau aides have said for months that the ruling Liberals would push for a vote before end-2021, two years ahead of schedule."

    https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-pm-trudeau-is-planning-call-snap-election-sept-20-sources-2021-08-12/
  • ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good, persuasive article Pip.

    My gut feeling is that the Conservatives are going to lose those 40-50 seats you mention.

    Labour really ought to have large VI leads in England at this stage in the electoral cycle, but perhaps the combined effect of the three megashocks - IndyRefs 2014-present, Brexit 2016-present and Covid19 pandemic 2019-present - have created an English immune response to Labour?

    Labour, perhaps unfairly, are widely blamed for the first (eg Johnson calling devolution a "disaster" and Tony Blair's "biggest mistake"); made utter fools of themselves during the second; and have been mute bystanders to the third.

    England has been rejected, felt hurt and sore, turned her back on the world and sulked. The Conservatives put their arms round that nation and comforted and reassured, telling her don’t mind those ungrateful Caledonians, we’ll fix them good and proper; we’ll kick out those dodgy foreigners; and we are the best in the world at fighting foreign pests. All unmitigated nonsense, but England has totally lost the plot in the last decade and the Tories have been their comfort blanket during the mental breakdown.

    But the Tory cure has been much more harmful than the three diseases of rebellious Scots, repulsive Poles and rampaging Chinese virus. The time will come, and probably quite soon, when the English are going to realise that the blanket is no longer comforting them but smothering them.

    I doubt the average English voter gives a toss about Scotland one way or the other. Maybe that should be the rationale for Scottish independence, rather than what looks like a paranoid inferiority complex. We like the Scots but in a sentimental, biscuit tin, Monarch of the Glen way. Perhaps Nicola could use this as the SNP's new slogan: England doesn't know; England doesn't care.
    There are three components to England’s mental breakdown, and they are all interrelated:

    - crippling fear of rejection (why do the Scots want to go?)
    - self-hatred (hating foreigners is ultimately an indication of low self-esteem and lack of self-worth)
    - and seeking external causes to rage against (Scotland, France, Germany, China, infectious foreigners etc ad infinitum)

    Brexit was England’s (over-)reaction to the first Scottish independence referendum. It was entirely avoidable, but their fate was sealed when in 2010 Gordon Brown, in a fit of pique, immediately rejected SNP support for a minority Labour government, thus forcing the astonishingly naive Lib Dems into David Cameron’s rose garden/snake pit. The inevitable SNP landslide the following year sealed the process.

    English voters very much do give a toss about Scotland and Scottish independence, not because of Scotland per se, but because of Greater England, otherwise referred to as the United Kingdom: the only thing separating England from the realities of being a modern, normal, average medium-sized country and the global power of her imagination. No Scotland = no Security Council seat, no independent nuclear deterrent and no “special relationship”. English voters do care very, very much about Scotland. Without her they are King Lear bereft of his kingdom.

    Claiming that Scots have an “inferiority complex” - standard patter on this board - is pure psychological projection. It is the English who are wracked in self-doubt and insecurity. Ditto “paranoid”.

    Sentiment? Biscuit tins? Monarch of the Glen? Not the signs of a serious, well thought-out post.

    D-
    I don’t think the consequences for England of the end of the Union have even begun to be thought about in England. But it’s hard to see how they will be positive, at least in the short-term. Internationally, it will be regarded as a humiliating emasculation. That will have consequences on many levels. Not least on the home front, where there will be three main reactions: indifference, regret and fury. The latter will mostly be on the right, which will seek revenge on Scotland through the most punishing of divorces and will go very, very heavy on English nationalism. We will not be a happy country to live in or next door to.

    BiB - that sounds familiar. I can’t imagine where the inspiration for that would come from...

    But in all seriousness, what would a non-punishing divorce look like. How would a nice soft liberal like you handle it? The reality is that any punishment will be self-inflicted.

    I would be in the regret camp. I would be looking for the closest and friendliest relationship with Scotland possible, and I would understand that would mean compromise on both sides. I would hope the lessons of Brexit would have been learned. But I am enough of a realist to know that they won’t be. It would not be in England’s interests to have the relationship with Scotland and the EU that so many on the right seem to want.

    Would you be happy to have a currency union with Scotland where the BoE is the lender of last resort for banks in a foreign country? Should the rUK taxpayers continue to subsidise Scotland?

    Ultimately the currency and social security make Scottish independence an order of magnitude more serious than Brexit. It’s not nasty right-wingers like me who are responsible for that. It’s just the reality of the situation.
    So does Brexit itself, of course. Had the UK still been in the EU, there would have been a mechanism for a continued single market, customs union and arguably currency union that didn’t involve being run from London. That, of course, was central to the a Good a Friday Agreement. Leaving aside, for the moment, the uncertainty as to how long Scotland would have had to wait for EU membership, that’s a plausible narrative that divorce wouldn’t involve an immediate, messy break.

    Now - it would. And that’s true if Scotland joins the EU or just goes it alone. The only way to continue in a single market with a England for an independent Scotland would be to accept the ongoing dictation of London over its trade, fiscal and health and safety policies. Which would probably be less independence in practice than Scotland has now and would therefore be unthinkable. As Ireland found from 1949 to 1979. As Britain would have found had Daniel Hannan been telling the truth about staying in the single market.

    The fact that the SNP don’t seem to want to admit that these options would involve very tough choices for Scotland says all we really need to know - that they don’t have an answer.

    Which is odd, because again the example of Ireland does show that it can be achieved - given time - if you are willing to put up with the pain in transition. The key is, like the Irish, you must feel that the alternative (continuing as part of the UK) is worse.
    One fundamental objection. The "single market with England" is entirely in England's gift. England arbitrarily abolished the SM with NI, so there is zero guarantee that remaining in the UK would guarantee Scotland would retain its GB single market access.

    I don't think people south of the wall entirely understand just how monumental the end of the UK Customs Area is. The purported big pull of staying in the UK is the status quo - the freedom to move and trade within the UK. But as England just scrapped that and created separate GB and NI zones, what is to stop further balkanisation of trade at the whim of the English?
  • Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    You won. You need to get over it.
    How long will they keep on raging before they finally accept that they won?
    I commented on Scot Nat posters on here.

    Scotty replied and brought up Brexit.

    I replied to him. I probably should have ignored him.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    *Not* insulting people actually goes a long way to securing votes in and of itself.

    Once you insult someone their vote ceases to become objectively about the issues or the merits of the argument but personal and about cocking a snook back at you, which is impervious to argument.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206

    Brexiteers are increasingly like mackems boasting about beating Newcastle 6 times in a row whilst languishing in division 3

    Brexit was a project borne out of spite which is why Brexiteers can only revel in defeat of Remainers

    There is no joy to be had in the actuality of Brexit.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,943
    Jonathan said:

    Dr. Foxy, while not identical, it's beyond my comprehension to assert there aren't similarities between the Scottish divisions over leaving the UK and British divisions over leaving the EU.

    Also, I don't fall into any of those three pejorative categories you've invented to condemn English leavers as either imperialists, disinterested, or actively pro-Scottish independence. I like the UK. I want it to remain intact.

    I'm entirely comfortable with multiple identities (being a Yorkshireman, Englishman, and Briton). That doesn't mean I *have to* feel European in a cultural sense, or approve of the political and economic integration into the EU which could've, and should've, been handled far better rather than endlessly sucking authority and power from parliaments responsible to national electorates and placing it in the hands of bureaucrats with no loyalty or accountability to anything beyond the EU itself.

    Context matters.

    Abroad, in Europe I feel British, but further afield I feel European.
    In Scotland, I feel English. Elsewhere in the U.K. I’m a southerner.

    But fundamentally I’m from Sussex.
    Quite interesting that. I feel no affinity at all for a county or region of England. Plenty for being British. Not especially any less than being English unless you encounter a hardline scots nationalist.

    But I’ve never once felt European when far flung. The Ozzies and Kiwis are the closest to an international affinity when abroad, followed by the North Americans. I find language matters, not just for communication but also because it shapes a shared cultural context. Honestly for this reason I find greater affinity with the typical overseas Indian than many Europeans, but really it’s normally whether that person has spent any time living in the Anglosphere wherever they’re from. “Does the country play cricket” is really the marker I think.
  • TazTaz Posts: 4,789

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    It’s a winning formula.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    Mr. Pioneers, a strong argument against that is that the end of a single customs area in GB would add a border where there isn't one. While that happened with NI (and I think that was horrendous), it occurred there due to the legacy of the Troubles. There's no such consideration with Scotland and a single customs area would be mutually beneficial.

    That doesn't mean it would happen, of course. But neither side benefits from it ending.
  • Mr. Pioneers, I disagree with that. The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain. For a long time I thought they'd win 60-40, at a canter.

    The contemptible approach of overblown scare attempts coupled with some casual contempt for the majority of the electorate (putting 'Nigel Farage's' before 'Little Englanders' doesn't make it a smart phrase when every vote counts) self-harmed Remain a lot. They then made a critical error by a bus fixation and making the dumb argument that "we're not spending a huge huge sum we're just spending a huge sum" rather than "yes it's a lot of money, look at these great benefits".

    The critical mistake was Labour's in 2007. A referendum on Lisbon would've been lost, and acted as a pressure valve, indicating discontent with the status quo and providing the impetus for an attempt at reform and improving the situation.

    But, just as pro-EU MPs did after the result, the europhile side opposed anything approaching compromise and ended up with, for them, the worst possible outcome.

    Edited extra bit: this make me wonder: is compromise the friend of the pro-EU cause and the enemy of the anti-EU side? Hmm.

    Yes, this. The arrogant europhiles have only themselves to blame for Brexit. They consistently refused to listen or compromise on anything. For years.

    I think they secretly know this, deep down, which is why they get so angry about it.
    I don't recall posting that Leave was bound to win. I said that the conditions were there to force a referendum. Why did Leave win? Because the positive case for Remain was essentially weak. "Its a risk!!!!" - and?

    The people of England and Wales chose to twist because in an increasingly unstable political settlement The Other - however ill-defined - was preferable to what they had. My point was that with the political settlement now significantly more unsettled, it is more likely than not that further "fuck this" rolls of the dice will become attractive.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
    Ah, so you're just not bothering with the persuasive arguments that you could easily make.
    Hey, I’ve been told this very morn that the English aren’t bovvered. Don’t really see the point of persuading people who don’t have a vote, especially if they don’t care in the first place.

    PB’s main political function pour moi is a constant reminder of the the types whose votes have imposed Brexit, BJ and the Conservative & Peronist party on my country. Keeps one on one’s toes.
    Scottish unionists post on here; some may even lurk. Who knows, you could even be able to persuade one or two of them. They might use your convincing arguments on others with a vote..

    But you seem certain of, and happy with, your self diagnosis of crippling impotence..
    Thank you for a sight of your particular arsehole. You certainly seem curiously animated by the issue.
    I'd just like to see an occasional reasoned argument from the woad wagers. I don't suppose I'll find one in your posts..
    I haven’t checked out every one of your 123 posts but nothing’s standing out for me on the reasoned argument front. Any previous identities just in case I’ve missed something?
  • TazTaz Posts: 4,789
    Scott_xP said:

    Brexiteers are increasingly like mackems boasting about beating Newcastle 6 times in a row whilst languishing in division 3

    Brexit was a project borne out of spite which is why Brexiteers can only revel in defeat of Remainers

    There is no joy to be had in the actuality of Brexit.
    I voted remain but the bitter tears of the diehard FBPE types amuses me to this day.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 18,903

    Starmer's problem is that he isn't really a politician, and it shows.

    In theory, people rather approve of not being a normal politician. But it runs into the fundamental lack of interest that a lot of people have in politics - they like some drama, and a sensible, constructive LOTO is seen as a boring contradiction in terms. Conversely, those who are interested want to see some policy meat. So riffing indefinitely on being moderate without having anything in particular in mind doesn't interest anyone very much.

    What did for Corbyn wasn't having left-wing policies - as the Tory press found to their surprise, the policies were quite popular. Rather, it was that increasing numbers of people decided they disliked and/or feared him personally. I don't think at this point that Starmer has anythintg to lose by showing a big of leg on the policy front.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,488

    ‘Plymouth shooter's family lived in Scotland and violent dad was jailed for attacking fisherman’

    …Davison snr , described as a “violent and dangerous individual”, was sentenced to eight months in jail after he after pled guilty to assaulting a fellow crewman by biting him in the cheek like “an animal that holds on to its prey”. The attack, which happened in 2014, happened on the UK-registered scallop fishing boat King Explorer while it was working 30 miles south of Scalloway in July that year.

    … Davison said he felt isolated on the fishing vessel when he realised that he was the only British man among a Polish crew.

    … Davison turned on the passenger after he asked him to stop, pushing him too, shouting, “f***ing shut up” and “f***ing n****r”.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plymouth-shooter-spent-time-scotland-24757691.amp

    Nice family. Wonder if they voted ‘Remain’?

    ‘Plymouth shooter's family lived in Scotland and violent dad was jailed for attacking fisherman’

    …Davison snr , described as a “violent and dangerous individual”, was sentenced to eight months in jail after he after pled guilty to assaulting a fellow crewman by biting him in the cheek like “an animal that holds on to its prey”. The attack, which happened in 2014, happened on the UK-registered scallop fishing boat King Explorer while it was working 30 miles south of Scalloway in July that year.

    … Davison said he felt isolated on the fishing vessel when he realised that he was the only British man among a Polish crew.

    … Davison turned on the passenger after he asked him to stop, pushing him too, shouting, “f***ing shut up” and “f***ing n****r”.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plymouth-shooter-spent-time-scotland-24757691.amp

    Nice family. Wonder if they voted ‘Remain’?

    What an absolutely ridiculous comment.
    No, I don't think it is. The whole Incel/Trumpist/White Supremacist/Great Replacement/Q Anon/Anti vax/Anti Woke circles overlap with Brexitism and English Nationalism. Certainly not concentric circles, but enough overlap to give pause for thought.
  • "Oregon will deploy at least 500 National Guard troops to help its hospitals deal with a flood of coronavirus patients, as the state faces the largest wave of infections it has seen during the pandemic, the state’s governor said on Friday.

    The governor, Kate Brown, said that hospitals were at risk of becoming overwhelmed, with 733 Oregonians hospitalized with severe cases of Covid-19, including 185 in intensive care."

    NYTimes

    That's about the equivalent of 12k hospitalizations in the UK.

    Above average vaccination level with still significantly below that of the UK:

    https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/state/oregon

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=England
  • TazTaz Posts: 4,789

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    You won. You need to get over it.
    How long will they keep on raging before they finally accept that they won?
    The same goes for FBPE/piss diamond remainers. How long before they finally accept they lost. There are two incredibly tedious sides here. Diehard remain and diehard Brexit. Most people just want to get on with their lives.
  • Quincel said:

    Starmer's problem is that he isn't really a politician, and it shows.

    I actually wouldn't disagree with this, for the record. I've been surprised at how slowly he's learned, too.
    It's one of the central dilemmas of our time.
    If you were to design an opposite of Boris, you'd probably end up with someone like SKS. If he were in No 10, I'd sleep reasonably easily in my bed, thinking the government was being run competently, even if from further left than I'd like.
    But those virtues make it harder for him to get there.

    (And to be fair to him, he is learning, which puts him ahead of BoJo and Jez, who really didn't. And political time has moved strangely over the last 18 months. But both parties need to get a move on.)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,584
    Quincel said:

    Starmer's problem is that he isn't really a politician, and it shows.

    I actually wouldn't disagree with this, for the record. I've been surprised at how slowly he's learned, too.
    He has been a massive disappointment. There must be some absolutely ruthless b******* from the Blair era who he could call upon to run the show from behind the scenes.

    Starmer has no killer instinct, the polar opposite of Johnson, who would sell his kith and kin down the river to climb the next rung of the ladder. Most of Johnson's Cabinet share this attribute. Are there enough sociopaths in the ranks of the Labour Party who could help Starmer out should he call on their services?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    edited August 2021
    Dr. Foxy, I think you putting together those opposed to Woke nonsense with anti-Vaxxers, white supremacists, and terrorists is not necessarily sensible.

    Edited extra bit: the shift from equality to advocacy of equity (equality of outcomes not opportunities, appointing people based on demographics not competence) is especially alarming.

    https://twitter.com/CMSSmed/status/1420498576183070725
  • Mr. xP, no, it isn't.

    If you present a vegetarian with menu options of a bacon sarnie and pork chops and give them the vote, that doesn't mean they have a free choice.

    The creation of laws as a proposition is not some small matter, an additional, nice to have little extra.

    To put that in context, if it were the situation in the UK then political parties would be literally unable to even have (let alone renege upon) manifesto commitments because the proposition of laws would be a matter for other people.

    Dont mention bacon sarnies to Ed Miliband...
    And don't mention mentioning bacon sarnies to the Boris fanbois who complained about the brolly video.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206
    Foxy said:

    The whole Incel/Trumpist/White Supremacist/Great Replacement/Q Anon/Anti vax/Anti Woke circles overlap with Brexitism and English Nationalism. Certainly not concentric circles, but enough overlap to give pause for thought.

    I have a friend in the US who is a big Trump supporter, evangelical Christian (Church of the New Jerusalem) and was in favour of Brexit. She thinks Dan Hannon is a genius...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    That wasn’t always the discourse but it seems increasingly to have resulted to it..
    We did used to try. I was one of the first on here, back in 2004 was it? Over the years we’ve had lots of SNP posters. The first five years I did genuinely try having substantive discussions, but quickly discovered that the level of knowledge and awareness of Scottish current affairs was next to zero, so spent about 80% of my time acting as a primary school teacher explaining the basics. Very tedious. It didn’t help that back then there were no SLab posters (SLab still had hegemony) and only about one each of SLD and SCon.

    Then the great purge occurred and nearly all of us were repeatedly or permanently banned, with the others drifting off. A few new ones have turned up, but I can understand why most of us rarely bothered trying to persuade the board of the merits or even the background to the movement for Scottish independence. It would be like turning up in Riyadh and trying to organise a Pride Festival. You’d probably get a slightly less vicious response in Riyadh.

    James, formerly of this parish, has some old articles in his archive that really ought to be compulsory reading for PBers. His expose of a certain mod here is exemplary and really is quite horrifying.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,584

    ‘Plymouth shooter's family lived in Scotland and violent dad was jailed for attacking fisherman’

    …Davison snr , described as a “violent and dangerous individual”, was sentenced to eight months in jail after he after pled guilty to assaulting a fellow crewman by biting him in the cheek like “an animal that holds on to its prey”. The attack, which happened in 2014, happened on the UK-registered scallop fishing boat King Explorer while it was working 30 miles south of Scalloway in July that year.

    … Davison said he felt isolated on the fishing vessel when he realised that he was the only British man among a Polish crew.

    … Davison turned on the passenger after he asked him to stop, pushing him too, shouting, “f***ing shut up” and “f***ing n****r”.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plymouth-shooter-spent-time-scotland-24757691.amp

    Nice family. Wonder if they voted ‘Remain’?

    They don't appear to be one-nation Tories.
  • Mr. Pioneers, I disagree with that. The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain. For a long time I thought they'd win 60-40, at a canter.

    The contemptible approach of overblown scare attempts coupled with some casual contempt for the majority of the electorate (putting 'Nigel Farage's' before 'Little Englanders' doesn't make it a smart phrase when every vote counts) self-harmed Remain a lot. They then made a critical error by a bus fixation and making the dumb argument that "we're not spending a huge huge sum we're just spending a huge sum" rather than "yes it's a lot of money, look at these great benefits".

    The critical mistake was Labour's in 2007. A referendum on Lisbon would've been lost, and acted as a pressure valve, indicating discontent with the status quo and providing the impetus for an attempt at reform and improving the situation.

    But, just as pro-EU MPs did after the result, the europhile side opposed anything approaching compromise and ended up with, for them, the worst possible outcome.

    Edited extra bit: this make me wonder: is compromise the friend of the pro-EU cause and the enemy of the anti-EU side? Hmm.

    Yes, this. The arrogant europhiles have only themselves to blame for Brexit. They consistently refused to listen or compromise on anything. For years.

    I think they secretly know this, deep down, which is why they get so angry about it.
    Why are you guys still wanging on about Brexit?

    It’s supposed to be a good thing so there should be no “blame”. Milk and honey is incoming and we’re all going to love it. Chill.
    Oh, I've totally moved on. I'm now focussed on issues like climate change, how to maintain a cohesive British identity in the face of rapid social change, trying to inject some sanity into the purist orthodoxies of Wokeness, and the threat to the West from the rise of China.

    I was just commenting and agreeing with Morris's past analysis.
    Can I point to the juxtaposition of "a cohesive British identity" and "inject some sanity into the purist orthodoxies of Wokeness".

    I've said for years that part of the problem with the railing against "multiculturalism" is that we are and always have been multicultural. A southern ponce into Opera is entirely different culturally to a northern shitkicker into football and fighting.

    Which "cohesive British identity" do you want to create?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206
    Taz said:

    Most people just want to get on with their lives.

    And Brexit is making it more difficult and expensive than it was previously.

    Which is why we will still be talking about it for the next decade (at least)
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,856
    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Follow the Brexit playbook; It worked once...
    It looks more like the upside down version of the Brexit playbook that remain used - call all the Brexit voters thick racists, that'll do the trick
    enough of them were. That's the point. If you are offended by that, perhaps you need to look to yourself and your own motivations.
    Go on insulting them. It's sure to win them over eventually.
    You won. You need to get over it.
    How long will they keep on raging before they finally accept that they won?
    The same goes for FBPE/piss diamond remainers. How long before they finally accept they lost. There are two incredibly tedious sides here. Diehard remain and diehard Brexit. Most people just want to get on with their lives.
    I agree with this. The rage of any group who lost is common and understandable - eventually with time it fades. In this case, it’s the continued rage of the winners that is perplexing.
  • Have the Scot Nats on here ever tried making a persuasive argument for independence, or have they always just called unionists "lickspittles" and hoped that that would do the job?

    Basic misconception, matters not a whit if anyone on here is persuaded or not.
    Ah, so you're just not bothering with the persuasive arguments that you could easily make.
    Hey, I’ve been told this very morn that the English aren’t bovvered. Don’t really see the point of persuading people who don’t have a vote, especially if they don’t care in the first place.

    PB’s main political function pour moi is a constant reminder of the the types whose votes have imposed Brexit, BJ and the Conservative & Peronist party on my country. Keeps one on one’s toes.
    Scottish unionists post on here; some may even lurk. Who knows, you could even be able to persuade one or two of them. They might use your convincing arguments on others with a vote..

    But you seem certain of, and happy with, your self diagnosis of crippling impotence..
    Thank you for a sight of your particular arsehole. You certainly seem curiously animated by the issue.
    I'd just like to see an occasional reasoned argument from the woad wagers. I don't suppose I'll find one in your posts..
    I haven’t checked out every one of your 123 posts but nothing’s standing out for me on the reasoned argument front. Any previous identities just in case I’ve missed something?
    I'm sure even you've given me a couple of likes for the occasionally interesting or mildly witty post among those 123
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,193

    Mr. xP, absolute nonsense, I'm afraid.

    There was no mere theoretical chance, Remain not only could've, they should've won the referendum. They buggered it up by running a campaign almost as bad as May's in 2017 and even then came very close to actually winning.

    Pretending the just and righteous were thwarted by the undefeatable deceits of the evil enemy is an absolute abdication of responsibility and a rewriting of history (thereby preventing the obvious lessons of the past to be learned for future advantage).

    One thing that would've helped, and also made sense, would've been Cameron insisting on an actual prospectus (EEA membership or not, etc) from the official Leave campaign. It remains bizarre this didn't happen as it would've been beneficial for the pro-EU side and also entirely legitimate.

    victim blaming. The lies and abuse and corruption were from one side, yet you then blame the other side for not winning?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,206
    🚨🚨🇬🇧🇪🇺💉💊💉💊💉💊🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨🚨 EXC: Staff at UK medical regulator ⁦MHRA⁩ express alarm at plan to slash 300 of 1,200 jobs after #brexit — despite #covid19 triumphs and U.K. gov wanting life sciences at heart of economic recovery. 🤔🤔🤔stay with me/1
    https://www.ft.com/content/8ef390b4-2d57-42fa-9ac6-88c08307eade?shareType=nongift
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490
    Foxy said:

    Mr. Pioneers, I disagree with that. The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain. For a long time I thought they'd win 60-40, at a canter.

    The contemptible approach of overblown scare attempts coupled with some casual contempt for the majority of the electorate (putting 'Nigel Farage's' before 'Little Englanders' doesn't make it a smart phrase when every vote counts) self-harmed Remain a lot. They then made a critical error by a bus fixation and making the dumb argument that "we're not spending a huge huge sum we're just spending a huge sum" rather than "yes it's a lot of money, look at these great benefits".

    The critical mistake was Labour's in 2007. A referendum on Lisbon would've been lost, and acted as a pressure valve, indicating discontent with the status quo and providing the impetus for an attempt at reform and improving the situation.

    But, just as pro-EU MPs did after the result, the europhile side opposed anything approaching compromise and ended up with, for them, the worst possible outcome.

    Edited extra bit: this make me wonder: is compromise the friend of the pro-EU cause and the enemy of the anti-EU side? Hmm.

    Yes, this. The arrogant europhiles have only themselves to blame for Brexit. They consistently refused to listen or compromise on anything. For years.

    I think they secretly know this, deep down, which is why they get so angry about it.
    Nah. It is the Brexiters that exhibit all the anger. I just heckle from the cheap seats, and throw rotten fruit when it amuses me.

    Johnsons deal was obviously a crap deal, indeed both him and Frost now say so! I don't think it any worse than any of the other crap deals that were seriously discussed once May drew her red lines.
    Very interesting that you thought I was referring to you.

    I wasn't, as it happens. You weren't responsible for British policy over the preceding 15 years, nor the attitude of those in the European institutions.
  • ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The EU referendum was eminently winnable by Remain.

    Only in theory.

    If facts mattered. If honesty and integrity mattered.

    They couldn't defeat the tidal wave of bullshit from BoZo and Cummings.

    And now here we are.
    Alas, neither side in the EU referendum could lay claim to honesty or integrity. As we have seen since, most of the Remain campaign’s claims were untrue as well. Some of them were downright silly (economic collapse the day after etc.)

    It was a dreadfully low point for political discourse in this country. The senior members of both campaigns should have been locked up for fraud.

    And the scary thing is I think we haven’t bottomed out yet.
    Very true and both sides were as bad as each other

    Remain should have won but their campaign was dreadful

    Indeed I was very much a remainer at the start but at the time of the vote it as was very 50/50 but I did vote Remain.
This discussion has been closed.