I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence and ignored Gandhi's 'Quit India' campaign begun in 1942, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen in 1948
1947?
Churchill was a coalition PM so he couldn't just do what Tories wanted, more likely they said 'There's a war on at the moment, lets deal with that issue first and we'll talk about this when the war's over' By the time it was properly over, Atlee had become PM and had a big majority.
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
Err.....
As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
A good point. But it won't be done as a blunt, antagonistic "not in this parliament" - unless Boris and Cummings go actually mad (no sign of that yet, but who knows.
They will flim flam. There will be "negotiations" and Commissions into Federalism and Star Chambers on Devomax, all of it designed to delay everything until the next GE, when the Tories will either be rid of the responsibility, or they can string it out until Holyrood 2025 (where they will hope the SNP will finally lose).
Don't get me wrong. The Union is in grave danger. There will, inevitably, be an almighty constitutional brouhaha after the next Holyrood elex (unless the SNP implode). But it won't come to a head - a vote - until the latter half of the 2020s.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
The scale of economic incompetence on the part of the SNP has made Westminster look good. But the 30 minute a day party politicals are still boosting Nicola. It’s deeply frustrating but there are quite a few months to May.
Not just the 30 minute a day PPBs but also two other factors.
PHE persisting for months in reporting dodgy stats while Scotland were only reporting those who died within 28 days, making Scotland's figures look much better than England's when there was no real significant difference.
The media loving to talk up Scotland as a stick to bash the UK Government with.
Maybe we can just get rid of expensive elections and parliament now we've got 22 year old footballers to decide everything for us.
Are you implying 22 year old footballers should not make political statements?
They can do what they like.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
If the Government had been on their oats, they would have gently put him in his place the first time. As I said at the time, they should not have agreed to extend the meal coupons through the summer holiday solely at the taxpayers' expense, but should have agreed to 'match fund' anything that could be raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have put the focus straight back on to high paid footballers, where it would have remained, every time that Rashford asked for something else. That's the Government's fault, not Rashfords - you can't blame him for asking.
Yes or they should have ignored him completely.
I noticed all this happened with Rashford after he signed to the Roc Nation agency which describes itself as a "movement" and pushes celebrities into social justice campaigns.
It's a way of boosting his image which will earn him £££s in endorsements and sponsorship deals. I doubt he came up with any of these ideas himself at all.
Ha! I didn't know that, but I said at the time it felt like all this was happening (including the Government folding) to give birth to some sort of crossover career for Rashford. It's unbelievable I know, but Jay Z moves in very powerful circles. Oh well. I suspect that they'll all get a rather big comeuppance in the fullness of time.
He's worked out that he's good, but not a top tier footballer, so he's going down the social justice route to make more money.
You can't really blame him, but you can blame the useless morons lapping it up as usual such as good old Aunty Beeb.
Seems you are judging everyone else by your incredible low morale standards.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
Err.....
As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
Err.....
As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
Err.....
As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence and ignored Gandhi's 'Quit India' campaign begun in 1942, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen in 1948
1947?
Churchill was a coalition PM so he couldn't just do what Tories wanted, more likely they said 'There's a war on at the moment, lets deal with that issue first and we'll talk about this when the war's over' By the time it was properly over, Atlee had become PM and had a big majority.
In Churchill's own words:
'I would have thought that the Conservative Party would have wanted to defend the cause of British rule in India. It should be using its influence – which is great – to inform and persuade people... One would have thought that if there were one cause in the world which the Conservative party would have hastened to defend, it would be the cause of the British Empire in India... am against this surrender to Gandhi. I am against these conversations and agreements between Lord Irwin and Mr. Ghandi. Gandhi stands for the expulsion of Britain from India. Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi. ...'
Dems winning party beneath 1.9 for the first time in a long while.
The great unwind underway?
Watching NBC coverage of 2016 (Oh the things we do for fun on a sundday night) - their analyst correctly identifies Ohio and Iowa as crucial for Trump but not the Dems. That'll be true this cycle too.
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
Err.....
As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland
And yet in December 2019, only 8 Unionist MPs (out of 18) were elected, the lowest ratio since Partition.
So what, the Unionist parties of the DUP and UUP still won more votes than the Nationalist parties of SF and the SDLP so no grounds for a referendum.
Indeed SF and the SDLP got fewer votes combined in NI at GE 2019 than the SNP did in Scotland on its own
I have here a brain-damaged chimpanzee which can spot the flaw in your argument. Which is that your party and your NI allies swear by FPTP. As is the law of your glorious United Kingdom. And therefore you too.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree completely. The Brexiters are producing such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
I don't think that argument holds water. What precise 'messes' do you speak of that will be 'sorted out' by Scotland starting the process of separating itself from RUK and aiming to rejoin the EU in the space of months rather than after 5 years? A mess is practical, so it should be fairly easy to be specific. I am open to being convinced, but I think the argument for going now is a nakedly opportunistic political one, not an economical or social one. And it is irresponsible.
Edit - as for it not being the business of the English - it is certainly not for England to stop Scotland leaving, but the impact of a decision to leave would be faced by all the constituent nations, so I don't see how a relatively short delay to allow the dust from a big change to settle before another one takes place is a big ask.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
Not quite, only Belgium, Spain, us and Italy have a higher Covid death rate in Europe than Sweden
Is that true? My bad, I did not check
A close relative who is very well-informed on Covid gave me that factoid. I presumed he was right, as he normally is. Perhaps he meant some specific metric of death rates.
On deaths per million population and ignoring really small countries such as San Marino and Andorra, yes that's right. At the moment only Belgium, Peru and Spain are higher than us, but we will get overtaken by quite a few other counties including probably Sweden if present trends continue.
It’s remarkable how our death rate has collapsed now that we are not including anyone who has ever had Covid, no matter how they died. I wonder where we would be if our “death rate” was “corrected” retrospectively.
Our number of excess deaths were - however - horrendous. For a three moth period, about 75% more people were dying than normal. That's a lot of dead people.
True. But that is because we were stunningly incompetent at protecting our most vulnerable. Many of those would have died in a relatively short period anyway, which is presumably why we had an extended period of less than average deaths. Now we are paying the price of a barely functioning NHS but overall are our Covid deaths really much higher than most? I have my doubts.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
So? We are suffering a Brexit already.
And ultimately your argument is no more valid than that for India (sensu lato) in the mid-1940s.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
We have elections every 5 years for a reason. That is "some significant time" already.
If the Scots don't want a second referendum they shouldn't vote SNP.
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
Err.....
As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland
And yet in December 2019, only 8 Unionist MPs (out of 18) were elected, the lowest ratio since Partition.
So what, the Unionist parties of the DUP and UUP still won more votes than the Nationalist parties of SF and the SDLP so no grounds for a referendum.
Indeed SF and the SDLP got fewer votes combined in NI at GE 2019 than the SNP did in Scotland on its own
So, just to get this right:
- when it's a question of who the Americans want to be next President, it's not the number of votes they get, but the number of seats in the electoral college
and
- when it's a question of whether Northern Ireland wants to remain in the Union, it's not the number of seats that the Unionist parties get, but the number of votes.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
Dems winning party beneath 1.9 for the first time in a long while.
The great unwind underway?
Watching NBC coverage of 2016 (Oh the things we do for fun on a sundday night) - their analyst correctly identifies Ohio and Iowa as crucial for Trump but not the Dems. That'll be true this cycle too.
The amount of effort the Hillary campaign put into winning Ohio at the expense of Wisconsin and Michigan is mind boggling.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
It would be the WTO terms Brexit they were voting against, that would be the main change from 2014 when they voted no to independence and did not feel ignored.
If Boris wants WTO terms then he must refuse Sturgeon at all costs
Why would Johnson want to re-write the NI protocol when it was fine, or perhaps the Tories lied again and didn't know what they had signed
I wonder what truth there is to these "rumours".
Johnson's supporters by and large don't care if its No Deal. Most of us would like a deal if a good one is available, but we're not afraid of No Deal like Johnson's opponents are terrified by it.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
Exactly and Scottish independence on WTO terms Brexit means tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and border posts from Gretna to Berwick having a huge effect on England as well as Scotland
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
Not quite, only Belgium, Spain, us and Italy have a higher Covid death rate in Europe than Sweden
Is that true? My bad, I did not check
A close relative who is very well-informed on Covid gave me that factoid. I presumed he was right, as he normally is. Perhaps he meant some specific metric of death rates.
On deaths per million population and ignoring really small countries such as San Marino and Andorra, yes that's right. At the moment only Belgium, Peru and Spain are higher than us, but we will get overtaken by quite a few other counties including probably Sweden if present trends continue.
It’s remarkable how our death rate has collapsed now that we are not including anyone who has ever had Covid, no matter how they died. I wonder where we would be if our “death rate” was “corrected” retrospectively.
Our number of excess deaths were - however - horrendous. For a three moth period, about 75% more people were dying than normal. That's a lot of dead people.
True. But that is because we were stunningly incompetent at protecting our most vulnerable. Many of those would have died in a relatively short period anyway, which is presumably why we had an extended period of less than average deaths. Now we are paying the price of a barely functioning NHS but overall are our Covid deaths really much higher than most? I have my doubts.
Well, let's look at excess deaths for the year. I suspect it'll still look fairly ugly.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree completely. The Brexiters are producing such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
I don't think that argument holds water. What precise 'messes' do you speak of that will be 'sorted out' by Scotland starting the process of separating itself from RUK and aiming to rejoin the EU in the space of months rather than after 5 years? A mess is practical, so it should be fairly easy to be specific. I am open to being convinced, but I think the argument for going now is a nakedly opportunistic political one, not an economical or social one. And it is irresponsible.
On the contrary, it is sensivle to rejoin Europe (whether as EEA or EU) as soon as\ possible, before years of UK policy have destroyed any serious linkage and trade with, say, San Marino.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
Turnout is irrelevant. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and don't get to complain.
If Scottish voters wanted to say no to a second referendum they could vote for a unionist party. If they choose to sit out the election when they know one party is seeking a second referendum they have no right to complain if the victor implements its manifesto.
Turnout is relevant as an indicator of the importance attached by voters to a particular election. Far fewer people vote at Local Elections compared with a General Election and provides evidence that local authorities and the issues they deal with are not viewed as having anything like the importance as those which concern central government at Westminster. A low turnout for Holyrood would hardly be a sign of the Scottish electorate having a burning desire to express a view on the issue which happens to be so important to the SNP. If turnout is circa 50% and the SNP manages a vote share of 50% , that would amount to no more than 25% of the Scotland electorate - before taking account of the reality that many will have voted SNP for reasons totally unrelated to Independence. That would not strike me as a ringing mandate for another Referendum anytime soon.
25% wanting a new referendum is a very significant amount and if that 25% wins the election then so be it. That is called democracy.
The other 75% couldn't have cared to stop it, because if they did they would vote for a party that wants to stop it.
Not caring cuts both ways. You can't add people who don't vote to the opposition, they're saying they don't care either way. So the winners are the ones that matter.
If the SNP wins they have the mandate - no ifs, no buts, that is democracy in action. If the SNP loses then the SNP have no mandate. Again democracy.
But many will attach little importance to the opinion of the Holyrood Assembly on such an issue and,therefore, not be inclined to participate in its elections. Moreover quite a few No voters are likely to vote SNP at Holyrood elections for a wide range of reasons - just as other supporters are likely to opt for other parties at Westminster elections.
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
Err.....
As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland
And yet in December 2019, only 8 Unionist MPs (out of 18) were elected, the lowest ratio since Partition.
So what, the Unionist parties of the DUP and UUP still won more votes than the Nationalist parties of SF and the SDLP so no grounds for a referendum.
Indeed SF and the SDLP got fewer votes combined in NI at GE 2019 than the SNP did in Scotland on its own
I have here a brain-damaged chimpanzee which can spot the flaw in your argument. Which is that your party and your NI allies swear by FPTP. As is the law of your glorious United Kingdom. And therefore you too.
And who are the largest party in NI? The DUP, including the Alliance (most of whose voters are soft Unionists) the SDLP and SF combined do not even have a majority of NI MPs anyway
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
It would be the WTO terms Brexit they were voting against, that would be the main change from 2014 when they voted no to independence and did not feel ignored.
If Boris wants WTO terms then he must refuse Sturgeon at all costs
Your thoughts do not follow each other.
If he wants WTO terms Brexit then he must do that. That is decided this year - the Scottish election isn't until next year and a Scottish Referendum likely couldn't be before next autumn but would probably be 2022.
If the Scots decide they don't want to stay in the UK with WTO terms then so be it that is their choice and we should respect their decision. If they decide they do then the SNP would need to accept that. Either way, we need to resolve the matter if that's what the Scots vote for.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
Turnout is irrelevant. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and don't get to complain.
If Scottish voters wanted to say no to a second referendum they could vote for a unionist party. If they choose to sit out the election when they know one party is seeking a second referendum they have no right to complain if the victor implements its manifesto.
Turnout is relevant as an indicator of the importance attached by voters to a particular election. Far fewer people vote at Local Elections compared with a General Election and provides evidence that local authorities and the issues they deal with are not viewed as having anything like the importance as those which concern central government at Westminster. A low turnout for Holyrood would hardly be a sign of the Scottish electorate having a burning desire to express a view on the issue which happens to be so important to the SNP. If turnout is circa 50% and the SNP manages a vote share of 50% , that would amount to no more than 25% of the Scotland electorate - before taking account of the reality that many will have voted SNP for reasons totally unrelated to Independence. That would not strike me as a ringing mandate for another Referendum anytime soon.
25% wanting a new referendum is a very significant amount and if that 25% wins the election then so be it. That is called democracy.
The other 75% couldn't have cared to stop it, because if they did they would vote for a party that wants to stop it.
Not caring cuts both ways. You can't add people who don't vote to the opposition, they're saying they don't care either way. So the winners are the ones that matter.
If the SNP wins they have the mandate - no ifs, no buts, that is democracy in action. If the SNP loses then the SNP have no mandate. Again democracy.
But many will attach little importance to the opinion of the Holyrood Assembly on such an issue and,therefore, not be inclined to participate in its elections. Moreover quite a few No voters are likely to vote SNP at Holyrood elections for a wide range of reasons - just as other supporters are likely to opt for other parties at Westminster elections.
But it works the other way round too. Quite a few Labour voters are pro indy.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
Not the SNP. Do check your sources.
Oh right, so what was this about then?
"Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote.
The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a 'never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.' "
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
We have elections every 5 years for a reason. That is "some significant time" already.
If the Scots don't want a second referendum they shouldn't vote SNP.
Most of them don't, 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at GE 19 and 54% of Scots did not vote SNP in 2016 either
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
Exactly and Scottish independence on WTO terms Brexit means tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and border posts from Gretna to Berwick having a huge effect on England as well as Scotland
To be honest with COVID and no EU deal it might be the best time to get all this stuff over with in one go.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
Not the SNP. Do check your sources.
Oh right, so what was this about then?
"Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote.
The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a 'never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.' "
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
How laughable to see the sheer hypocrisy of Brexiteers who were so inflamed by the importance of the UK 'winning independence' from the EU (which it always was anyway) while tying themselves in knots trying to invent reasons why Scotland should not be allowed to become independent.
I will be sad to see the UK be broken up but the actions of Brexiteers have made it inevitable.
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
Err.....
As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland
And yet in December 2019, only 8 Unionist MPs (out of 18) were elected, the lowest ratio since Partition.
So what, the Unionist parties of the DUP and UUP still won more votes than the Nationalist parties of SF and the SDLP so no grounds for a referendum.
Indeed SF and the SDLP got fewer votes combined in NI at GE 2019 than the SNP did in Scotland on its own
So, just to get this right:
- when it's a question of who the Americans want to be next President, it's not the number of votes they get, but the number of seats in the electoral college
and
- when it's a question of whether Northern Ireland wants to remain in the Union, it's not the number of seats that the Unionist parties get, but the number of votes.
Have I got that right?
Yes that is the US system, the winner of the EC becomes President..
The NI system as you well know is the leader of the largest party is First Minister, that is the DUP and Arlene Foster
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
So? We are suffering a Brexit already.
And ultimately your argument is no more valid than that for India (sensu lato) in the mid-1940s.
Rubbish. There was no UK parliament incorporating democratically elected MPs from India.
India was a colony, pure and simple. Independence was India's right to claim. Scotland is not a fricking colony, despite the hysterical claims of madder Nats.
Scotland is legally a part of the UK, has full democratic rights within the UK, and Scotland has an agreed Devolution Settlement with the UK, that referendums on independence must be agreed by the whole UK parliament at Westminster (as is logically obvious: otherwise Sturgeon could call a vote every Tuesday, until she wins).
Let Westminster - including its Scots MPs - vote on whether indyref2 should be allowed. I'm happy to wager £100 at evens that Parliament at Westminster will not allow a Scots vote until the next UK GE in 2024 or so.
Track n trace to be properly tested in coming days then, thanks to all those international travellers. If we close September with only a few thousand cases a day despite all the loosenings then I think we’ll be in pretty good shape.
AstraZeneca investor call tomorrow is a pre arranged call as part of JP Morgan series of ceo calls and is probably unlikely to shed much new light on vaccine progress.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
Exactly and Scottish independence on WTO terms Brexit means tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and border posts from Gretna to Berwick having a huge effect on England as well as Scotland
To be honest with COVID and no EU deal it might be the best time to get all this stuff over with in one go.
The impact of the Covid lockdown plus WTO terms Brexit and tariffs on exports to and from the UK and EU plus Scottish independence and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and England will lead to the biggest economic recession in the British Isles since the 1930s Depression, if not worse.
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. The agreement will still be there but UK courts will need to abide by UK law? So they absolutely should, that is part of being a sovereign country.
If the EU thinks we're in breach of the treaty then that is for them to deal with, not UK courts.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
We have elections every 5 years for a reason. That is "some significant time" already.
If the Scots don't want a second referendum they shouldn't vote SNP.
Most of them don't, 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at GE 19 and 54% of Scots did not vote SNP in 2016 either
You can't add opposition parties up together. If the Scots want a Scottish Labour or Scottish Tory government they can vote for that. If the Scots want an SNP minority government with unionists holding a majority to veto any potential referendum they can vote for that too.
Democracy really shouldn't be a hard concept for you to grasp.
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. The agreement will still be there but UK courts will need to abide by UK law? So they absolutely should, that is part of being a sovereign country.
If the EU thinks we're in breach of the treaty then that is for them to deal with, not UK courts.
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. The agreement will still be there but UK courts will need to abide by UK law? So they absolutely should, that is part of being a sovereign country.
If the EU thinks we're in breach of the treaty then that is for them to deal with, not UK courts.
We will have to await details, but if UK f*cks up the NI issue then a hard border will end up within the island of Ireland and then all hell could break lose.
I confess a small, mischievous and deeply irresponsible part of me thrills to the idea of saying FUCK IT, NO DEAL
Bring it on, the world is in chaos anyway. Reclaim our seas and borders. Give Brussels £5.28 for the spinny chair we borrowed. Fuck the rest of their shit.
If the Irish complain, we patrol the borders with armed Scotsmen, ready to use a dirk.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
We have elections every 5 years for a reason. That is "some significant time" already.
If the Scots don't want a second referendum they shouldn't vote SNP.
Most of them don't, 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at GE 19 and 54% of Scots did not vote SNP in 2016 either
You can't add opposition parties up together. If the Scots want a Scottish Labour or Scottish Tory government they can vote for that. If the Scots want an SNP minority government with unionists holding a majority to veto any potential referendum they can vote for that too.
Democracy really shouldn't be a hard concept for you to grasp.
We have democracy, we have a Tory government elected with a majority of 80 to respect 'the once in a generation' 2014 referendum as the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
I know you are a liberal not a Tory and disagree with that but there we go, until 2024 this Tory government will block indyref2 even with an SNP majority at Holyrood next year as Westminster is supreme to Holyrood
New York (CNN Business)Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, said his magazine's story about Trump calling Americans who died in battle "losers" and "suckers," was just the tip of the iceberg.
"I would fully expect more reporting to come out about this and more confirmation and new pieces of information in the coming days and weeks," Goldberg told CNN's Chief Media Correspondent Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday. "We have a responsibility and we're going to do it regardless of what he says."
Good luck signing trade deals when we can't even stick to agreements we sign
This. The utter insanity of the hard Breiteers. "These Europeans haven't done what we said they'd do and given us what we want. So we're going to tear up the legal agreement we signed. And go negotiate better legal agreements elsewhere.
Smaller. Less relevant. Revokes legal agreements
Absolutely nailed on flawless strategy. America, Japan etc will absolutely give us what we want...
I confess a small, mischievous and deeply irresponsible part of me thrills to the idea of saying FUCK IT, NO DEAL
Bring it on, the world is in chaos anyway. Reclaim our seas and borders. Give Brussels £5.28 for the spinny chair we borrowed. Fuck the rest of their shit.
If the Irish complain, we patrol the borders with armed Scotsmen, ready to use a dirk.
Armed Presbyterian DUP voting Scotch Irish from Antrim?
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
The people in question were professional and college athletes, so it's unlikely obesity was the issue!
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
You mean you don't believe the Russian's have it cracked?
What about the Chinese? I thought they were basically as far a long as the Oxford vaccine trials, if not further?
The Russian vaccine actually looks OK. It's not really released, mind, they've just rebranded Phase 3 as released.
I should have said "Western" at the top, because I think it's highly unlikely the Chinese vaccines will make it to the West in the near term.
My understanding is that the Russian vaccine has been tested on literally 10s of individuals, and it wasn't double blind placebo trial either.
You don't think the Chinese would be dead keen to flog their vaccine to the rest of the world, massive PR win for the Party.
Just to let everyone know, I had the Russian Covid-19 vaccination yesterday and can tell you there are absolutely no negative sideffski efectovski secundariosvki Кто может это прочитать Обожаю Владимира Путина!
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
Exactly and Scottish independence on WTO terms Brexit means tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and border posts from Gretna to Berwick having a huge effect on England as well as Scotland
To be honest with COVID and no EU deal it might be the best time to get all this stuff over with in one go.
The impact of the Covid lockdown plus WTO terms Brexit and tariffs on exports to and from the UK and EU plus Scottish independence and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and England will lead to the biggest economic recession in the British Isles since the 1930s Depression, if not worse.
Well, young HY, is this really what the moderate and respectable Conservatives were working for all this time?
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. The agreement will still be there but UK courts will need to abide by UK law? So they absolutely should, that is part of being a sovereign country.
If the EU thinks we're in breach of the treaty then that is for them to deal with, not UK courts.
All treaties limit the abilities of governments - and parliaments - to do things. Every single one, if adhered to, reduces sovereignty because they are fundamentally negative. So, joining the WTO limits your ability to set tariffs on a country-by-country basis. Entering in to a free trade agreement limits your ability to pass laws in many, many ways.
Now, a sovereign nation can pass all the laws they like. However, if doing so causes them to be in breach of their treaty obligations, then the treaty will be essentially voided. When it is the Prime Minister who signed the treaty who also proposes a law that is in breach of it, then you can expect other leaders to doubt the sincerity of his word in future.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻♂️
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
Not the SNP. Do check your sources.
Oh right, so what was this about then?
"Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote.
The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a 'never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.' "
Looks like the government is giving up on the Union and any trade deals with anyone to embrace a full rogue state strategy. It’s really tough to see how this benefits us.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
Exactly and Scottish independence on WTO terms Brexit means tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and border posts from Gretna to Berwick having a huge effect on England as well as Scotland
To be honest with COVID and no EU deal it might be the best time to get all this stuff over with in one go.
The impact of the Covid lockdown plus WTO terms Brexit and tariffs on exports to and from the UK and EU plus Scottish independence and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and England will lead to the biggest economic recession in the British Isles since the 1930s Depression, if not worse.
Well, young HY, is this really what the moderate and respectable Conservatives were working for all this time?
Or were you deceived by your leaders?
Don't blame me, I voted Remain, however I also respect referendum results unlike the SNP
I confess a small, mischievous and deeply irresponsible part of me thrills to the idea of saying FUCK IT, NO DEAL
Bring it on, the world is in chaos anyway. Reclaim our seas and borders. Give Brussels £5.28 for the spinny chair we borrowed. Fuck the rest of their shit.
If the Irish complain, we patrol the borders with armed Scotsmen, ready to use a dirk.
Jim Pickard reporting a rumour that a No Deal announcement is scheduled for this coming week.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence and ignored Gandhi's 'Quit India' campaign begun in 1942, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen in 1948 and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State.
Which UK party granted Independence to the following?
Libya (1951) Sudan (1956) Ghana (1957) Malaya (1957) Nigeria (1960) Somalia (1960) Cyprus (1960) Sierra Leone (1961) Tanganyika (1961) Kuwait (1961) Uganda (1962) Jamaica (1962) Trinidad and Tobago (1962) Barbados (1962) Kenya (1963) Zanzibar (1963) Sarawak and North Borneo (1963) Singapore (1963) Malawi (1964) Malta (1964) Fiji (1970) UAE (1971) Qatar (1971) Bahrain (1971) Oman (1971) Bahamas (1973) Grenada (1974) St. Vincent and the Grenadines (1979) Kiribati (1979) Zimbabwe (1980) Vanuatu (1980) Belize (1981) Antigua and Barbuda (1981) Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983) Brunei (1984)
And I guess we could also mention Hong Kong (Sino-British joint declaration in 1984).
I have no idea on these rumours but it has certainly stirred up the remainer's tonight
It should stir up the leavers as well. Hard as nails no deal. Having torn up a legally binding trade deal. With no hope of signing any trade deal with anyone without a change of government. I know that the faithful think England is exceptional and will prevail. That delusion is about to splat against the wall of reality.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
Exactly and Scottish independence on WTO terms Brexit means tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and border posts from Gretna to Berwick having a huge effect on England as well as Scotland
To be honest with COVID and no EU deal it might be the best time to get all this stuff over with in one go.
The impact of the Covid lockdown plus WTO terms Brexit and tariffs on exports to and from the UK and EU plus Scottish independence and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and England will lead to the biggest economic recession in the British Isles since the 1930s Depression, if not worse.
Well, young HY, is this really what the moderate and respectable Conservatives were working for all this time?
Or were you deceived by your leaders?
Don't blame me, I voted Remain, however I also respect referendum results unlike the SNP
If you voted remain, you are NOT a True Conservative.
Comments
By the time it was properly over, Atlee had become PM and had a big majority.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI
They will flim flam. There will be "negotiations" and Commissions into Federalism and Star Chambers on Devomax, all of it designed to delay everything until the next GE, when the Tories will either be rid of the responsibility, or they can string it out until Holyrood 2025 (where they will hope the SNP will finally lose).
Don't get me wrong. The Union is in grave danger. There will, inevitably, be an almighty constitutional brouhaha after the next Holyrood elex (unless the SNP implode). But it won't come to a head - a vote - until the latter half of the 2020s.
And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
The great unwind underway?
Indeed SF and the SDLP got fewer votes combined in NI at GE 2019 than the SNP did in Scotland on its own
If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻♂️
Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.
This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
No Deal it is.
Why would Johnson want to re-write the NI protocol when it was fine, or perhaps the Tories lied again and didn't know what they had signed
'I would have thought that the Conservative Party would have wanted to defend the cause of British rule in India. It should be using its influence – which is great – to inform and persuade people... One would have thought that if there were one cause in the world which the Conservative party would have hastened to defend, it would be the cause of the British Empire in India... am against this surrender to Gandhi. I am against these conversations and agreements between Lord Irwin and Mr. Ghandi. Gandhi stands for the expulsion of Britain from India. Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi. ...'
http://www.churchillarchiveforschools.com/themes/the-themes/key-developments-in-british-and-empire-history/was-britain-divided-about-indian-independence-1930-47/the-sources/source-2
http://www.churchillarchive.com/churchill-archive/explore/page?id=CHAR 9/98#image=59
Edit - as for it not being the business of the English - it is certainly not for England to stop Scotland leaving, but the impact of a decision to leave would be faced by all the constituent nations, so I don't see how a relatively short delay to allow the dust from a big change to settle before another one takes place is a big ask.
And ultimately your argument is no more valid than that for India (sensu lato) in the mid-1940s.
If the Scots don't want a second referendum they shouldn't vote SNP.
- when it's a question of who the Americans want to be next President, it's not the number of votes they get, but the number of seats in the electoral college
and
- when it's a question of whether Northern Ireland wants to remain in the Union, it's not the number of seats that the Unionist parties get, but the number of votes.
Have I got that right?
Good luck signing trade deals when we can't even stick to agreements we sign
If Boris wants WTO terms then he must refuse Sturgeon at all costs
Yesterday I drove through the plague city also known as Bradford. Imagine my shock on seeing a couple of new 5G masts at the side of the road!
Oh, sorry - that isn't the anecdote. Passed a takeaway. 4 customers inside. No masks. In Bradford.
Johnson's supporters by and large don't care if its No Deal. Most of us would like a deal if a good one is available, but we're not afraid of No Deal like Johnson's opponents are terrified by it.
If he wants WTO terms Brexit then he must do that. That is decided this year - the Scottish election isn't until next year and a Scottish Referendum likely couldn't be before next autumn but would probably be 2022.
If the Scots decide they don't want to stay in the UK with WTO terms then so be it that is their choice and we should respect their decision. If they decide they do then the SNP would need to accept that. Either way, we need to resolve the matter if that's what the Scots vote for.
"Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote.
The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a 'never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.' "
And he's not FM any more,.
I will be sad to see the UK be broken up but the actions of Brexiteers have made it inevitable.
The NI system as you well know is the leader of the largest party is First Minister, that is the DUP and Arlene Foster
India was a colony, pure and simple. Independence was India's right to claim. Scotland is not a fricking colony, despite the hysterical claims of madder Nats.
Scotland is legally a part of the UK, has full democratic rights within the UK, and Scotland has an agreed Devolution Settlement with the UK, that referendums on independence must be agreed by the whole UK parliament at Westminster (as is logically obvious: otherwise Sturgeon could call a vote every Tuesday, until she wins).
Let Westminster - including its Scots MPs - vote on whether indyref2 should be allowed. I'm happy to wager £100 at evens that Parliament at Westminster will not allow a Scots vote until the next UK GE in 2024 or so.
Who would have thought it from Alex Boris Johnson, whose word is, of course, his bond.
AstraZeneca investor call tomorrow is a pre arranged call as part of JP Morgan series of ceo calls and is probably unlikely to shed much new light on vaccine progress.
If the EU thinks we're in breach of the treaty then that is for them to deal with, not UK courts.
Exactly as Cummings and his sidekick Johnson wanted all along.
Democracy really shouldn't be a hard concept for you to grasp.
So No Deal next week then
Bring it on, the world is in chaos anyway. Reclaim our seas and borders. Give Brussels £5.28 for the spinny chair we borrowed. Fuck the rest of their shit.
If the Irish complain, we patrol the borders with armed Scotsmen, ready to use a dirk.
I know you are a liberal not a Tory and disagree with that but there we go, until 2024 this Tory government will block indyref2 even with an SNP majority at Holyrood next year as Westminster is supreme to Holyrood
"I would fully expect more reporting to come out about this and more confirmation and new pieces of information in the coming days and weeks," Goldberg told CNN's Chief Media Correspondent Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday. "We have a responsibility and we're going to do it regardless of what he says."
Smaller.
Less relevant.
Revokes legal agreements
Absolutely nailed on flawless strategy. America, Japan etc will absolutely give us what we want...
Edit: Crap, I mean, that's a relief.
Or were you deceived by your leaders?
Now, a sovereign nation can pass all the laws they like. However, if doing so causes them to be in breach of their treaty obligations, then the treaty will be essentially voided. When it is the Prime Minister who signed the treaty who also proposes a law that is in breach of it, then you can expect other leaders to doubt the sincerity of his word in future.
I hope it is a success - but you can't honestly sit there and think "you know what, let's undermine our agreements" and think it is going well
Libya (1951)
Sudan (1956)
Ghana (1957)
Malaya (1957)
Nigeria (1960)
Somalia (1960)
Cyprus (1960)
Sierra Leone (1961)
Tanganyika (1961)
Kuwait (1961)
Uganda (1962)
Jamaica (1962)
Trinidad and Tobago (1962)
Barbados (1962)
Kenya (1963)
Zanzibar (1963)
Sarawak and North Borneo (1963)
Singapore (1963)
Malawi (1964)
Malta (1964)
Fiji (1970)
UAE (1971)
Qatar (1971)
Bahrain (1971)
Oman (1971)
Bahamas (1973)
Grenada (1974)
St. Vincent and the Grenadines (1979)
Kiribati (1979)
Zimbabwe (1980)
Vanuatu (1980)
Belize (1981)
Antigua and Barbuda (1981)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983)
Brunei (1984)
And I guess we could also mention Hong Kong (Sino-British joint declaration in 1984).
I am not commenting on these rumours but I do think no deal is very near
https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1302706997268279296