The New Statesman would provide a better comparison. Did he not have their figures?
37800, of which 8000 are freebies.https://www.abc.org.uk/product/549 . Lower than the Spectator but not out of sight. An important difference is that whereas I think many right-wingers with intellectual leanings read the Spectator, relatively few left-wingers buy the New Statesman - I don't actually know anyone who does - though we'll read an article occasionally if someone sends a link. It is neither really authoritative (as e.g. the London Review of Books is, though the Spectator isn't either), nor an especially easy read (which the Spectator is). The market seems to be middlebrow social democrats, who certainly exist but not in huge numbers. There isn't really a popular left-wing magazine in Britain that I know of - all the energy goes into blogs.
Why anyone except a total cynic bothers with Private Eyer has always been a mystery to me, though. Grumpy reactionary sneers served up in almost unreadable format - they have great cover cartoons and that's it.
I'm surprised you're so against Private Eye. In recent years it has done more than any other outlet to investigate and report on the misdeeds and corruption of the powerful - government contracts, the media, finance and so on. For example, its coverage of the Grenfell scandal has been excellent. There are also some genuinely funny cartoons and satire, in among the more childish stuff.
Yep, I blow hot and cold about the Eye but I actually think that being grumpy reactionaries adds punch to their undoubtedly valuable filleting of various governments and the great and the good. They could probably do with looking at the mote in their own eye a bit more frequently, Hislop seems quite comfy in his nook in the establishment.
That's the right principle and the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" case against it is extremely weak imo. Ok, so the Scots might take to having a Referendum on Independence every other Tuesday and continually voting "No" so as to keep the fun going. They might. Just as hordes of predatory perverts might ID as female just so they can hang around in women's toilets. The 2 arguments are on the same level. Insanely stretched. Divorced from reality. A bit of a nonsense.
Exactly. The hysteria about the possibility of Scotland inflicting indy refs on the wise, generous but long suffering English (current count, one in 314 years) is definitely akin to the 'perverts with dicks must only use men's toilets' obsession.
I'd have both F -> M and M -> F trans in the male cat in sports. Changing rooms and toilets, penises go to the gents, no nob to the ladies maybe
These days individuals are allowed to mutilate healthy tissue. So knob or no knob is irrelevant.
I`d go:
M -> F + knob = M sport loos etc M -> F - knob = M sport loos etc F -> M + knob = F sport loos etc F -> M - knob = F sport loos etc
Folks, this really isn`t difficult.
So are you volunteering for the role of single sex changing area genital inspector @Stocky? Because I have ... questions if that’s the case
Drat! Just beat me with that.
Yes, an interesting new career opens up in the toilet space.
But more seriously, the WC issue is a nonsense. Trans people have been using the facilities for their gender (rather than born sex) for as long as trans people have existed, i.e. since well before this current moral panic.
There are concerns about trans (eg around elite sports and refuges) which I totally get, but there is also such a lot of ill-informed prejudice. Anybody who doubts this should take a plunge into the output of those most vociferous on the anti-trans side of this debate. You do find genuine feminists there. You find good and nuanced arguments. But they are outnumbered by reactionary fossils. There are some quite unpleasant types, trust me, most of them men who give not a single shit about women's rights and gender equality, quite the reverse.
Don't wish to write a long post, but some other points to flag. Transpeople are few in number. They just want to live peaceably and authentically and are no threat to anyone. Women are more supportive of trans people than men are. With both men and women, younger people are more supportive, perhaps because they have more of a "live and let live" mindset. The earlier a transperson physically transitions the better it is for them long term and the less difficult are the societal issues. But as against this you have the need to ensure that children embarking on life changing treatments are making an informed choice.
I agree with all that @kinabalu as long as you are talking about gender (which I think you are).
Live and let live - I agree. As a liberal ... toleration - I`m committed to it ideologically. Tick tick. In fact more than toleration from me - actual support I`d say. I`m all for the "eccentrics charter" that conservatives bash liberalism for being.
They don`t get to change sex though. No - that`s different. For example, they don`t get to go back into history and change birth certificates, mutilate healthy tissue from the public purse, insist on participating in women`s sport or crucify people for "deadnaming" them. They can claim they are women, identify as women but they only get to BE women in terms of gender and not in term of sex.
Unless I misunderstand you that is straight from Rod Liddle on Question Time a couple of years ago when he spoke on this. At first sight it appears liberal but it isn't. Because you're not actually tolerating anything there, are you? You're just saying men can go around pretending to be women if they want to. Or put another way, if a man wants to pretend he's a woman, or vice versa, you won't pass a law against it. That's hardly a particularly liberal position given that only a very intrusive and authoritarian state indeed would pass such a law.
That's the right principle and the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" case against it is extremely weak imo. Ok, so the Scots might take to having a Referendum on Independence every other Tuesday and continually voting "No" so as to keep the fun going. They might. Just as hordes of predatory perverts might ID as female just so they can hang around in women's toilets. The 2 arguments are on the same level. Insanely stretched. Divorced from reality. A bit of a nonsense.
Exactly. The hysteria about the possibility of Scotland inflicting indy refs on the wise, generous but long suffering English (current count, one in 314 years) is definitely akin to the 'perverts with dicks must only use men's toilets' obsession.
Wasn’t there one in the 70s as well?
No.
Checked - was thinking of the devolution referendum of 79
The New Statesman would provide a better comparison. Did he not have their figures?
37800, of which 8000 are freebies.https://www.abc.org.uk/product/549 . Lower than the Spectator but not out of sight. An important difference is that whereas I think many right-wingers with intellectual leanings read the Spectator, relatively few left-wingers buy the New Statesman - I don't actually know anyone who does - though we'll read an article occasionally if someone sends a link. It is neither really authoritative (as e.g. the London Review of Books is, though the Spectator isn't either), nor an especially easy read (which the Spectator is). The market seems to be middlebrow social democrats, who certainly exist but not in huge numbers. There isn't really a popular left-wing magazine in Britain that I know of - all the energy goes into blogs.
Why anyone except a total cynic bothers with Private Eyer has always been a mystery to me, though. Grumpy reactionary sneers served up in almost unreadable format - they have great cover cartoons and that's it.
I'm surprised you're so against Private Eye. In recent years it has done more than any other outlet to investigate and report on the misdeeds and corruption of the powerful - government contracts, the media, finance and so on. For example, its coverage of the Grenfell scandal has been excellent. There are also some genuinely funny cartoons and satire, in among the more childish stuff.
But Ian Hislop and Private Eye were one of the biggest boosters for Andrew Wakefield's MMR bullshit.
They even published a 32 page special on why Wakefield is right.
Hislop and Private Eye have blood on their hands.
If Hislop had any sense of honour or decency he would have resigned years ago for his shameless boosterism, remember the BMJ said the Eye's reporting was dangerous.
That's the right principle and the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" case against it is extremely weak imo. Ok, so the Scots might take to having a Referendum on Independence every other Tuesday and continually voting "No" so as to keep the fun going. They might. Just as hordes of predatory perverts might ID as female just so they can hang around in women's toilets. The 2 arguments are on the same level. Insanely stretched. Divorced from reality. A bit of a nonsense.
Exactly. The hysteria about the possibility of Scotland inflicting indy refs on the wise, generous but long suffering English (current count, one in 314 years) is definitely akin to the 'perverts with dicks must only use men's toilets' obsession.
Yep, not to go all big-headed but I hit "post" on that one with a real 'smug city' flourish. Not only a good analogy but fusing the 2 hot thread topics (sindy and trans) into one.
I'd have both F -> M and M -> F trans in the male cat in sports. Changing rooms and toilets, penises go to the gents, no nob to the ladies maybe
These days individuals are allowed to mutilate healthy tissue. So knob or no knob is irrelevant.
I`d go:
M -> F + knob = M sport loos etc M -> F - knob = M sport loos etc F -> M + knob = F sport loos etc F -> M - knob = F sport loos etc
Folks, this really isn`t difficult.
So are you volunteering for the role of single sex changing area genital inspector @Stocky? Because I have ... questions if that’s the case
Drat! Just beat me with that.
Yes, an interesting new career opens up in the toilet space.
But more seriously, the WC issue is a nonsense. Trans people have been using the facilities for their gender (rather than born sex) for as long as trans people have existed, i.e. since well before this current moral panic.
There are concerns about trans (eg around elite sports and refuges) which I totally get, but there is also such a lot of ill-informed prejudice. Anybody who doubts this should take a plunge into the output of those most vociferous on the anti-trans side of this debate. You do find genuine feminists there. You find good and nuanced arguments. But they are outnumbered by reactionary fossils. There are some quite unpleasant types, trust me, most of them men who give not a single shit about women's rights and gender equality, quite the reverse.
Don't wish to write a long post, but some other points to flag. Transpeople are few in number. They just want to live peaceably and authentically and are no threat to anyone. Women are more supportive of trans people than men are. With both men and women, younger people are more supportive, perhaps because they have more of a "live and let live" mindset. The earlier a transperson physically transitions the better it is for them long term and the less difficult are the societal issues. But as against this you have the need to ensure that children embarking on life changing treatments are making an informed choice.
I agree with all that @kinabalu as long as you are talking about gender (which I think you are).
Live and let live - I agree. As a liberal ... toleration - I`m committed to it ideologically. Tick tick. In fact more than toleration from me - actual support I`d say. I`m all for the "eccentrics charter" that conservatives bash liberalism for being.
They don`t get to change sex though. No - that`s different. For example, they don`t get to go back into history and change birth certificates, mutilate healthy tissue from the public purse, insist on participating in women`s sport or crucify people for "deadnaming" them. They can claim they are women, identify as women but they only get to BE women in terms of gender and not in term of sex.
Unless I misunderstand you that is straight from Rod Liddle on Question Time a couple of years ago when he spoke on this. At first sight it appears liberal but it isn't. Because you're not actually tolerating anything there, are you? You're just saying men can go around pretending to be women if they want to. Or put another way, if a man wants to pretend he's a woman, or vice versa, you won't pass a law against it. That's hardly a particularly liberal position given that only a very intrusive and authoritarian state indeed would pass such a law.
The New Statesman would provide a better comparison. Did he not have their figures?
37800, of which 8000 are freebies.https://www.abc.org.uk/product/549 . Lower than the Spectator but not out of sight. An important difference is that whereas I think many right-wingers with intellectual leanings read the Spectator, relatively few left-wingers buy the New Statesman - I don't actually know anyone who does - though we'll read an article occasionally if someone sends a link. It is neither really authoritative (as e.g. the London Review of Books is, though the Spectator isn't either), nor an especially easy read (which the Spectator is). The market seems to be middlebrow social democrats, who certainly exist but not in huge numbers. There isn't really a popular left-wing magazine in Britain that I know of - all the energy goes into blogs.
Why anyone except a total cynic bothers with Private Eyer has always been a mystery to me, though. Grumpy reactionary sneers served up in almost unreadable format - they have great cover cartoons and that's it.
I'm surprised you're so against Private Eye. In recent years it has done more than any other outlet to investigate and report on the misdeeds and corruption of the powerful - government contracts, the media, finance and so on. For example, its coverage of the Grenfell scandal has been excellent. There are also some genuinely funny cartoons and satire, in among the more childish stuff.
But Ian Hislop and Private Eye were one of the biggest boosters for Andrew Wakefield's MMR bullshit.
They even published a 32 page special on why Wakefield is right.
Hislop and Private Eye have blood on their hands.
If Hislop had any sense of honour or decency he would have resigned years ago for his shameless boosterism, remember the BMJ said the Eye's reporting was dangerous.
Good afternoon everyone. I have serious doubts whether the SNP will win an overall majority in May (assuming the election goes ahead). The Scottish media, and remember they are overwhelmingly anti SNP, will be holding fire on the Sturgeon/Salmond battle until they think they can cause maximum damage. I believe there will be enough evidence to topple Sturgeon. Probably at the start of the official campaign, when it will be too late to replace her. The election will be fought on the media, social and traditional. This will negate the SNP’s traditional advantages in knocking doors, leafletting, street stalls, etc. The trans activists will continue to publicly vilify anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support them, irrespective of the damage they do to their own party. Unless something changes, traditional SNP voters may abstain, especially on the list. Labour will have the publicity boost of a new leader. If Monica Lennon wins, she could pick up votes from ex Labour voters who have switched to the SNP. Anas Sarwar would be less likely to do so, being part of the old guard that scunnered the ex Labour voters. The Conservatives will lose votes and seats in fishing and farming areas. I would lay an SNP overall majority. Labour for second place looks good value. Someone upthread was asking about a QC. Joanna Cherry is a QC. I don’t think the Sturgeons will survive. Unfortunately, things are going to get even more messy. I don’t think there will be a request for a Section 30 order before 2024.
A few days ago I put my first modest bet on NOM for the Holyrood election.
The recent public launch of the ISP, if properly presented, will limit the maximum extent of SNP power, but more importantly could visibly reduce the numbers and influence of unionist opposition.
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Here are Conservative candidates for the Senedd who want its abolition.
I have to confess I was vaguely aware of an abolitionist undercurrent in some parts of the Welsh Conservatives but I wasn't aware it was anywhere near Party policy.
There is a possibility (some may put it stronger) Labour will drop further at the Senedd elections and open the door for an alternative Welsh Government - is a Conservative/PC coalition a serious possibility? The fragmentation of the opposition suggests forming a majority against Labour won't be easy (let alone the 2 Abolitionists already in the Senedd).
That's the right principle and the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" case against it is extremely weak imo. Ok, so the Scots might take to having a Referendum on Independence every other Tuesday and continually voting "No" so as to keep the fun going. They might. Just as hordes of predatory perverts might ID as female just so they can hang around in women's toilets. The 2 arguments are on the same level. Insanely stretched. Divorced from reality. A bit of a nonsense.
Exactly. The hysteria about the possibility of Scotland inflicting indy refs on the wise, generous but long suffering English (current count, one in 314 years) is definitely akin to the 'perverts with dicks must only use men's toilets' obsession.
I cannot help but conclude that the only reason the Salmond/Sturgeon debacle/scandal is being broadly ignored, even in Scotland, is it's just, "well it's only Scotland" ? Or is it because "it's only Scotland" that Sturgeon thinks she can get away with it?
It's a murky factional squabble with, at present, unclear details of exactly what if anything has definitely been done wrong. Its hard to get over invested in it yet.
I disagree - it is abundantly clear how the investigation against Salmond was flawed and prejudiced. The only murkiness is how the suppression of evidence of this has been allowed.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Parliament is anything like Hanforth Parish Council is insulting. No wonder half of Scots want to leave!
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
Nowhere did I suggest that the Scottish parliament was like any parish council (although they are both elected bodies with prescribed responsibilities for a given area). And it’s certainly not insulting to suggest that different levels have different remits... the only direct comparison I made was the Scottish Parliament to the Welsh Assembly... I believe the Scots have more powers but disagree that’s an insulting comparison.
But please, tell me where you get proto-fascism and jackboots from a suggestion that a referendum on a topic should only be held once a generation?
Because it's not up to you to decide whether a referendum on the topic should be held once in a generation. It's not up to you to decide whether the Scots stay in the union or not.
Either they do want to leave, and therefore it's unconscionable to keep them against their will, or they don't want to leave, and therefore there's nothing to fear from a referendum.
It's delusional to think that this referendum wouldn't be the last for a long time.
Why is it delusional when the most recent historical precedent is that as soon as an independence referendum is lost the SNP will immediately campaign for another one and it would apparently be 'abhorrent' (to use your own terms) to say a word against it?
What's to stop them going for a third referendum if they lose the second one?
The polls are clear that the most fundamental change to British politics in 50 years, Brexit, has influenced Scottish attitudes to independence. Especially considering that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to Remain compared to rUK.
Wilful disregard of this fact is just dishonest. There's clearly a new case for independence, especially when all the promises made by the UK government during and after the 2014 referendum have been broken.
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK despite everything then there will be no logical, rational, or moral case for another referendum for the foreseeable future.
The one way to secure the Union long term is to win IndyRef 2! This is a fantastic opportunity for unionism.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Repeating a partisan interpretation constantly doesn’t make it correct or definitive.
Mr. Sandpit and Mr. Fishing, I agree entirely (thought I'd already posted that, but apparently not).
Ceding more power to Scotland while England has no corresponding Parliament (a strange and mystical concept that the political and media class seems unable to comprehend let alone actually support) would perhaps open a door, ironically, for an English independence campaign.
Ms. Sarissa, when is the next Holyrood election due?
FPT. Re Mike's comments at the end of the article about Biden being happy about the Republicans potentially splitting, I think that is a classic case of be careful what you wish for. A Trump stand alone party would be able to cast off the need to moderate its message on, let's say, wealth distribution because it wouldn't be focused on corporate donors as the GOP is. There's also the potential for a stand alone party to attract socially conservative voters in non-white groups - Hispanics would be an obvious target group but, while the Black coalition generally held for the Democrats, it didn't appear to do so much amongst younger Black men.
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Here are Conservative candidates for the Senedd who want its abolition.
I have to confess I was vaguely aware of an abolitionist undercurrent in some parts of the Welsh Conservatives but I wasn't aware it was anywhere near Party policy.
There is a possibility (some may put it stronger) Labour will drop further at the Senedd elections and open the door for an alternative Welsh Government - is a Conservative/PC coalition a serious possibility? The fragmentation of the opposition suggests forming a majority against Labour won't be easy (let alone the 2 Abolitionists already in the Senedd).
1. Plaid won't get into bed with the Tories 2. Plaid and the Tories are both bit-part players - consequently 3. Labour will lead the Welsh Government, for all practical purposes, forever
The only live question is whether Welsh Labour sticks with the English party, or eventually splits off and turns itself into a pro-independence movement after Scotland eventually goes. On that subject, they've already started selecting some openly pro-secession candidates, so the direction of travel seems clear. It's only a matter of time.
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Here are Conservative candidates for the Senedd who want its abolition.
I have to confess I was vaguely aware of an abolitionist undercurrent in some parts of the Welsh Conservatives but I wasn't aware it was anywhere near Party policy.
There is a possibility (some may put it stronger) Labour will drop further at the Senedd elections and open the door for an alternative Welsh Government - is a Conservative/PC coalition a serious possibility? The fragmentation of the opposition suggests forming a majority against Labour won't be easy (let alone the 2 Abolitionists already in the Senedd).
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Here are Conservative candidates for the Senedd who want its abolition.
I have to confess I was vaguely aware of an abolitionist undercurrent in some parts of the Welsh Conservatives but I wasn't aware it was anywhere near Party policy.
There is a possibility (some may put it stronger) Labour will drop further at the Senedd elections and open the door for an alternative Welsh Government - is a Conservative/PC coalition a serious possibility? The fragmentation of the opposition suggests forming a majority against Labour won't be easy (let alone the 2 Abolitionists already in the Senedd).
1. Plaid won't get into bed with the Tories 2. Plaid and the Tories are both bit-part players - consequently 3. Labour will lead the Welsh Government, for all practical purposes, forever
The only live question is whether Welsh Labour sticks with the English party, or eventually splits off and turns itself into a pro-independence movement after Scotland eventually goes. On that subject, they've already started selecting some openly pro-secession candidates, so the direction of travel seems clear. It's only a matter of time.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Better get an English party to propose it so English people can vote for it then.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
There is only one way to get to an English Parliament and that is through the complete destruction of the British state. Otherwise it ain't happening.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Here are Conservative candidates for the Senedd who want its abolition.
I have to confess I was vaguely aware of an abolitionist undercurrent in some parts of the Welsh Conservatives but I wasn't aware it was anywhere near Party policy.
There is a possibility (some may put it stronger) Labour will drop further at the Senedd elections and open the door for an alternative Welsh Government - is a Conservative/PC coalition a serious possibility? The fragmentation of the opposition suggests forming a majority against Labour won't be easy (let alone the 2 Abolitionists already in the Senedd).
Likely to be Labour/ PC I would have thought. Labour could fall further than anticipated due to a disastrous Covid-19 response, with Wales on massive per capita deaths and a vaccination programme which is barely off the ground.
The Conservatives' Covid performance in England is often compared and contrasted very, very favourably with the dire performance in Wales on the nightly local news. BBC Wales, which appears to be very pro-PC also highlights the reality that Covid has consumed the NHS here in Wales, whereas in England, regular treatments seem to be ticking along nicely alongside the Covid work.
The hapless bar-leaning Tory leader Paul Davies has also been replaced with the popular (not with me) Andrew R.T. Davies. So all in all, RT in place and Boris Johnson's strong Covid performance, it is looking good for the Tories. Adam Price is saying all the right things as PC leader, but his eyebrows are far too bushy to be taken seriously.
Oh, and Wayne Pivac is leading Welsh rugby to humiliating lows on Drakeford's watch.
In answer to David's question (thanks again for another excellent header by the way) , perhaps the SNP won't be at full throttle. But when the competition is a group of clapped out old bangers, do you need to?
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Better get an English party to propose it so English people can vote for it then.
A canny UK government might propose a wide-ranging constitutional convention to look at all these issues, as well as the structure and role of the existing Commons and Lords, and local and devolved government, with the intention of devolving power down as far towards the people as it possible.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
A constituent state with 85% of the population? I can't see it working at all.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Equally without a doubt it won't be, though.
Labour only grant devolution to Labour-voting parts of the country. The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union. The LibDems are irrelevant. The civil service would see it as hollowing out its powers. The English grassroots don't really care.
So I'm afraid we're stuck with Blair's botched, unsatisfactory settlement for a while yet unless the Scots finally put it out of its misery.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
Which other nations with federal structures have one member six times the size by population of all the other members put together?
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Better get an English party to propose it so English people can vote for it then.
A canny UK government might propose a wide-ranging constitutional convention to look at all these issues, as well as the structure and role of the existing Commons and Lords, and local and devolved government, with the intention of devolving power down as far towards the people as it possible.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
I don't think the regions route would work, because English people identify with England. You can't have a democracy without a demos.
As to the mandate the English FM/Governor would have, I think it's fine as long as it is confined to certain issues (or that of the UK Prime Minister is), and as long as there is a Constitutional Court which adjudicates any disputes and whose rulings command respect.
I'd have both F -> M and M -> F trans in the male cat in sports. Changing rooms and toilets, penises go to the gents, no nob to the ladies maybe
These days individuals are allowed to mutilate healthy tissue. So knob or no knob is irrelevant.
I`d go:
M -> F + knob = M sport loos etc M -> F - knob = M sport loos etc F -> M + knob = F sport loos etc F -> M - knob = F sport loos etc
Folks, this really isn`t difficult.
So are you volunteering for the role of single sex changing area genital inspector @Stocky? Because I have ... questions if that’s the case
Drat! Just beat me with that.
Yes, an interesting new career opens up in the toilet space.
But more seriously, the WC issue is a nonsense. Trans people have been using the facilities for their gender (rather than born sex) for as long as trans people have existed, i.e. since well before this current moral panic.
There are concerns about trans (eg around elite sports and refuges) which I totally get, but there is also such a lot of ill-informed prejudice. Anybody who doubts this should take a plunge into the output of those most vociferous on the anti-trans side of this debate. You do find genuine feminists there. You find good and nuanced arguments. But they are outnumbered by reactionary fossils. There are some quite unpleasant types, trust me, most of them men who give not a single shit about women's rights and gender equality, quite the reverse.
Don't wish to write a long post, but some other points to flag. Transpeople are few in number. They just want to live peaceably and authentically and are no threat to anyone. Women are more supportive of trans people than men are. With both men and women, younger people are more supportive, perhaps because they have more of a "live and let live" mindset. The earlier a transperson physically transitions the better it is for them long term and the less difficult are the societal issues. But as against this you have the need to ensure that children embarking on life changing treatments are making an informed choice.
I agree with all that @kinabalu as long as you are talking about gender (which I think you are).
Live and let live - I agree. As a liberal ... toleration - I`m committed to it ideologically. Tick tick. In fact more than toleration from me - actual support I`d say. I`m all for the "eccentrics charter" that conservatives bash liberalism for being.
They don`t get to change sex though. No - that`s different. For example, they don`t get to go back into history and change birth certificates, mutilate healthy tissue from the public purse, insist on participating in women`s sport or crucify people for "deadnaming" them. They can claim they are women, identify as women but they only get to BE women in terms of gender and not in term of sex.
Unless I misunderstand you that is straight from Rod Liddle on Question Time a couple of years ago when he spoke on this. At first sight it appears liberal but it isn't. Because you're not actually tolerating anything there, are you? You're just saying men can go around pretending to be women if they want to. Or put another way, if a man wants to pretend he's a woman, or vice versa, you won't pass a law against it. That's hardly a particularly liberal position given that only a very intrusive and authoritarian state indeed would pass such a law.
I`d say identifying rather than pretending.
Ok. Important shade of difference since it implies you wouldn't point and laugh. But the essence is the same. The inference is that 'gender' is superficial and performative rather than internal and profound. This cuts across the generally accepted notion of what transgender means - and transpeople would say denies it.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Equally without a doubt it won't be, though.
Labour only grant devolution to Labour-voting parts of the country. The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union. The LibDems are irrelevant. The civil service would see it as hollowing out its powers. The English grassroots don't really care.
So I'm afraid we're stuck with Blair's botched, unsatisfactory settlement for a while yet unless the Scots finally put it out of its misery.
"The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union".
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
I don't think the regions route would work, because English people identify with England. You can't have a democracy without a demos.
As to the mandate the English FM/Governor would have, I think it's fine as long as it is confined to certain issues (or that of the UK Prime Minister is), and as long as there is a Constitutional Court which adjudicates any disputes and whose rulings command respect.
The elections would have to be out of sequence to manage the numbers, so suppose the English FM has a narrow Tory majority but the U.K. Government is a Labour one and relies on Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
In that scenario, if the U.K. PM took a decision the English FM opposed on something significant (e.g. suppose it was Covid and the vaccine rollout) then the Union would collapse. No court could save it.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
I don't think the regions route would work, because English people identify with England. You can't have a democracy without a demos.
As to the mandate the English FM/Governor would have, I think it's fine as long as it is confined to certain issues (or that of the UK Prime Minister is), and as long as there is a Constitutional Court which adjudicates any disputes and whose rulings command respect.
The elections would have to be out of sequence to manage the numbers, so suppose the English FM has a narrow Tory majority but the U.K. Government is a Labour one and relies on Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
In that scenario, if the U.K. PM took a decision the English FM opposed on something significant (e.g. suppose it was Covid and the vaccine rollout) then the Union would collapse. No court could save it.
Why would the elections have to be out of sequence? What numbers do you mean?
Mr. Leave, suppose a UK PM took a decision the Scottish FM opposed on something significant.
The same question arises. If that is unanswerable then the logical conclusions are to abandon devolution or support the break-up of the UK. Not to say devolution is ok for the Welsh and Scottish but not the English.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Devolution is by definition asymmetric. It transfers power from the centre but none the other way.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Devolution is by definition asymmetric. It transfers power from the centre but none the other way.
It doesn't have to be asymmetric between those devolved to, however.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
I don't think the regions route would work, because English people identify with England. You can't have a democracy without a demos.
As to the mandate the English FM/Governor would have, I think it's fine as long as it is confined to certain issues (or that of the UK Prime Minister is), and as long as there is a Constitutional Court which adjudicates any disputes and whose rulings command respect.
The elections would have to be out of sequence to manage the numbers, so suppose the English FM has a narrow Tory majority but the U.K. Government is a Labour one and relies on Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
In that scenario, if the U.K. PM took a decision the English FM opposed on something significant (e.g. suppose it was Covid and the vaccine rollout) then the Union would collapse. No court could save it.
Why would the elections have to be out of sequence? What numbers do you mean?
U.K. versus English elections. They’d be unlikely to happen in the same year (though having in the same year would reduce the chance of very different results) so you’d quite often have U.K. and English PMs of different parties, particularly under a U.K. Labour government. It would be a frequent constitutional nightmare.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Equally without a doubt it won't be, though.
Labour only grant devolution to Labour-voting parts of the country. The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union. The LibDems are irrelevant. The civil service would see it as hollowing out its powers. The English grassroots don't really care.
So I'm afraid we're stuck with Blair's botched, unsatisfactory settlement for a while yet unless the Scots finally put it out of its misery.
"The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union".
That's a cracker! It's the way you tell 'em!
Who can forget Douglas Home's promise that if Scots voted against Devo in 1979 the Tories would offer a better bill, only for that promise to disappear like snow aff a dyke? Now that's what I call aversion to constitutional tinkering!
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
I don't think the regions route would work, because English people identify with England. You can't have a democracy without a demos.
As to the mandate the English FM/Governor would have, I think it's fine as long as it is confined to certain issues (or that of the UK Prime Minister is), and as long as there is a Constitutional Court which adjudicates any disputes and whose rulings command respect.
The elections would have to be out of sequence to manage the numbers, so suppose the English FM has a narrow Tory majority but the U.K. Government is a Labour one and relies on Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
In that scenario, if the U.K. PM took a decision the English FM opposed on something significant (e.g. suppose it was Covid and the vaccine rollout) then the Union would collapse. No court could save it.
Why would the elections have to be out of sequence? What numbers do you mean?
U.K. versus English elections. They’d be unlikely to happen in the same year (though having in the same year would reduce the chance of very different results) so you’d quite often have U.K. and English PMs of different parties, particularly under a U.K. Labour government. It would be a frequent constitutional nightmare.
There's nothing to stop them being on the same day. Americans often vote for a dozen different representatives on the same day. Two here (or more if local elections) should be manageable.
Mr. Leave, suppose a UK PM took a decision the Scottish FM opposed on something significant.
The same question arises. If that is unanswerable then the logical conclusions are to abandon devolution or support the break-up of the UK. Not to say devolution is ok for the Welsh and Scottish but not the English.
I think the difference in scales means that if you must have devolution (I wouldn’t start from here) you can usually (possibly always) find a way to keep Scotland or Wales content by being different. Because of the size differential, you can’t fudge it with England.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
I don't think the regions route would work, because English people identify with England. You can't have a democracy without a demos.
As to the mandate the English FM/Governor would have, I think it's fine as long as it is confined to certain issues (or that of the UK Prime Minister is), and as long as there is a Constitutional Court which adjudicates any disputes and whose rulings command respect.
The elections would have to be out of sequence to manage the numbers, so suppose the English FM has a narrow Tory majority but the U.K. Government is a Labour one and relies on Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
In that scenario, if the U.K. PM took a decision the English FM opposed on something significant (e.g. suppose it was Covid and the vaccine rollout) then the Union would collapse. No court could save it.
Why would the elections have to be out of sequence? What numbers do you mean?
U.K. versus English elections. They’d be unlikely to happen in the same year (though having in the same year would reduce the chance of very different results) so you’d quite often have U.K. and English PMs of different parties, particularly under a U.K. Labour government. It would be a frequent constitutional nightmare.
There's nothing to stop them being on the same day. Americans often vote for a dozen different representatives on the same day. Two here (or more if local elections) should be manageable.
I’m not sure. We’ve got to a lot of trouble to ensure devolved elections don’t happen in the same years as Westminster ones.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Devolution is by definition asymmetric. It transfers power from the centre but none the other way.
It doesn't have to be asymmetric between those devolved to, however.
But if you devolve power from the centre to something that previously had almost all the power you are not devolving much.
Mr. Leave, suppose a UK PM took a decision the Scottish FM opposed on something significant.
The same question arises. If that is unanswerable then the logical conclusions are to abandon devolution or support the break-up of the UK. Not to say devolution is ok for the Welsh and Scottish but not the English.
I see that GSK has signed a deal to produce CureVac and pretty much to own CureVac 2.0 if and when it comes along. I see GSK's vaccine production plants are in Belgium, Germany, US and Hungary. I wonder if given Vaccine Wars if they plan any production capacity in the UK.
I see that GSK has signed a deal to produce CureVac and pretty much to own CureVac 2.0 if and when it comes along. I see GSK's vaccine production plants are in Belgium, Germany, US and Hungary. I wonder if given Vaccine Wars if they plan any production capacity in the UK.
GSK have never done much vaccine production in the UK. They tend to do the bulk manufacturing in Wavre (which is massive) and then maybe some final fill at Barnard Castle.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Equally without a doubt it won't be, though.
Labour only grant devolution to Labour-voting parts of the country. The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union. The LibDems are irrelevant. The civil service would see it as hollowing out its powers. The English grassroots don't really care.
So I'm afraid we're stuck with Blair's botched, unsatisfactory settlement for a while yet unless the Scots finally put it out of its misery.
"The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union".
That's a cracker! It's the way you tell 'em!
Who can forget Douglas Home's promise that if Scots voted against Devo in 1979 the Tories would offer a better bill, only for that promise to disappear like snow aff a dyke? Now that's what I call aversion to constitutional tinkering!
I nearly died laughing at the "idealogical attachment to the Union" comment.
Maybe, 'Conservatives have an emotional attachment to the union, when in power, but are quite happy to see the Union disintegrate on their watch, so long as it only collapses fully, the moment they fall from power', would be more appropriate. HYUFD for one would be cool with that.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
I don't think the regions route would work, because English people identify with England. You can't have a democracy without a demos.
As to the mandate the English FM/Governor would have, I think it's fine as long as it is confined to certain issues (or that of the UK Prime Minister is), and as long as there is a Constitutional Court which adjudicates any disputes and whose rulings command respect.
The elections would have to be out of sequence to manage the numbers, so suppose the English FM has a narrow Tory majority but the U.K. Government is a Labour one and relies on Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
In that scenario, if the U.K. PM took a decision the English FM opposed on something significant (e.g. suppose it was Covid and the vaccine rollout) then the Union would collapse. No court could save it.
Why would the elections have to be out of sequence? What numbers do you mean?
U.K. versus English elections. They’d be unlikely to happen in the same year (though having in the same year would reduce the chance of very different results) so you’d quite often have U.K. and English PMs of different parties, particularly under a U.K. Labour government. It would be a frequent constitutional nightmare.
There's nothing to stop them being on the same day. Americans often vote for a dozen different representatives on the same day. Two here (or more if local elections) should be manageable.
I’m not sure. We’ve got to a lot of trouble to ensure devolved elections don’t happen in the same years as Westminster ones.
Still it's not inherent. But holding them on the same day doesn't, of course, guarantee that the English and the UK leaders would always be the same party, especially if the English split their tickets.
Also what would happen if there's a snap election in England? Would there have to be a snap election in the UK too? Not clear.
But any constitutional settlement will have inconsistencies, anomalies and places where you just have to hope for the best. When I'm unsure which option to prefer, I generally choose the most democractic one, and in that case I think that's a parliament for England. If it helps to keep the Union together, fine, but I'd rather the Union fall apart because it tried to extend more democracy to 85% of its citizens, rather than because it suppressed it.
I see that GSK has signed a deal to produce CureVac and pretty much to own CureVac 2.0 if and when it comes along. I see GSK's vaccine production plants are in Belgium, Germany, US and Hungary. I wonder if given Vaccine Wars if they plan any production capacity in the UK.
It's a bit off of the FT to split the world into UK / EU / US / Other, when "Other" makes up about 2/3 of the whole.
Mr. Leave, suppose a UK PM took a decision the Scottish FM opposed on something significant.
The same question arises. If that is unanswerable then the logical conclusions are to abandon devolution or support the break-up of the UK. Not to say devolution is ok for the Welsh and Scottish but not the English.
But England dominates Westminster.
In 1950, 1964, February 1974, 2010 and 2017 the Tories won a majority in England but not in the UK.
In 1950, 1964 and 1974 England voted Tory but got a Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Nah. The Union would die the first time the English PM was prevented from doing something. Our Union only works if England is bound into, and accepts the equal votes of the citizens of, the other nations. Make England an identifiable political entity and the Union dies.
I'm not sure that's true - other nations have federal structures and survive somehow.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
We’re too unequal. The English FM would have almost the same mandate as the U.K. PM, but no interest in looking after Scotland, Wales or NI. The only way it would work would be to base it on the English regions, but we saw what happened in the North East when Prescott tried to go down that route.
You go own the route of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms but split London from Mercia
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Equally without a doubt it won't be, though.
Labour only grant devolution to Labour-voting parts of the country. The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union. The LibDems are irrelevant. The civil service would see it as hollowing out its powers. The English grassroots don't really care.
So I'm afraid we're stuck with Blair's botched, unsatisfactory settlement for a while yet unless the Scots finally put it out of its misery.
I expect if Starmer becomes PM in 2024 he will appoint Brown to head a constitutional Grand Commission which will likely recommend devomax for Holyrood and regional assemblies for England.
He will then allow a legal indyref2 on that basis. None of that will happen under the Tories however (though personally I would be happy with an English Parliament and devomax for Scotland)
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
My first take on your "pissing" commentary, was that you were in some severe internal distress.
Then I realized you just meant it was raining VERY hard. Hope you are ok on (reasonably) dry ground.
Was once in the middle of a flash flood, many years ago in West Virginia. It was an amazing, awesome, terrifying sight. We were in a house on a hilltop so were OK. But neighbors down stream had the ground floor of their house flooded, with zero warning.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Devolution is by definition asymmetric. It transfers power from the centre but none the other way.
I find it amusing that Brexiteers constantly bleat about how if the EU was capable of reforming the EU then Britain probably would have stayed.
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
Probably because the one thing Westminster doesn't want to consider is the English question.
Exactly. The asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement, is a huge problem with most proposed reforms to the devolved administrations. There needs to be an English Parliament with an English First Minister.
Without a doubt this also needs to be answered as part of the same process.
Equally without a doubt it won't be, though.
Labour only grant devolution to Labour-voting parts of the country. The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union. The LibDems are irrelevant. The civil service would see it as hollowing out its powers. The English grassroots don't really care.
So I'm afraid we're stuck with Blair's botched, unsatisfactory settlement for a while yet unless the Scots finally put it out of its misery.
"The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union".
That's a cracker! It's the way you tell 'em!
Who can forget Douglas Home's promise that if Scots voted against Devo in 1979 the Tories would offer a better bill, only for that promise to disappear like snow aff a dyke? Now that's what I call aversion to constitutional tinkering!
I nearly died laughing at the "idealogical attachment to the Union" comment.
Maybe, 'Conservatives have an emotional attachment to the union, when in power, but are quite happy to see the Union disintegrate on their watch, so long as it only collapses fully, the moment they fall from power', would be more appropriate. HYUFD for one would be cool with that.
Slicing England into bits remains wretched and unacceptable. Better no devolution than permanently embedding political dividing lines within England.
Mr. Irish2, nice and high, even in the 2007 floods things were alright. Unfortunately, months of building work next door appears to have diverted some spring water beneath the house, so I was rather more anxious this time.
I see that GSK has signed a deal to produce CureVac and pretty much to own CureVac 2.0 if and when it comes along. I see GSK's vaccine production plants are in Belgium, Germany, US and Hungary. I wonder if given Vaccine Wars if they plan any production capacity in the UK.
It's a bit off of the FT to split the world into UK / EU / US / Other, when "Other" makes up about 2/3 of the whole.
Bloomberg have a good breakdown of "who has ordered what":
Slicing England into bits remains wretched and unacceptable. Better no devolution than permanently embedding political dividing lines within England.
Mr. Irish2, nice and high, even in the 2007 floods things were alright. Unfortunately, months of building work next door appears to have diverted some spring water beneath the house, so I was rather more anxious this time.
It was what Labour always wanted to do.
New Labour tried to push through elected regional assemblies but the North East which was first up rejected them led by one Dominic Cummings.
If Labour get in again they will not make the same mistake, they will impose regional assemblies on England without a referendum
I see that GSK has signed a deal to produce CureVac and pretty much to own CureVac 2.0 if and when it comes along. I see GSK's vaccine production plants are in Belgium, Germany, US and Hungary. I wonder if given Vaccine Wars if they plan any production capacity in the UK.
Yes, the government has already said that their deal with CureVac includes a domestic manufacturing requirement so I'm guessing GSK will onshore it.
Slicing England into bits remains wretched and unacceptable. Better no devolution than permanently embedding political dividing lines within England.
Mr. Irish2, nice and high, even in the 2007 floods things were alright. Unfortunately, months of building work next door appears to have diverted some spring water beneath the house, so I was rather more anxious this time.
It's nothing we haven't done before. The 70s saw political dividing lines embedded within England with local government reorganisation and it continues today with these "Metro mayors" For example, the "North of Tyne" mayor who doesn't even oversee a "Metro area".
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
There are micro areas of valid English grievance but the macro - the big picture - is nevertheless that Westminster rules the UK and England dominates Westminster.
Scotland has devolved powers regarding income tax levels, transport, health, and education. Will England have the equivalent? Not without a Parliament.
And just what is the problem with devolving those powers and reducing the Commons to Defence, some Treasury, Foreign, and some Home affairs?
Mr. Fishing, there are occasional mutterings about California leaving. Doubt it'll happen. Power in the US has shifted over time from the states to the centre, as per the EU. In the UK, it's the other way around.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Comments
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1358053423158075395?s=20
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1358053427440463872?s=20
However Westminster also seems to have the same incapability of reforming the union in response to the Scottish question.
They even published a 32 page special on why Wakefield is right.
Hislop and Private Eye have blood on their hands.
If Hislop had any sense of honour or decency he would have resigned years ago for his shameless boosterism, remember the BMJ said the Eye's reporting was dangerous.
I should retire from PB at this point.
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1357815392790581248?s=20
https://youtu.be/yZymBti7700
The recent public launch of the ISP, if properly presented, will limit the maximum extent of SNP power, but more importantly could visibly reduce the numbers and influence of unionist opposition.
There is a possibility (some may put it stronger) Labour will drop further at the Senedd elections and open the door for an alternative Welsh Government - is a Conservative/PC coalition a serious possibility? The fragmentation of the opposition suggests forming a majority against Labour won't be easy (let alone the 2 Abolitionists already in the Senedd).
Ceding more power to Scotland while England has no corresponding Parliament (a strange and mystical concept that the political and media class seems unable to comprehend let alone actually support) would perhaps open a door, ironically, for an English independence campaign.
Ms. Sarissa, when is the next Holyrood election due?
2. Plaid and the Tories are both bit-part players - consequently
3. Labour will lead the Welsh Government, for all practical purposes, forever
The only live question is whether Welsh Labour sticks with the English party, or eventually splits off and turns itself into a pro-independence movement after Scotland eventually goes. On that subject, they've already started selecting some openly pro-secession candidates, so the direction of travel seems clear. It's only a matter of time.
As long as there is a clear demarcation of powers and a robust mechanism for resolving disputes I think the Union could survive.
And if the only way it can survive is by having a blatantly botched and unsatisfactory devolution settlement, under constant attack from Scotland, well, maybe it's doomed whatever we do.
The Conservatives' Covid performance in England is often compared and contrasted very, very favourably with the dire performance in Wales on the nightly local news. BBC Wales, which appears to be very pro-PC also highlights the reality that Covid has consumed the NHS here in Wales, whereas in England, regular treatments seem to be ticking along nicely alongside the Covid work.
The hapless bar-leaning Tory leader Paul Davies has also been replaced with the popular (not with me) Andrew R.T. Davies. So all in all, RT in place and Boris Johnson's strong Covid performance, it is looking good for the Tories. Adam Price is saying all the right things as PC leader, but his eyebrows are far too bushy to be taken seriously.
Oh, and Wayne Pivac is leading Welsh rugby to humiliating lows on Drakeford's watch.
Labour only grant devolution to Labour-voting parts of the country.
The Conservatives don't like constitutional tinkering. especially when they're in power, and have an ideological attachment to the Union.
The LibDems are irrelevant.
The civil service would see it as hollowing out its powers.
The English grassroots don't really care.
So I'm afraid we're stuck with Blair's botched, unsatisfactory settlement for a while yet unless the Scots finally put it out of its misery.
And what would your alternative proposition be?
As to the mandate the English FM/Governor would have, I think it's fine as long as it is confined to certain issues (or that of the UK Prime Minister is), and as long as there is a Constitutional Court which adjudicates any disputes and whose rulings command respect.
That's a cracker! It's the way you tell 'em!
In that scenario, if the U.K. PM took a decision the English FM opposed on something significant (e.g. suppose it was Covid and the vaccine rollout) then the Union would collapse. No court could save it.
https://www.ft.com/content/d0fd6c4c-939a-43c7-a9b9-47c8d3cab253?shareType=nongift
The same question arises. If that is unanswerable then the logical conclusions are to abandon devolution or support the break-up of the UK. Not to say devolution is ok for the Welsh and Scottish but not the English.
dayweek here on Tyneside.Sindy advocates should be forced to articulate precisely what independence will look like; that’s one of the lessons of the Brexit vote.
I doubt that will change.
Maybe, 'Conservatives have an emotional attachment to the union, when in power, but are quite happy to see the Union disintegrate on their watch, so long as it only collapses fully, the moment they fall from power', would be more appropriate. HYUFD for one would be cool with that.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
Also what would happen if there's a snap election in England? Would there have to be a snap election in the UK too? Not clear.
But any constitutional settlement will have inconsistencies, anomalies and places where you just have to hope for the best. When I'm unsure which option to prefer, I generally choose the most democractic one, and in that case I think that's a parliament for England. If it helps to keep the Union together, fine, but I'd rather the Union fall apart because it tried to extend more democracy to 85% of its citizens, rather than because it suppressed it.
In 1950, 1964 and 1974 England voted Tory but got a Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs
He will then allow a legal indyref2 on that basis. None of that will happen under the Tories however (though personally I would be happy with an English Parliament and devomax for Scotland)
Then I realized you just meant it was raining VERY hard. Hope you are ok on (reasonably) dry ground.
Was once in the middle of a flash flood, many years ago in West Virginia. It was an amazing, awesome, terrifying sight. We were in a house on a hilltop so were OK. But neighbors down stream had the ground floor of their house flooded, with zero warning.
Slicing England into bits remains wretched and unacceptable. Better no devolution than permanently embedding political dividing lines within England.
Mr. Irish2, nice and high, even in the 2007 floods things were alright. Unfortunately, months of building work next door appears to have diverted some spring water beneath the house, so I was rather more anxious this time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/contracts-purchasing-agreements.html
New Labour tried to push through elected regional assemblies but the North East which was first up rejected them led by one Dominic Cummings.
If Labour get in again they will not make the same mistake, they will impose regional assemblies on England without a referendum
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/05/texas-republicans-endorse-legislation-vote-secession
If approved, any vaccines that come out of the deal will be distributed in the U.K. and its overseas and dependent territories. The agreement includes an initial supply of 50 million doses of variant vaccines, with plans to manufacture them in the U.K.
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/u-k-government-taps-curevac-to-target-covid-19-variants-new-vaccines
Scotland has Holyrood. And England has?
Scotland has devolved powers regarding income tax levels, transport, health, and education. Will England have the equivalent? Not without a Parliament.
And just what is the problem with devolving those powers and reducing the Commons to Defence, some Treasury, Foreign, and some Home affairs?
Mr. Fishing, there are occasional mutterings about California leaving. Doubt it'll happen. Power in the US has shifted over time from the states to the centre, as per the EU. In the UK, it's the other way around.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.