Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
What is/was so different about 2014? It was acceptable even to Mr Cameron - a blood and soil Scottish Unionist judging from his speeches.
Just to get all the blood and soil lads' ducks in a row in my own head, they think that anyone born in Scotland though now resident elsewhere in the UK should get a vote, anyone English who had relocated to Scotland should get a vote and anyone ex of the EU now resident in Scotland shouldn't; have I got that right?
No, their argument must be that English relocatees don't get a vote, cos if their fellow Europeans don't, why should they? That's the only logical conclusion on blood and soil.
If they qualify for citizenship then they should, of they don't then no. If they have been there for more than five years and would have indefinite leave to remain and get citizenship they absolutely should get to vote, for EU and UK citizens alike.
The qualifier should be "does this person qualify for Scottish citizenship in an independent nation" if the answer is yes then they should get a vote on such a hugely important matter.
All of my European friends who have been here for long enough are taking up their citizenship rights, I don't see why people who are long term residents in Scotland wouldn't also do the same in an independent Scotland.
But anyone could qualify if they moved in and stayed for long enough, no? So that criterion doesn't work. Hell, again, HYUFD could claim he intended to come and work in Scotland.
I have to go and do some family admin now, but this was obviously done very differently in 2014 and it would be interesting to know exactly why, apart from it simply being the matter of choosing between the two available elevtoral rolls in Scotland - the one used for Westminster and the one used for local gmt/referenda by law.
I mean that's the nature of immigration, if HYFUD ever decided to leave Essex and move up to Scotland after independence to lead a paramilitary response to independence, he'd qualify for citizenship after 5 years of residency just as my friend from Italy did late last year because she's been here for long enough to get her indefinite leave to remain and is starting the citizenship process so she never needs to worry about coming and going.
I've got a house worth of boxes to unpack, I've already used the cricket as an excuse to avoid it, I keep getting glaring looks from my wife because I'm on my phone instead of getting stuck in...
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
Hasn't someone flown in with it, asymptomatically, done the quarantine and then produced the symptoms? This and one or two other odd events suggest that the virus can maybe be a bit wilier than we thought.
Guernsey is finding arrivals who test negative on day 1 but positive on day 13 - so there must be some chance that even those who test negative on day 13 go on to develop illness, and spread it.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
I see we are back to the PB Stasi decrying as selfish anything outside their puritanical, holier-than-thou worldview.
Saddening.
You could perhaps lay out arguments against the harsher approach - there are certainly plenty to use - rather than just whinging that people are being puritannical.
I happen to think people probably will celebrate such events in late march now their elder loved ones will have been vaccinated, but you're pushing me to condemn it by taking an equally judgemental viewpoint in condemning others, with less self awareness.
A poster has just been called a selfish idiot for seeing his mother on her birthday. Neither you, nor his accuser, know about his relationship with his mother. They don’t know whether or not she has been vaccinated, the state of her mental health, whether she is lonely, saddened or even depressed from being unable to see her son. You know nothing about her. Yet you tacitly defend someone calling his acts selfish.
Tony Blair demonstrated that you can have an utterly vacuous meme and galvanise the country.
I'm convinced Boris is doing the same. Coming out of this pandemic on the back of a stunning vaccination rollout I'm convinced he'll win a landslide.
You don't need massive policy grandstanding. Most people are happy enough with an ebullient figure making them feel better. Tony Blair did it. Boris likewise.
You may well be right. But I think you are going way too early.
You too could be correct. There's a long way to go until 2024. However, I think the FTPA will be repealed and Boris will go to the country in 2023. May be wrong. For the benefits of Brexit to come through post-covid may take a long time.
I'm increasingly of the view though that the economy isn't critical to that many voters. Radical, I know, and it's a change in my position from, say, 10 years ago.
Boris will portray Starmer as the man who would have tied us to EU regulation including the EMA. You know, the kind which stopped all their citizens getting vaccinated.
Curtains for Labour. Sadly.
At what point was your damascene conversion? Either that or SeanT. has hijacked your account.
Your posts were always very readable, you have however recently morphed into Philip Thompson.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
I see we are back to the PB Stasi decrying as selfish anything outside their puritanical, holier-than-thou worldview.
Saddening.
You could perhaps lay out arguments against the harsher approach - there are certainly plenty to use - rather than just whinging that people are being puritannical.
I happen to think people probably will celebrate such events in late march now their elder loved ones will have been vaccinated, but you're pushing me to condemn it by taking an equally judgemental viewpoint in condemning others, with less self awareness.
A poster has just been called a selfish idiot for seeing his mother on her birthday. Neither you, nor his accuser, know about his relationship with his mother. They don’t know whether or not she has been vaccinated, the state of her mental health, whether she is lonely, saddened or even depressed from being unable to see her son. You know nothing about her. Yet you tacitly defend someone calling his acts selfish.
Sadly this attitude is prevalent on PB.
Ultimately it's a choice of personal responsibility for people who decide that the rules are for other people, as I've already said my wife and I have done so by extending our bubble to include my parents and sister's family but sacrificed all other outdoor activities other than exercise.
Everyone's circumstances are different and I think judging others without knowing them is just a bit daft.
If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
It's not an unfair point, but the primary issue with it is that that would have to be admitted by the people in government who are the biggest proponents of Brexit.
Boris isn't going to come out and say "well the Scots need to have a long think about leaving the UK because it turns out seceding is really really difficult and politically tricky and noone really quite gets what they expected at the end of it" whilst at the same time proclaiming that Brexit was a massive unqualified success, and he's not about to turn round and go "well Brexit was an absolute pain in the arse but we just about got something over the line in the end".
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Except Labour who would see the biggest Tory landslide in England at the next general election for a century
Not necessarily, if it was genuinely an SNP UK Gov. Not possible yet, I know, but would be possible if they opened an English branch of the party. A lot of those who live in England would be glad of an alternative to the present main 3 parties, whatever their beliefs about Scottish Independence.
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Except Labour who would see the biggest Tory landslide in England at the next general election for a century
Not necessarily, if it was genuinely an SNP UK Gov. Not possible yet, I know, but would be possible if they opened an English branch of the party. A lot of those who live in England would be glad of an alternative to the present main 3 parties, whatever their beliefs about Scottish Independence.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't look too kindly on a party that was hoping to take advantage of them in an upcoming divorce.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
Hasn't someone flown in with it, asymptomatically, done the quarantine and then produced the symptoms? This and one or two other odd events suggest that the virus can maybe be a bit wilier than we thought.
Guernsey is finding arrivals who test negative on day 1 but positive on day 13 - so there must be some chance that even those who test negative on day 13 go on to develop illness, and spread it.
I'm waiting to hear whether my sister has been discharged from hospital in Guernsey to that in Alderney. Although she's been vaccinated, AIUI, she still has to quarantine back in Alderney. Fortunately she'll be in the cottage hospital there.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
You expect SKS to have his own ideas?
This is the man who gladly served in Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet for years and campaigned to make him Prime Minister.
The only principle that man has is how can he further his own career. He'll do anything, say anything to win. But don't expect him to come up with ideas.
If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
It's not an unfair point, but the primary issue with it is that that would have to be admitted by the people in government who are the biggest proponents of Brexit.
Boris isn't going to come out and say "well the Scots need to have a long think about leaving the UK because it turns out seceding is really really difficult and politically tricky and noone really quite gets what they expected at the end of it" whilst at the same time proclaiming that Brexit was a massive unqualified success, and he's not about to turn round and go "well Brexit was an absolute pain in the arse but we just about got something over the line in the end".
Gather Raab has told those business folk who are concerned at the 'short-term' problems with Brexit 'to take the long view'.
If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
It's not an unfair point, but the primary issue with it is that that would have to be admitted by the people in government who are the biggest proponents of Brexit.
Boris isn't going to come out and say "well the Scots need to have a long think about leaving the UK because it turns out seceding is really really difficult and politically tricky and noone really quite gets what they expected at the end of it" whilst at the same time proclaiming that Brexit was a massive unqualified success, and he's not about to turn round and go "well Brexit was an absolute pain in the arse but we just about got something over the line in the end".
Gather Raab has told those business folk who are concerned at the 'short-term' problems with Brexit 'to take the long view'.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
I see we are back to the PB Stasi decrying as selfish anything outside their puritanical, holier-than-thou worldview.
Saddening.
You could perhaps lay out arguments against the harsher approach - there are certainly plenty to use - rather than just whinging that people are being puritannical.
I happen to think people probably will celebrate such events in late march now their elder loved ones will have been vaccinated, but you're pushing me to condemn it by taking an equally judgemental viewpoint in condemning others, with less self awareness.
A poster has just been called a selfish idiot for seeing his mother on her birthday. Neither you, nor his accuser, know about his relationship with his mother. They don’t know whether or not she has been vaccinated, the state of her mental health, whether she is lonely, saddened or even depressed from being unable to see her son. You know nothing about her. Yet you tacitly defend someone calling his acts selfish.
Sadly this attitude is prevalent on PB.
Ultimately it's a choice of personal responsibility for people who decide that the rules are for other people, as I've already said my wife and I have done so by extending our bubble to include my parents and sister's family but sacrificed all other outdoor activities other than exercise.
Everyone's circumstances are different and I think judging others without knowing them is just a bit daft.
This is where the country really needed to get with these rules. A sense that most things are possible in their own limited way if you're prioritising them at the expense of cutting out most of the other things.
If you're working from home and not getting on trains or being in busy offices etc., if you're not going to the cinema or the pub or whatever and you are minimising your travel and contacts then it should be reasonable to be indoors with e.g. a limited selection of immediate family outside your own household etc.
The goal should always have been to get everyone to voluntarily cut out a huge proportion of personal contacts whilst still feeling that everything was being done with the support of the people because they could make decisions best suited to their own personal circumstances
But no, instead we just get a blanket ban on absolutely everything, which just festers resentment, and it doesn't stop the arses who just break all the rules most flagrantly anyway.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
Hasn't someone flown in with it, asymptomatically, done the quarantine and then produced the symptoms? This and one or two other odd events suggest that the virus can maybe be a bit wilier than we thought.
Guernsey is finding arrivals who test negative on day 1 but positive on day 13 - so there must be some chance that even those who test negative on day 13 go on to develop illness, and spread it.
Unless they close their borders completely forever, which is probably impossible (even Sakoku Japan didn't manage it) then they need to get vaccinating and fast.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Th BS veneer is the SNP attempting to conceal the prime motivation of their nationalism, hatred of the English. Its a funny sort of nationalism btw that downplays the astonishing achievements of Scots as part of the union. The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment don't fit the narrative.
Hatred of the English.
My dislike of hackneyed phrases prevents me from trotting out the old 'remove all doubt' saw, but by God it's taking heroic restraint.
It's also a nationalism (sic) which downplays Scottish history remarkably in general in political discourse. Just consider the vandalism of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn. If that had been Churchill on a Battle of Britain airfield - or Westminster, which was a BoB battlefield - the Tories would have been all over it for months. Bruce in Scxotland, not so much: in fact not at all, apart form the moans in the NTS finance department at having to pay the stone and statue conservators.
I wonder if English/British nationalism as it's currently expressed (flags, Spitfires, statchoos, gunboats, staring fixedly at the rear view mirror) explains why their powers that be are so crap at reading Scotland. They really seem to think that it's a reflection of their own whiffy zeitgeist and that bellowing Freeeeedom and wibbling about Mel Gibson are killer insights. On that basis, the newly formed union directorate looking at the history of the Vietnam war is an exciting development.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Except Labour who would see the biggest Tory landslide in England at the next general election for a century
Not necessarily, if it was genuinely an SNP UK Gov. Not possible yet, I know, but would be possible if they opened an English branch of the party. A lot of those who live in England would be glad of an alternative to the present main 3 parties, whatever their beliefs about Scottish Independence.
It would be a minority Labour government dependent on the SNP to stay in power by definition.
If that government was then seen as favouring Scotland over England not only in getting independence for Scotland but then favouring Scotland's interests in any Scexit negotiations over English interests there would be a surge of English nationalism in the Tories favour at the next general election
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
I see we are back to the PB Stasi decrying as selfish anything outside their puritanical, holier-than-thou worldview.
Saddening.
You could perhaps lay out arguments against the harsher approach - there are certainly plenty to use - rather than just whinging that people are being puritannical.
I happen to think people probably will celebrate such events in late march now their elder loved ones will have been vaccinated, but you're pushing me to condemn it by taking an equally judgemental viewpoint in condemning others, with less self awareness.
A poster has just been called a selfish idiot for seeing his mother on her birthday. Neither you, nor his accuser, know about his relationship with his mother. They don’t know whether or not she has been vaccinated, the state of her mental health, whether she is lonely, saddened or even depressed from being unable to see her son. You know nothing about her. Yet you tacitly defend someone calling his acts selfish.
Sadly this attitude is prevalent on PB.
Ultimately it's a choice of personal responsibility for people who decide that the rules are for other people, as I've already said my wife and I have done so by extending our bubble to include my parents and sister's family but sacrificed all other outdoor activities other than exercise.
Everyone's circumstances are different and I think judging others without knowing them is just a bit daft.
This is where the country really needed to get with these rules. A sense that most things are possible in their own limited way if you're prioritising them at the expense of cutting out most of the other things.
If you're working from home and not getting on trains or being in busy offices etc., if you're not going to the cinema or the pub or whatever and you are minimising your travel and contacts then it should be reasonable to be indoors with e.g. a limited selection of immediate family outside your own household etc.
The goal should always have been to get everyone to voluntarily cut out a huge proportion of personal contacts whilst still feeling that everything was being done with the support of the people because they could make decisions best suited to their own personal circumstances
But no, instead we just get a blanket ban on absolutely everything, which just festers resentment, and it doesn't stop the arses who just break all the rules most flagrantly anyway.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
Again, where are the chippy English nationalists meant to be hiding? Boris Johnson certainly isn't one. You can choose to take him at his word (stop laughing at the back, please) and assume that his Unionist rhetoric is sincere, or you can regard him as being in it only for himself, in which case England doesn't come into this. Refusing Scotland another vote wouldn't be about turning Scotland into a colony, it would be about avoiding becoming the next Lord North and passing the hot potato to his successor.
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
Refusing Scotland another vote when its voters had given an absolute majority to parties standing on a manifesto for a fresh independence referendum would be to deny Scots their right to self-determination.
You might be comfortable with that, I suppose, if you are a chippy English nationalist. (We found out yesterday that lots of Leavers still hanker for empire.) If, however, you have a meaningful attachment to democracy, in such circumstances the Scots would be entitled to the referendum they had just voted for.
Let's be fair. It's not Empire. It's a new, superstrength, purified "Anglosphere" whereby now free of European sag & drag, the mighty us (Britain) plus "the cousins" (USA) plus the White Commonwealth ("the chaps you can trust") stand as one against all that we fear and find threatening or just a bit "off".
I don't see any reason why the UK shouldn't collaborate with powers who share its values and broader foreign policy objectives - in fact, I'd say that's a necessary feature of any effective foreign policy; it's why international diplomacy exists. Moreover, it's not exclusionary: most of the Anglosphere countries are now more convincingly multiracial than the European Union itself, and the UK would clearly extend alliancing to nations like Nigeria and South Africa (as it is already seeking to do with Japan and India) if there was mutual interest there.
The weirder point is those who think we shouldn't do anything of the sort because they want to define our present-day policy solely in opposition to a past they define and caricature by selecting its worst features, totally divorced from the geopolitical reality and values of the time, and are embarrassed by those who don't agree that we should feel nothing but shame about it. They do this in order to make a values-statement about themselves, but through such indulgence they risk the whole world sliding backwards.
The proof of this is how aggressive and personal they get toward those who don't agree. Principled opposition would be able to engage in a more measured, balanced and collegiate way, with a proffered alternative. And there never is one, other than abstinence and self-flagellation.
Co-operating on foreign policy with countries when they share our interests makes sense. What I'm arguing against is a world view which exaggerates our importance, proclaims for us a fictional set of values or (worse) a "national character", and harks back to a bygone age. When I hear talk of a grand power bloc built upon the participants in "Five Eyes", standing up to the Beasts from the East because Europe is a cowardy custard, I know - I just know - that what's informing this is not some sober, dispassionate assessment of global geopolitics (although people try manfully to write as if it is) but rather the fuzzy glow which comes from feeling we are back where belong and with whom we belong. Britain, America, the nations of the White Commonwealth. The band tours again. It's seductive, I feel it myself, I love Ian Fleming's novels even now, but it's sloppy, magical thinking, tinged with outdated 'white man's burden' sentiment, so now and again I have to gird up and say so.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
I see we are back to the PB Stasi decrying as selfish anything outside their puritanical, holier-than-thou worldview.
Saddening.
You could perhaps lay out arguments against the harsher approach - there are certainly plenty to use - rather than just whinging that people are being puritannical.
I happen to think people probably will celebrate such events in late march now their elder loved ones will have been vaccinated, but you're pushing me to condemn it by taking an equally judgemental viewpoint in condemning others, with less self awareness.
A poster has just been called a selfish idiot for seeing his mother on her birthday. Neither you, nor his accuser, know about his relationship with his mother. They don’t know whether or not she has been vaccinated, the state of her mental health, whether she is lonely, saddened or even depressed from being unable to see her son. You know nothing about her. Yet you tacitly defend someone calling his acts selfish.
Sadly this attitude is prevalent on PB.
Ultimately it's a choice of personal responsibility for people who decide that the rules are for other people, as I've already said my wife and I have done so by extending our bubble to include my parents and sister's family but sacrificed all other outdoor activities other than exercise.
Everyone's circumstances are different and I think judging others without knowing them is just a bit daft.
This is where the country really needed to get with these rules. A sense that most things are possible in their own limited way if you're prioritising them at the expense of cutting out most of the other things.
If you're working from home and not getting on trains or being in busy offices etc., if you're not going to the cinema or the pub or whatever and you are minimising your travel and contacts then it should be reasonable to be indoors with e.g. a limited selection of immediate family outside your own household etc.
The goal should always have been to get everyone to voluntarily cut out a huge proportion of personal contacts whilst still feeling that everything was being done with the support of the people because they could make decisions best suited to their own personal circumstances
But no, instead we just get a blanket ban on absolutely everything, which just festers resentment, and it doesn't stop the arses who just break all the rules most flagrantly anyway.
What's this "blanket ban" thing?
Everything in Guidance has always been optional, and for thoughtful risk assessment.
The webpage in March 2020 even called it "advice" at the top of the page.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
Why would they be talking about policies this far out from a GE?
Perhaps because there are some elections coming down the track in May .... e.g., does Labour have nothing to say to Scotland or Wales ?
An indication of the direction of travel is badly needed -- SKS is looking remarkably unimaginative.
Whatever one thinks of Blair -- & I personally now want to see him banged up in a prison cell for crimes against humanity -- he was certainly brimming with ideas, imagination & magic pixie-dust.
Even though he was a borderline idiot-child in his world view & did a lot of damage with his Labour party reforms, Miliband had ideas. Just bad ones.
SKS is beginning to look a little ... err, old & dull & absent of passion or conviction. SKS just has no ideas.
Like the ageing lawyer in the Rumpole stories who enters politics because of his failed marriage.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
You can already see how those potential negotiations are going to be divisive and difficult.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
I see we are back to the PB Stasi decrying as selfish anything outside their puritanical, holier-than-thou worldview.
Saddening.
You could perhaps lay out arguments against the harsher approach - there are certainly plenty to use - rather than just whinging that people are being puritannical.
I happen to think people probably will celebrate such events in late march now their elder loved ones will have been vaccinated, but you're pushing me to condemn it by taking an equally judgemental viewpoint in condemning others, with less self awareness.
A poster has just been called a selfish idiot for seeing his mother on her birthday. Neither you, nor his accuser, know about his relationship with his mother. They don’t know whether or not she has been vaccinated, the state of her mental health, whether she is lonely, saddened or even depressed from being unable to see her son. You know nothing about her. Yet you tacitly defend someone calling his acts selfish.
Sadly this attitude is prevalent on PB.
Ultimately it's a choice of personal responsibility for people who decide that the rules are for other people, as I've already said my wife and I have done so by extending our bubble to include my parents and sister's family but sacrificed all other outdoor activities other than exercise.
Everyone's circumstances are different and I think judging others without knowing them is just a bit daft.
This is where the country really needed to get with these rules. A sense that most things are possible in their own limited way if you're prioritising them at the expense of cutting out most of the other things.
If you're working from home and not getting on trains or being in busy offices etc., if you're not going to the cinema or the pub or whatever and you are minimising your travel and contacts then it should be reasonable to be indoors with e.g. a limited selection of immediate family outside your own household etc.
The goal should always have been to get everyone to voluntarily cut out a huge proportion of personal contacts whilst still feeling that everything was being done with the support of the people because they could make decisions best suited to their own personal circumstances
But no, instead we just get a blanket ban on absolutely everything, which just festers resentment, and it doesn't stop the arses who just break all the rules most flagrantly anyway.
What's this "blanket ban" thing?
Everything in Guidance has always been optional, and for thoughtful risk assessment.
The webpage in March 2020 even called it "advice" at the top of the page.
Making things legal requirements, however, changed all that.
More law doesn't always equate to more compliance. And often it just highlights/makes acceptable the loopholes that morality/peer pressure might otherwise inhibit.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
This seems to be more of a protection racket than an enduring constitutional settlement.
Guy behind the ZOE app, says after 3 weeks, 67% protection with just one dose...AND crucially this is from sample of 50k front line health care workers i.e. the most high risk / most exposed individuals.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
You can already see how those potential negotiations are going to be divisive and difficult.
Which is why you need a Royal Commission to address and defuse as many issues as can be done and presented to the voters within the choice. Of course, the SNP could refuse to engage. The likeliest outcome of that is they would jeopardise getting independence in the first place. They just wouldn't look serious.
Good luck to Starmer, he’s going to have to spend so much of the next couple of years fighting off these sort of things, from what’s now a small minority of the membership.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Th BS veneer is the SNP attempting to conceal the prime motivation of their nationalism, hatred of the English. Its a funny sort of nationalism btw that downplays the astonishing achievements of Scots as part of the union. The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment don't fit the narrative.
Hatred of the English.
My dislike of hackneyed phrases prevents me from trotting out the old 'remove all doubt' saw, but by God it's taking heroic restraint.
It's also a nationalism (sic) which downplays Scottish history remarkably in general in political discourse. Just consider the vandalism of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn. If that had been Churchill on a Battle of Britain airfield - or Westminster, which was a BoB battlefield - the Tories would have been all over it for months. Bruce in Scxotland, not so much: in fact not at all, apart form the moans in the NTS finance department at having to pay the stone and statue conservators.
I wonder if English/British nationalism as it's currently expressed (flags, Spitfires, statchoos, gunboats, staring fixedly at the rear view mirror) explains why their powers that be are so crap at reading Scotland. They really seem to think that it's a reflection of their own whiffy zeitgeist and that bellowing Freeeeedom and wibbling about Mel Gibson are killer insights. On that basis, the newly formed union directorate looking at the history of the Vietnam war is an exciting development.
That reads like the writings of the ultra-Remainers, trying to explain to their own audience why those who voted to leave did so.
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Except Labour who would see the biggest Tory landslide in England at the next general election for a century
Not necessarily, if it was genuinely an SNP UK Gov. Not possible yet, I know, but would be possible if they opened an English branch of the party. A lot of those who live in England would be glad of an alternative to the present main 3 parties, whatever their beliefs about Scottish Independence.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't look too kindly on a party that was hoping to take advantage of them in an upcoming divorce.
Probably; but the thing is, the SNP English party UK manifesto wouldn't be the same as the SNP Scot Gov one. They'd promise to work for the good of the whole UK whilst the SNP in Scotland could still have Sindy in their manifesto. They probably wouldn't be called the SNP in England, of course, so most voters wouldn't really notice. Even those did would reckon (like Mr Corbyn's Labour) it was safe to vote for a party that would never get elected. Or they might call themselves the English National Party, objective: Eindy. Work up grievances in England and build their electorate that way.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
Good luck to Starmer, he’s going to have to spend so much of the next couple of years fighting off these sort of things, from what’s now a small minority of the membership.
If Corbyn had won in 2019, as looked possible at some times that year, we'd probably be paying reparations now.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
Polling was in its infancy, but such polls as there were certainly didn’t suggest that.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Except Labour who would see the biggest Tory landslide in England at the next general election for a century
Not necessarily, if it was genuinely an SNP UK Gov. Not possible yet, I know, but would be possible if they opened an English branch of the party. A lot of those who live in England would be glad of an alternative to the present main 3 parties, whatever their beliefs about Scottish Independence.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't look too kindly on a party that was hoping to take advantage of them in an upcoming divorce.
Probably; but the thing is, the SNP English party UK manifesto wouldn't be the same as the SNP Scot Gov one. They'd promise to work for the good of the whole UK whilst the SNP in Scotland could still have Sindy in their manifesto. They probably wouldn't be called the SNP in England, of course, so most voters wouldn't really notice. Even those did would reckon (like Mr Corbyn's Labour) it was safe to vote for a party that would never get elected. Or they might call themselves the English National Party, objective: Eindy. Work up grievances in England and build their electorate that way.
They might say that, but would anyone believe they would put the rUK's interest over Scotland, or even at the same level? I don't think so.
Good interview....i did like the end, where Sophie Ridge asks him why he doesn't watch the #10 briefing, expecting him to say Boris is a twat...and he basically says the crap stats and ejit media questions.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Th BS veneer is the SNP attempting to conceal the prime motivation of their nationalism, hatred of the English. Its a funny sort of nationalism btw that downplays the astonishing achievements of Scots as part of the union. The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment don't fit the narrative.
Hatred of the English.
My dislike of hackneyed phrases prevents me from trotting out the old 'remove all doubt' saw, but by God it's taking heroic restraint.
It's also a nationalism (sic) which downplays Scottish history remarkably in general in political discourse. Just consider the vandalism of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn. If that had been Churchill on a Battle of Britain airfield - or Westminster, which was a BoB battlefield - the Tories would have been all over it for months. Bruce in Scxotland, not so much: in fact not at all, apart form the moans in the NTS finance department at having to pay the stone and statue conservators.
I wonder if English/British nationalism as it's currently expressed (flags, Spitfires, statchoos, gunboats, staring fixedly at the rear view mirror) explains why their powers that be are so crap at reading Scotland. They really seem to think that it's a reflection of their own whiffy zeitgeist and that bellowing Freeeeedom and wibbling about Mel Gibson are killer insights. On that basis, the newly formed union directorate looking at the history of the Vietnam war is an exciting development.
That reads like the writings of the ultra-Remainers, trying to explain to their own audience why those who voted to leave did so.
Yep, I'm absolutely way of beam suggesting BJ & co (and sundry Scotch experts) are shite at reading Scotland. It's not like the polling agrees with me or anything.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
... and possibly give her Covid.
When she is getting a jab this week? Unlikely.
The one-time 100% sterile immunity-conferring jab? Lucky her.
Nobody is out to get you and I hope you have a lovely birthday lunch, legal or not, but the future is unknowable. We thought in November post-vaccine and pre-new strains that it was all over. Turns out not to be. There is a possible future in which we will be saying in September that it was the defining moment in Johnson's descent into insanity that he eased the rules in March just as the super-horrible new variant was emerging.
And as for your personal assessment of likelihood, it is part of living in a modern state that that is irrelevant. Take the drink driving laws. If I now have a couple of glasses of sherry and drive a mile to the village to pick up something from the shop it is *vanishingly* unlikely that any harm is going to result to anyone, and it's a risk I would happily take if the laws were not what they are. As things are the laws aren't up to me and you would - I imagine - rightly condemnme for breaking them. I don't like the fact that things are that way, but that is how they are.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
You can already see how those potential negotiations are going to be divisive and difficult.
Which is why you need a Royal Commission to address and defuse as many issues as can be done and presented to the voters within the choice. Of course, the SNP could refuse to engage. The likeliest outcome of that is they would jeopardise getting independence in the first place. They just wouldn't look serious.
I object very strongly to your 6) in the royal commission. Maybe I misunderstood but it very much sounds like you are proposing that they develop a federal structure for the UK and this is offered as one option in any future scots indy ref alongside status quo and full indy.
My objection being as a non scot I would quite like to be asked if I want federalisation of my country before you go and do it.
What I do think we should do however instead is come up with our own version of article 50 delineating how negotiations happen when any part of the uk wishes to break away. By this I don't mean something as egregious as article 50 which was designed to make it difficult.
For example I don't think it should be acceptable that the mps of a leaving part should be able to sit both sides of the negotiating table. With this foretold breakup of the union people keep going on about it seems only sensible that we have some ground rules laid down.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
You can already see how those potential negotiations are going to be divisive and difficult.
Which is why you need a Royal Commission to address and defuse as many issues as can be done and presented to the voters within the choice. Of course, the SNP could refuse to engage. The likeliest outcome of that is they would jeopardise getting independence in the first place. They just wouldn't look serious.
I object very strongly to your 6) in the royal commission. Maybe I misunderstood but it very much sounds like you are proposing that they develop a federal structure for the UK and this is offered as one option in any future scots indy ref alongside status quo and full indy.
My objection being as a non scot I would quite like to be asked if I want federalisation of my country before you go and do it.
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Except Labour who would see the biggest Tory landslide in England at the next general election for a century
Not necessarily, if it was genuinely an SNP UK Gov. Not possible yet, I know, but would be possible if they opened an English branch of the party. A lot of those who live in England would be glad of an alternative to the present main 3 parties, whatever their beliefs about Scottish Independence.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't look too kindly on a party that was hoping to take advantage of them in an upcoming divorce.
Probably; but the thing is, the SNP English party UK manifesto wouldn't be the same as the SNP Scot Gov one. They'd promise to work for the good of the whole UK whilst the SNP in Scotland could still have Sindy in their manifesto. They probably wouldn't be called the SNP in England, of course, so most voters wouldn't really notice. Even those did would reckon (like Mr Corbyn's Labour) it was safe to vote for a party that would never get elected. Or they might call themselves the English National Party, objective: Eindy. Work up grievances in England and build their electorate that way.
Starmer Labour is already policy wise similar to the SNP in most respects other than the fact Labour supports a Federal UK and the SNP wants Scottish independence.
It is called the Scottish National Party for a reason, it only cares about Scotland, it could not care less what happens to England.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
You can already see how those potential negotiations are going to be divisive and difficult.
Which is why you need a Royal Commission to address and defuse as many issues as can be done and presented to the voters within the choice. Of course, the SNP could refuse to engage. The likeliest outcome of that is they would jeopardise getting independence in the first place. They just wouldn't look serious.
I object very strongly to your 6) in the royal commission. Maybe I misunderstood but it very much sounds like you are proposing that they develop a federal structure for the UK and this is offered as one option in any future scots indy ref alongside status quo and full indy.
My objection being as a non scot I would quite like to be asked if I want federalisation of my country before you go and do it.
Too late. That ship sailed in 1999.
Having devolved some power to some regions of the uk does not make it a federal government. It patently isn't
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
Not starting vaccinations until after winter?
Madness, utter madness.
while we're here, can someone explain what good a 3 day lockdown does?
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
443,173 is the magic figure we need to record today to hit 15 million.
If The Times article is correct - which it may well not be, as it would appear no fewer than four news outlets have had conflicting leaks, which suggests to me that our government are so stupid it thinks it clever to fly kites on this - we’re going to have to do a lot better. If we’re going to reopen schools on the 15th March, we need to have about 25 million people vaccinated if we don’t want to be locked down to the end of April. That’s about three million a week or 600,000 a day.
Even at that, most of them won’t have had time to build immunity.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
You mean the Tory government isn't trying to co-opt educational establishments, heritage bodies and charities to support its view of British history and nationhood, Chopper just got a bit carried away?
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
You can already see how those potential negotiations are going to be divisive and difficult.
Which is why you need a Royal Commission to address and defuse as many issues as can be done and presented to the voters within the choice. Of course, the SNP could refuse to engage. The likeliest outcome of that is they would jeopardise getting independence in the first place. They just wouldn't look serious.
I object very strongly to your 6) in the royal commission. Maybe I misunderstood but it very much sounds like you are proposing that they develop a federal structure for the UK and this is offered as one option in any future scots indy ref alongside status quo and full indy.
My objection being as a non scot I would quite like to be asked if I want federalisation of my country before you go and do it.
Too late. That ship sailed in 1999.
Having devolved some power to some regions of the uk does not make it a federal government. It patently isn't
Well, no, but it’s created a quasi federal state and that is the core of the problem.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
Not starting vaccinations until after winter?
Madness, utter madness.
Maybe we could fly vaccines to New Zealand if we have lots of spare doses available since they only have a small population.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
You mean the Tory government isn't trying to co-opt educational establishments, heritage bodies and charities to support its view of British history and nationhood, Chopper just got a bit carried away?
Phew, stand down lads.
Or alternatively, go north and sort out the SNP’s increasingly bizarre efforts to do exactly that.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
They are going to have to continue their current prison island approach for another 18 months, because they have failed on vaccine procurement. It is perfectly possible to say a country has done well at x, and failed at y e.g. Germany very good in first wave, failed second wave with stupid diet lockdown policy.
I have been very vocal from the start that the UK should have had a similar policy to Australia, the UK government have been very poor on mitigation strategies.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
It's the danger of getting high on your own supply.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
They’ve ordered $1bn of vaccines for a population of 5 million, which is hardly viewing them as ‘no big deal’. In consequence, they’ll be four months or so behind us in vaccinating their population. In context, it would be more accurate (though still wrong) to view that as no bid deal.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
They are going to have to continue their current prison island approach for another 18 months, because they have failed on vaccine procurement. It is perfectly possible to say a country has done well at x, and failed at y e.g. Germany very good in first wave, failed second wave with stupid diet lockdown policy.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
Such a coalition is not a runner. Confidence & Supply as provided by the DUP post 2017 election - or by the Liberals during the Lib-Lab pact of 1977 - 78 - is much more likely.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
Again, where are the chippy English nationalists meant to be hiding? Boris Johnson certainly isn't one. You can choose to take him at his word (stop laughing at the back, please) and assume that his Unionist rhetoric is sincere, or you can regard him as being in it only for himself, in which case England doesn't come into this. Refusing Scotland another vote wouldn't be about turning Scotland into a colony, it would be about avoiding becoming the next Lord North and passing the hot potato to his successor.
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
Refusing Scotland another vote when its voters had given an absolute majority to parties standing on a manifesto for a fresh independence referendum would be to deny Scots their right to self-determination.
You might be comfortable with that, I suppose, if you are a chippy English nationalist. (We found out yesterday that lots of Leavers still hanker for empire.) If, however, you have a meaningful attachment to democracy, in such circumstances the Scots would be entitled to the referendum they had just voted for.
Let's be fair. It's not Empire. It's a new, superstrength, purified "Anglosphere" whereby now free of European sag & drag, the mighty us (Britain) plus "the cousins" (USA) plus the White Commonwealth ("the chaps you can trust") stand as one against all that we fear and find threatening or just a bit "off".
I don't see any reason why the UK shouldn't collaborate with powers who share its values and broader foreign policy objectives - in fact, I'd say that's a necessary feature of any effective foreign policy; it's why international diplomacy exists. Moreover, it's not exclusionary: most of the Anglosphere countries are now more convincingly multiracial than the European Union itself, and the UK would clearly extend alliancing to nations like Nigeria and South Africa (as it is already seeking to do with Japan and India) if there was mutual interest there.
The weirder point is those who think we shouldn't do anything of the sort because they want to define our present-day policy solely in opposition to a past they define and caricature by selecting its worst features, totally divorced from the geopolitical reality and values of the time, and are embarrassed by those who don't agree that we should feel nothing but shame about it. They do this in order to make a values-statement about themselves, but through such indulgence they risk the whole world sliding backwards.
The proof of this is how aggressive and personal they get toward those who don't agree. Principled opposition would be able to engage in a more measured, balanced and collegiate way, with a proffered alternative. And there never is one, other than abstinence and self-flagellation.
Co-operating on foreign policy with countries when they share our interests makes sense. What I'm arguing against is a world view which exaggerates our importance, proclaims for us a fictional set of values or (worse) a "national character", and harks back to a bygone age. When I hear talk of a grand power bloc built upon the participants in "Five Eyes", standing up to the Beasts from the East because Europe is a cowardy custard, I know - I just know - that what's informing this is not some sober, dispassionate assessment of global geopolitics (although people try manfully to write as if it is) but rather the fuzzy glow which comes from feeling we are back where belong and with whom we belong. Britain, America, the nations of the White Commonwealth. The band tours again. It's seductive, I feel it myself, I love Ian Fleming's novels even now, but it's sloppy, magical thinking, tinged with outdated 'white man's burden' sentiment, so now and again I have to gird up and say so.
You're right that our foreign policy should be based on how things are, and where realistically we believe they can go, and not myths. At the same time we need to have a basic level of belief and conviction about who we are and what we stand for when doing so. We should do so without being arrogant or chavinistic. We need to consider both sides of the ledger because that's when our international engagement will be most effective.
At the end of the day I don't have a problem using foreign policy to advance British interests and values, and believe them to be good ones.
I recognise some others can find that offensive but I believe by adopting that position they are merely absenting the field to powers that hold more hostile and nihilistic values, which will ultimately be to all our grave disadvantage.
Good interview....i did like the end, where Sophie Ridge asks him why he doesn't watch the #10 briefing, expecting him to say Boris is a twat...and he basically says the crap stats and ejit media questions.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
You mean the Tory government isn't trying to co-opt educational establishments, heritage bodies and charities to support its view of British history and nationhood, Chopper just got a bit carried away?
Phew, stand down lads.
So far the proposals seem intended merely to prevent such establishments from subverting the British state, as too many are currently doing.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
Not starting vaccinations until after winter?
Madness, utter madness.
Maybe we could fly vaccines to New Zealand if we have lots of spare doses available since they only have a small population.
It seems cheap at twice the price to divorce it from China.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
No-one disputes theyve done well so far. Its their policy for opening up again that has a few people scratching their heads.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
You mean the Tory government isn't trying to co-opt educational establishments, heritage bodies and charities to support its view of British history and nationhood, Chopper just got a bit carried away?
Good interview....i did like the end, where Sophie Ridge asks him why he doesn't watch the #10 briefing, expecting him to say Boris is a twat...and he basically says the crap stats and ejit media questions.
67% reduction thru vaccine after three weeks he says in interview.
In reality, it is even better, as it is based on 50k front line health care workers...i.e. the people encounter covid day in day out. Us plebs don't spend 10hrs a day in a building full people hacking up covid virus particles.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
They are going to have to continue their current prison island approach for another 18 months, because they have failed on vaccine procurement. It is perfectly possible to say a country has done well at x, and failed at y e.g. Germany very good in first wave, failed second wave with stupid diet lockdown policy.
Yes. On one hand one can appreciate the sense that they have much more relative normalcy at present than, say, us.
On the flipside that relative normalcy seems to disappear immediately as soon as a single case is detected. That situation seems much too fragile. And as noted these mini lockdowns seem to simultaneously affect large numbers of people for short periods of time, which seems like the worst of both.
They have found an admirable way to cope with the situation in the short-term, but it does not seem like a long-term solution and nor does it seems like a solution that would make much sense for the UK.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
You mean the Tory government isn't trying to co-opt educational establishments, heritage bodies and charities to support its view of British history and nationhood, Chopper just got a bit carried away?
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Th BS veneer is the SNP attempting to conceal the prime motivation of their nationalism, hatred of the English. Its a funny sort of nationalism btw that downplays the astonishing achievements of Scots as part of the union. The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment don't fit the narrative.
Hatred of the English.
My dislike of hackneyed phrases prevents me from trotting out the old 'remove all doubt' saw, but by God it's taking heroic restraint.
It's also a nationalism (sic) which downplays Scottish history remarkably in general in political discourse. Just consider the vandalism of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn. If that had been Churchill on a Battle of Britain airfield - or Westminster, which was a BoB battlefield - the Tories would have been all over it for months. Bruce in Scxotland, not so much: in fact not at all, apart form the moans in the NTS finance department at having to pay the stone and statue conservators.
I wonder if English/British nationalism as it's currently expressed (flags, Spitfires, statchoos, gunboats, staring fixedly at the rear view mirror) explains why their powers that be are so crap at reading Scotland. They really seem to think that it's a reflection of their own whiffy zeitgeist and that bellowing Freeeeedom and wibbling about Mel Gibson are killer insights. On that basis, the newly formed union directorate looking at the history of the Vietnam war is an exciting development.
That reads like the writings of the ultra-Remainers, trying to explain to their own audience why those who voted to leave did so.
The prior assertion that Scottish Nationalism is driven by hatred of the English is surely more liable to that charge.
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Except Labour who would see the biggest Tory landslide in England at the next general election for a century
Not necessarily, if it was genuinely an SNP UK Gov. Not possible yet, I know, but would be possible if they opened an English branch of the party. A lot of those who live in England would be glad of an alternative to the present main 3 parties, whatever their beliefs about Scottish Independence.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't look too kindly on a party that was hoping to take advantage of them in an upcoming divorce.
Probably; but the thing is, the SNP English party UK manifesto wouldn't be the same as the SNP Scot Gov one. They'd promise to work for the good of the whole UK whilst the SNP in Scotland could still have Sindy in their manifesto. They probably wouldn't be called the SNP in England, of course, so most voters wouldn't really notice. Even those did would reckon (like Mr Corbyn's Labour) it was safe to vote for a party that would never get elected. Or they might call themselves the English National Party, objective: Eindy. Work up grievances in England and build their electorate that way.
They might say that, but would anyone believe they would put the rUK's interest over Scotland, or even at the same level? I don't think so.
I think that people project onto parties & causes what they want to believe. We've seen that very clearly with Brexit and Mr Corbyn's Labour.
For canny politicians it should be easy enough. Like Mr Johnson deciding whether or not to support Brexit. Canny politicians spin things in any direction that benefits them
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Except Labour who would see the biggest Tory landslide in England at the next general election for a century
Not necessarily, if it was genuinely an SNP UK Gov. Not possible yet, I know, but would be possible if they opened an English branch of the party. A lot of those who live in England would be glad of an alternative to the present main 3 parties, whatever their beliefs about Scottish Independence.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't look too kindly on a party that was hoping to take advantage of them in an upcoming divorce.
Probably; but the thing is, the SNP English party UK manifesto wouldn't be the same as the SNP Scot Gov one. They'd promise to work for the good of the whole UK whilst the SNP in Scotland could still have Sindy in their manifesto. They probably wouldn't be called the SNP in England, of course, so most voters wouldn't really notice. Even those did would reckon (like Mr Corbyn's Labour) it was safe to vote for a party that would never get elected. Or they might call themselves the English National Party, objective: Eindy. Work up grievances in England and build their electorate that way.
They might say that, but would anyone believe they would put the rUK's interest over Scotland, or even at the same level? I don't think so.
I think that people project onto parties & causes what they want to believe. We've seen that very clearly with Brexit and Mr Corbyn's Labour.
For canny politicians it should be easy enough. Like Mr Johnson deciding whether or not to support Brexit. Canny politicians spin things in any direction that benefits them
It would take an extremely canny politician to set up a SNP-in-England party and to convince the voters they don't only have Scotland's interest at heart.
" it may well be much harder for the Conservatives to scare voters about the dangers of SNP influence at the next election than they presently seem to imagine." Because you think the average voter will work their way through the counterfactual process you've just set out, to realise that?
Welcome to political betting.
Occam's Razor applies here: the author started with the conclusion that he wants the Conservatives ejected from office at the next election, and worked backwards from there.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
No-one disputes theyve done well so far. Its their policy for opening up again that has a few people scratching their heads.
30,000 watched the All Black's taken on Australia live. How much more opened up do they need to be?
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
I agree with "less urgent" but there is an element of resting on their laurels. We have suffered badly, some of which can be laid at the Government's door, but the reason the virus has been so deadly was that its novel nature. No one had any exposure or pre-existing immunity. Now, through a combination of vaccination and exposure, the UK has had a hell of a lot of exposure. Even Neil Ferguson says vaccines may be 'slightly aided' by the fact there is now quite a lot of herd immunity in London - he thinks maybe 25% or 30% of the population has now been infected in the first wave and second wave. Crudely adding to that the 20-25% of our population that has been vaccinated (there will be some overlap) we may be up to over 50% having some sort of immunity. That's consistent with his March '20 prognosis of half a million deaths without interventions. We're heading to around a third of that.
I'd rather our state of affairs had come about soley through vaccination - but that ship has sailed. The outbreaks in NZ are a warning to them - ultimately closing the border is a temporary fix because they can't close them entirely. Indeed Ahern's disappointment at Australia not agreeing a transit bubble with them suggests they don't really want to. Does NZ never want to see the AB's play again? Do they want to import anything? So they have to get a shift on.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
No-one disputes theyve done well so far. Its their policy for opening up again that has a few people scratching their heads.
30,000 watched the All Black's taken on Australia live. How much more opened up do they need to be?
That statistic does tend to show why they really really need to start vaccinating ASAP.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
You mean the Tory government isn't trying to co-opt educational establishments, heritage bodies and charities to support its view of British history and nationhood, Chopper just got a bit carried away?
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
No-one disputes theyve done well so far. Its their policy for opening up again that has a few people scratching their heads.
30,000 watched the All Black's taken on Australia live. How much more opened up do they need to be?
Do they not want their tourism industry any longer then?
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
It's the danger of getting high on your own supply.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
They’ve ordered $1bn of vaccines for a population of 5 million, which is hardly viewing them as ‘no big deal’. In consequence, they’ll be four months or so behind us in vaccinating their population. In context, it would be more accurate (though still wrong) to view that as no bid deal.
I'd love to see some polling on when the public expects: 1. The UK to have finished vaccination 2. When country X will have finished vaccination. (Where X = Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, China say.)
My guess is that 1. will be a bit earlier than reality, but 2. will be much later.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
" it may well be much harder for the Conservatives to scare voters about the dangers of SNP influence at the next election than they presently seem to imagine." Because you think the average voter will work their way through the counterfactual process you've just set out, to realise that?
Welcome to political betting.
Occam's Razor applies here: the author started with the conclusion that he wants the Conservatives ejected from office at the next election, and worked backwards from there.
Well, I think it’s common ground among most of us (except Mysticrose) that if the Tories win the next election it will be by a very close shave.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
You mean the Tory government isn't trying to co-opt educational establishments, heritage bodies and charities to support its view of British history and nationhood, Chopper just got a bit carried away?
Phew, stand down lads.
"Co-Opt"
It’s a Lidl off.
I think he's coming to Aldi wrong conclusions.
Asda that, I don’t know why you’re surprised.
Although ‘conclusions’ is a strong word for what he comes to.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
And schools open.
If we reopen schools too early, it will be a disaster. So Johnson may well do it, urged on by those who can’t stand the sight of their children one second more.
That isn’t exactly going to help his image, if we have a fourth wave while we are vaccinating, but he may simply not think of that.
Meanwhile in NZ and Vietnam they can carry on without too much trouble.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
I think my point is that it's not an either/or policy. You can do vaccines and have tough border restrictions.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
The idea as outlined is a non-starter because an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose and not just one set before independence by a commission dominated by another country. Nor does the UK control the EU.
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
"an independent Scotland could go in any direction it chose". Except, the last actions of the United Kingdom would be to pass the Scotland (Independence) Act, that would set out in great detail the terms of that settlement. That would include provisions for a financial settlement covering at least a decade or more into the future. Scotland would be looking for things from rUK such as - by way of a big-money example - a contribution to North Sea oilfield abandonment costs for platforms and pipelines in now 100% Scottish waters. Those costs could run into tens of billions of pounds/thistles*. Walking away from the agreed settlement means they can say goodbye to that settlement too. Good luck in having the EU pick up the tab for that, especially when they will be the ones with the gold-plated abandonment provisions enacted in EU law.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
You can already see how those potential negotiations are going to be divisive and difficult.
Neither a Royal Commission nor anything else take take the politics out of politics. If you want a change to happen, on ideological grounds you limit the discussion of big ticket detail and maximise general stuff about sunlit uplands. If you don't you do the opposite. There isn't a neutral position to be had.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
I think my point is that it's not an either/or policy. You can do vaccines and have tough border restrictions.
What New Zealand have on their side is time. Because they don’t have thousands of people dying every week, even if they have to wait a bit for the vaccine that’s much less serious for them than in the UK, EU, US or Brazil.
In a scenario where the Scots had won their independence vote, there would be loads of ammo for the Conservatives to paint Labour as not to be trusted on the negotiations. How many junior Labour politicians and activists have gone into one of their English self hate rants and said about how they'd love to move to Scotland with the true progressives. The public mood would not be one for a calm and civil discussion. But it will boil down not a fucking penny to be sent North.
The real wrench for a lot of people, is the country they live in will be responsible for paying their pension, no matter where they paid taxes when they were earning it. It will be impossible to split it any other way. So the currency situation will really rear it's head here, you'd have to be truly confident in their currency plans not to be worried about any assets currently valued in GB Pounds.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
Perhaps this is equally as true:
Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Brits towards the EU than telling them that if they leave, the EU will try to nail them to the floor.
Comments
I've got a house worth of boxes to unpack, I've already used the cricket as an excuse to avoid it, I keep getting glaring looks from my wife because I'm on my phone instead of getting stuck in...
A commission that laid out the UK's own negotiating parameters might work. That would probably not be helpful to the unionist side.
Sadly this attitude is prevalent on PB.
Your posts were always very readable, you have however recently morphed into Philip Thompson.
Everyone's circumstances are different and I think judging others without knowing them is just a bit daft.
Boris isn't going to come out and say "well the Scots need to have a long think about leaving the UK because it turns out seceding is really really difficult and politically tricky and noone really quite gets what they expected at the end of it" whilst at the same time proclaiming that Brexit was a massive unqualified success, and he's not about to turn round and go "well Brexit was an absolute pain in the arse but we just about got something over the line in the end".
Lab further behind again
SKS big idea - Ask Peter Mandelson to help
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
This is the man who gladly served in Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet for years and campaigned to make him Prime Minister.
The only principle that man has is how can he further his own career. He'll do anything, say anything to win. But don't expect him to come up with ideas.
If you're working from home and not getting on trains or being in busy offices etc., if you're not going to the cinema or the pub or whatever and you are minimising your travel and contacts then it should be reasonable to be indoors with e.g. a limited selection of immediate family outside your own household etc.
The goal should always have been to get everyone to voluntarily cut out a huge proportion of personal contacts whilst still feeling that everything was being done with the support of the people because they could make decisions best suited to their own personal circumstances
But no, instead we just get a blanket ban on absolutely everything, which just festers resentment, and it doesn't stop the arses who just break all the rules most flagrantly anyway.
That same Act would also make provision for what happens if Scotland chooses to take a direction where it breaches the terms of the Act. And there would need to be a co-ordinated piece of enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament enacting these provisions - before the UK Act was deemed to have come into force and independence acquired.
The point is, the Commission would address many of those issues on the negotiations. Otherwise, Scotland is just going to be a taker. "You don't like the deal on offer, huh? So don't leave...."
*Other Scottish currency name suggestions are available.
If that government was then seen as favouring Scotland over England not only in getting independence for Scotland but then favouring Scotland's interests in any Scexit negotiations over English interests there would be a surge of English nationalism in the Tories favour at the next general election
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9257793/Labour-told-make-woke-reparations-countries-ruled-British-Empire-official-party-report.html
Seriously Labour just feck right off
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/12/new-zealand-covid-vaccines-to-arrive-one-month-early-border-staff-to-be-inoculated-next-week
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
Everything in Guidance has always been optional, and for thoughtful risk assessment.
The webpage in March 2020 even called it "advice" at the top of the page.
An indication of the direction of travel is badly needed -- SKS is looking remarkably unimaginative.
Whatever one thinks of Blair -- & I personally now want to see him banged up in a prison cell for crimes against humanity -- he was certainly brimming with ideas, imagination & magic pixie-dust.
Even though he was a borderline idiot-child in his world view & did a lot of damage with his Labour party reforms, Miliband had ideas. Just bad ones.
SKS is beginning to look a little ... err, old & dull & absent of passion or conviction. SKS just has no ideas.
Like the ageing lawyer in the Rumpole stories who enters politics because of his failed marriage.
More law doesn't always equate to more compliance. And often it just highlights/makes acceptable the loopholes that morality/peer pressure might otherwise inhibit.
But then again I read the other day that their main model (Ferguson et al) doesn't even factor in seasonal variation. So who knows.
Madness, utter madness.
https://youtu.be/9P-XczUK1CQ
Nobody is out to get you and I hope you have a lovely birthday lunch, legal or not, but the future is unknowable. We thought in November post-vaccine and pre-new strains that it was all over. Turns out not to be. There is a possible future in which we will be saying in September that it was the defining moment in Johnson's descent into insanity that he eased the rules in March just as the super-horrible new variant was emerging.
And as for your personal assessment of likelihood, it is part of living in a modern state that that is irrelevant. Take the drink driving laws. If I now have a couple of glasses of sherry and drive a mile to the village to pick up something from the shop it is *vanishingly* unlikely that any harm is going to result to anyone, and it's a risk I would happily take if the laws were not what they are. As things are the laws aren't up to me and you would - I imagine - rightly condemnme for breaking them. I don't like the fact that things are that way, but that is how they are.
My objection being as a non scot I would quite like to be asked if I want federalisation of my country before you go and do it.
What I do think we should do however instead is come up with our own version of article 50 delineating how negotiations happen when any part of the uk wishes to break away. By this I don't mean something as egregious as article 50 which was designed to make it difficult.
For example I don't think it should be acceptable that the mps of a leaving part should be able to sit both sides of the negotiating table. With this foretold breakup of the union people keep going on about it seems only sensible that we have some ground rules laid down.
It is called the Scottish National Party for a reason, it only cares about Scotland, it could not care less what happens to England.
Even at that, most of them won’t have had time to build immunity.
Phew, stand down lads.
I have been very vocal from the start that the UK should have had a similar policy to Australia, the UK government have been very poor on mitigation strategies.
In context, it would be more accurate (though still wrong) to view that as no bid deal.
a basic level of belief and conviction about who we are and what we stand for when doing so. We should do so without being arrogant or chavinistic. We need to consider both sides of the ledger because that's when our international engagement will be most effective.
At the end of the day I don't have a problem using foreign policy to advance British interests and values, and believe them to be good ones.
I recognise some others can find that offensive but I believe by adopting that position they are merely absenting the field to powers that hold more hostile and nihilistic values, which will ultimately be to all our grave disadvantage.
On the flipside that relative normalcy seems to disappear immediately as soon as a single case is detected. That situation seems much too fragile. And as noted these mini lockdowns seem to simultaneously affect large numbers of people for short periods of time, which seems like the worst of both.
They have found an admirable way to cope with the situation in the short-term, but it does not seem like a long-term solution and nor does it seems like a solution that would make much sense for the UK.
For canny politicians it should be easy enough. Like Mr Johnson deciding whether or not to support Brexit. Canny politicians spin things in any direction that benefits them
Occam's Razor applies here: the author started with the conclusion that he wants the Conservatives ejected from office at the next election, and worked backwards from there.
I'd rather our state of affairs had come about soley through vaccination - but that ship has sailed. The outbreaks in NZ are a warning to them - ultimately closing the border is a temporary fix because they can't close them entirely. Indeed Ahern's disappointment at Australia not agreeing a transit bubble with them suggests they don't really want to. Does NZ never want to see the AB's play again? Do they want to import anything? So they have to get a shift on.
1. The UK to have finished vaccination
2. When country X will have finished vaccination. (Where X = Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, China say.)
My guess is that 1. will be a bit earlier than reality, but 2. will be much later.
Although ‘conclusions’ is a strong word for what he comes to.
If we reopen schools too early, it will be a disaster. So Johnson may well do it, urged on by those who can’t stand the sight of their children one second more.
That isn’t exactly going to help his image, if we have a fourth wave while we are vaccinating, but he may simply not think of that.
Meanwhile in NZ and Vietnam they can carry on without too much trouble.
But of course it's a bit of Daily Mail nonsense. One knows that without clicking.
The real wrench for a lot of people, is the country they live in will be responsible for paying their pension, no matter where they paid taxes when they were earning it. It will be impossible to split it any other way. So the currency situation will really rear it's head here, you'd have to be truly confident in their currency plans not to be worried about any assets currently valued in GB Pounds.
Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Brits towards the EU than telling them that if they leave, the EU will try to nail them to the floor.
Hence why leave won.
Thanks Mr Meeks!!