There may be a nationalist majority in May but that does not mean there will be an SNP majority, indeed on the Comres poll yesterday the SNP would win only 62 MSPs, not only short of the 65 they need for a Holyrood majority but even below the 63 they won in 2016 before Brexit. If that was to be the case there would clearly be no mandate at all for an indyref2 and the UK Tory government would correctly refuse such a legal indyref2. https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Even if Sturgeon went ahead and held one anyway as there was still a Nationalist majority combining SNP, Green and Alba MSPs Boris and the UK government would correctly ignore the result and respect the 2014 once in a generation vote.
It is also a myth to say Scots want a vote immediately, Yougov has found in its latest Scottish poll this month for example that 54% of Scots oppose an indyref2 this year, 55% of Scots oppose an indyref2 next year and 49% of Scots oppose an indyref2 before 2023 to just 34% in favour. Scots do back an indyref2 in the next 5 years by 44% to 40% but that is only a slim margin and would take us past the next UK general election in 2024 when it could be a decision for a PM Starmer anyway. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/gat47c3kha/TimesResults_Scotland_210420_W.pdf
If that were to be the case and Starmer then introduced PR so be it, I have no love for FPTP and voted for AV in 2011 as Australia already has. Even if a future Labour government introduced full PR as Germany, New Zealand, Spain and Italy already have that would not bother me either. If the right of the Tories went to Reform UK and UKIP and the left of Labour went to the Greens and started a new Corbynite party as those minor parties would be more likely to win MPs under PR so be it. It would be more representative of votes cast. However it would actually make centrist governments and coalitions more likely as any government would need to win over 50% of the vote, the only one of our governments to do since the war was the 2010-2015 coalition government which won 59% in 2010 (36% for the Cameron Tories and 23% for Clegg's LDs) and that was a pretty competent government overall.
I agree with pretty much all of that. An HYUFD-Palmer front - what next?!
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I was out for a walk with a pro Indy pal yesterday and he said he’d had quite a depressing chat with an SNP activist from Glasgow Southside who confessed, contra the usual patter, that they they weren’t getting a great response on the doorsteps and were quite worried about Nicola’s seat. Govanhill has been a favourite drum to beat for anti SNPers for years and with the likes of Wings happily pushing a decapitate Sturgeon strategy, things aren’t quite as rosy as one would hope. Sarwar also seems effective at organising voting in minority sections of the community; I don’t say that in an accusatory way as the SNP have also been good at this in the past. Prime anecdata I know, but a straw in the wind perhaps..
Anyhoo, from a pro Indy POV, more comforting if entirely expected confirmation of Sarwar being a fairly empty vessel.
TUD would be a great favour if Sarwar put her out , she is a real liability now. Unfortunately it would then be likely Macbeth would get the leadership and the same bunch of supine roasters would remain in place. It really needs a decent contingent of ALBA seats to put a rocket up their arses and make them do something other than the mince they are mucking about with at present.
Nippie is only 2nd on the SNP list for Glasgow...
Yes and a BAME / Disabled as the top choice, will look good her forcing them to resign so she can get in.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
Ha, ha, nice one Malc ... my PB badge of honour earned. I feel strangely elated, like I've passed some weird initiation and been accepted into an exclusive club.
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi says ventilators are "not working effectively" and the hospital will run out of oxygen in less than an hour. 60 lives are at risk - ANI
BREAKING: 2 New Delhi hospitals treating COVID-19 patients issue SOS, say they're running out of oxygen
---
And in the Far East, COVID on the rise.
BREAKING: Japanese government declares state of emergency in Tokyo, Osaka, Hyogo, and Kyoto due to coronavirus
NEW: Thailand reports 2,070 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record
This still has some way to go globally if my SEIR fag packet calcs are anywhere near correct. NPIs delay infection; vaccines prevent it (slowly) only NPIs and massive takeup can really crush it
Yes, it's probably into July before we could safely open up - with most of the population vacinnated.
I don't think people should be going abroad on holiday until July.
Europe's wave seems to have peaked, though still active in the Balkans. The EU now has 20% vaccination, so about 2 months behind us and on a steeply rising trend. I expect that by July most of Europe will be in as good of place as we are now. It is travel to the rest of the world that is going to be a problem.
A pity we chose to turn it into a competition with the rest of Europe. In a few months we'll all be in the same place and the only legacy will be that our ex EU partners think a little bit less of us than they did already.
Not the only legacy, Roger. The approach of some continental Europeans to vaccination has been a real eye opener to a lot of people here, quite apart from the way some EU officials have behaved. That reveals a cultural divide I at least had no idea existed.
Today's borrowing data in keeping with previous months, that is, not quite as terrible for the government as forecast.
The headline is c.£300bn for the 2020/21 year compared to forecasts of up to £394bn (most recent forecast c.£350bn by the OBR in, er, March 2021).
This keeps net debt symbolically below 100% of GDP, although unless the above is revised down further it is likely to hit that level this year.
Better still, income was very good for the government, with the deficit largely being the result of increased expenditure. With reasonable rebound growth this year, Sunak will have a much easier time than forecast as a result of that alone.
Good morning everyone. How the English-dominated UK might break up is a slightly odd topic for St Georges Day. Scotland was, for years, the only country which joined the British Empire/Commonwealth voluntarily. Although I seem to recall money changed hands.
And I'm beginning to wonder whether the Coles trip to our family in Thailand later this/early next year might have to be postponed a bit longer. Even though we've both been vaccinated.
But, on the positive side, Mrs C and I are going out today for our first pub lunch of 2021.
Thailand is looking a bit iffy isn't it Mr Cole?
St George wasn't English. He was Greek and appropriated by the nutjob Crusaders.
On the subject of Saints, I do find it odd that the Anglican Church seems to recognise pre-reformation Catholic saints (though was St George Orthodox?) but has no mechanism to beatify new saints. Are there any post reformation Anglican Saints? If not, why not? Has the Church lost God's favour?
Someone told me yesterday that an SNP candidate had said they didn't need to worry about what currency to use after the referendum because everyone uses plastic....
Scotcoin ?
I have always disliked Scottish notes and have done my best to avoid them. Down South, if you present one to pay something, you are looked on as though you are a fraudster.
Rather than just your usual pathetic cretinous Fcukwit
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
[...] * Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
May I refer you to the Prescription and Limitation (S) Act 1973?
When did the cause of action arise? (If that's what you call it in Scotland)
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Or rather, the people pulling her strings have a pretty sophisticated social media operation.
Do we know who is behind her BTW, I haven't got the time to research it but I'm assuming it's organized and well funded? Is she putting the likes of Greenpeace's nose out of joint or are they in on it?
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Precocious teenager 😂
Forgive me then if I discount such a teenager's views on the matter.
I asked him a question. He lied to my face. I knew he was lying and he knew I knew.
Edit: but are you really arguing that Tony Blair wasn’t a liar?
That's really strange because I have read on here repeatedly that only Boris does this sort of thing and is a scandalous diversion from the pure and ethical standards of our political class. Are you suggesting that he is not unique and other politicians also tell untruths? Whatever next?
I think it is a question of degree. Half truths (particularly in the mind of the impartial observer) have always been an issue in politics. While I always opposed Blair, I think he is a third division liar in contrast with Johnson. Johnson of course, relies on and promotes the cynical view that you have expressed to cover up his duplicity and incompetence. It is a cause of great sadness to me, as a life long conservative (now with small C) that people who seem decent, moderate people such as yourself seem to find his behaviour acceptable.
Decent? Moderate? What on earth gave you that impression?
My view of Boris is that those who oppose his policies, particularly Brexit, want to paint him as some sort of monster of depravity but he is just a common or garden liar and fantasist, or politician as they are often called.
I find it bewildering that people believe what he says but then I find it exactly the same when anyone believes anything that Sturgeon says either. We really should grow up and go past this. We should judge politicians by what they do and whether we approve of that or not, not what they say which is fluff. What Boris has done of late is get a somewhat unsatisfactory deal to allow the paralysis of Brexit to be broken, been responsible for a government which has handled vaccines astonishingly well both in development and distribution but has a weird blind spot about the risks of international travel to and from this country.
Like every government it is a mixed bag but I personally give him a pass mark of about 7/10 at the moment. Those who obsess on Brexit would no doubt give him a lower score and that is fair enough. But it is not necessary to paint him as some peculiar category of rogue to do this. He's a politician. Treat him as such and try to be just a tad more objective.
There may be a nationalist majority in May but that does not mean there will be an SNP majority, indeed on the Comres poll yesterday the SNP would win only 62 MSPs, not only short of the 65 they need for a Holyrood majority but even below the 63 they won in 2016 before Brexit. If that was to be the case there would clearly be no mandate at all for an indyref2 and the UK Tory government would correctly refuse such a legal indyref2. https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Even if Sturgeon went ahead and held one anyway as there was still a Nationalist majority combining SNP, Green and Alba MSPs Boris and the UK government would correctly ignore the result and respect the 2014 once in a generation vote.
It is also a myth to say Scots want a vote immediately, Yougov has found in its latest Scottish poll this month for example that 54% of Scots oppose an indyref2 this year, 55% of Scots oppose an indyref2 next year and 49% of Scots oppose an indyref2 before 2023 to just 34% in favour. Scots do back an indyref2 in the next 5 years by 44% to 40% but that is only a slim margin and would take us past the next UK general election in 2024 when it could be a decision for a PM Starmer anyway. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/gat47c3kha/TimesResults_Scotland_210420_W.pdf
If that were to be the case and Starmer then introduced PR so be it, I have no love for FPTP and voted for AV in 2011 as Australia already has. Even if a future Labour government introduced full PR as Germany, New Zealand, Spain and Italy already have that would not bother me either. If the right of the Tories went to Reform UK and UKIP and the left of Labour went to the Greens and started a new Corbynite party as those minor parties would be more likely to win MPs under PR so be it. It would be more representative of votes cast. However it would actually make centrist governments and coalitions more likely as any government would need to win over 50% of the vote, the only one of our governments to do since the war was the 2010-2015 coalition government which won 59% in 2010 (36% for the Cameron Tories and 23% for Clegg's LDs) and that was a pretty competent government overall.
Good post! I think the Cameron led government was very foolish to have encouraged the rejection of electoral reform. It was an opportunity missed to find a system that was more representative, but not brought in by Labour.
Not sure I completely agree on Scotland though the opinion poll date on the date is very interesting. I think the problem with Scotland so divided is that the Nats will continually agitate even if they have another referendum and lose. It is difficult to know how it will end. Theirs is teh politics of hatred and division. You only need to look at "Malcolmg"'s hate filled posts calling anyone that dares to have a view "Little Englanders" (the irony that he is a Little Scotlander seems to have passed him by), and the other Nats are not much better. It is sad state of affairs for a beautiful country
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
Ha, ha, nice one Malc ... my PB badge of honour earned. I feel strangely elated, like I've passed some weird initiation and been accepted into an exclusive club.
Welcome to our latest member.
Thank you ... as a fellow Scot and someone who also pays way too much tax, that means a lot ;-)
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
[...] * Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
May I refer you to the Prescription and Limitation (S) Act 1973?
When did the cause of action arise? (If that's what you call it in Scotland)
Good morning everyone. How the English-dominated UK might break up is a slightly odd topic for St Georges Day. Scotland was, for years, the only country which joined the British Empire/Commonwealth voluntarily. Although I seem to recall money changed hands.
And I'm beginning to wonder whether the Coles trip to our family in Thailand later this/early next year might have to be postponed a bit longer. Even though we've both been vaccinated.
But, on the positive side, Mrs C and I are going out today for our first pub lunch of 2021.
Thailand is looking a bit iffy isn't it Mr Cole?
St George wasn't English. He was Greek and appropriated by the nutjob Crusaders.
On the subject of Saints, I do find it odd that the Anglican Church seems to recognise pre-reformation Catholic saints (though was St George Orthodox?) but has no mechanism to beatify new saints. Are there any post reformation Anglican Saints? If not, why not? Has the Church lost God's favour?
I understand that Charles church in Plymouth was so named because the powers that then were insisted on the name, but the people refused to include a 'Saint' before the Charles.
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
The 'generation' argument is rapidly running out of road. There is a peculiar stripe of Englishman (it could be an Englishwoman I suppose but this particular need seems to be exclusively male) who wants to do a Fritzl and hang on to Scotland no matter what. They would be better off having it soon and quickly. The longer it is denied on specious grounds the more like the Scottish people are to vote yes. A quicker and proximate vote stands a much better chance of being won by the English with the destruction of Sturgeon and possibly the SNP into the bargain.
That's right. Also better to go while the Queen is still on the throne, because King Charles is only going to bring out the anti posh English twat vote (and yes I know he's the Duke of Rothesay and indeed Edinburgh) that Johnson hasn't already reached.
I would expect those with a negative view of Prince Charles are already mostly nationalists anyway and those with a positive view of Prince Charles are already mainly Unionists anyway, I doubt his becoming King makes any real difference
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
Excellent article Philip and we are both very much on the same page apart from one rather important detail in as much I believe in the union while you are content for the divorce. However, I know that if HMG win the indyref2 you would see that as democracy in action
Yesterday afternoon on this forum was the most intense and enlightening discussion on independence I have been involved in and for those taking part it must have been an eye opener as topics like UK continuing to pay Scottish pensions, Scottish passports, and the effect on the Scottish border were discussed
I have to say, and with respect, to our independence supporters their lack of detail and even serious discussion on complex matters was both alarming and disturbing
As was commented that Scottish pension payments would be a matter for discussion with the RUK government will scare Scots to the point I believe this could be the SNP's poll tax on speed. Nothing could be more destabilising than creating uncertainty over responsibility for future pension payments to the Scots
The other point to watch is the recent movement against independence in the polls and whether Nicola absenting herself from the TV debate will be noticed. My wife and I have noticed, as have others, that that bubbling self confidence seems to have disappeared and she does not seem as sure of herself as she did in her daily covid conferences
However, I do agree that if the Scots vote for indyref2 then the issue must receive serious consideration by HMG and ultimately permit a section 30 application, and then go out and win for the union
G, you really do talk through your rear end. You added zero to the argument yesterday other than some vacuous waffle that Scots would lose their pensions. A purely specious personal uneducated opinion. Give it a rest ghat you are an expert on Scotland and all matters pertaining to it because you lived there 60 years ago.
Good morning Malc
I hope it is as nice a day in Ayrshire as it is here
You can huff, puff, insult and 'haver' but you do not have answers to the defining questions.
Most posters on here would recognize I have a lifetime connection with Scotland and have every right to comment on matters relating to independence, not least as they have a direct effect on my wife and our family
And on pensions you said this yesterday
'It is utter bollox, as stated it would be negotiated and depend on where you were in the agreement, existing pensioners would be rUK , remainder would have a mix of both parties having some liability depending on pre and post contributions, it is not rocket science'.
You are the one suggesting Scots pension payments are up for negotiation with RUK and to be honest any idea Scots pensions are negotiable will be as I said the SNP's poll tax moment on speed
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Precocious teenager 😂
Forgive me then if I discount such a teenager's views on the matter.
I asked him a question. He lied to my face. I knew he was lying and he knew I knew.
Edit: but are you really arguing that Tony Blair wasn’t a liar?
That's really strange because I have read on here repeatedly that only Boris does this sort of thing and is a scandalous diversion from the pure and ethical standards of our political class. Are you suggesting that he is not unique and other politicians also tell untruths? Whatever next?
I think it is a question of degree. Half truths (particularly in the mind of the impartial observer) have always been an issue in politics. While I always opposed Blair, I think he is a third division liar in contrast with Johnson. Johnson of course, relies on and promotes the cynical view that you have expressed to cover up his duplicity and incompetence. It is a cause of great sadness to me, as a life long conservative (now with small C) that people who seem decent, moderate people such as yourself seem to find his behaviour acceptable.
Decent? Moderate? What on earth gave you that impression?
My view of Boris is that those who oppose his policies, particularly Brexit, want to paint him as some sort of monster of depravity but he is just a common or garden liar and fantasist, or politician as they are often called.
I find it bewildering that people believe what he says but then I find it exactly the same when anyone believes anything that Sturgeon says either. We really should grow up and go past this. We should judge politicians by what they do and whether we approve of that or not, not what they say which is fluff. What Boris has done of late is get a somewhat unsatisfactory deal to allow the paralysis of Brexit to be broken, been responsible for a government which has handled vaccines astonishingly well both in development and distribution but has a weird blind spot about the risks of international travel to and from this country.
Like every government it is a mixed bag but I personally give him a pass mark of about 7/10 at the moment. Those who obsess on Brexit would no doubt give him a lower score and that is fair enough. But it is not necessary to paint him as some peculiar category of rogue to do this. He's a politician. Treat him as such and try to be just a tad more objective.
I am objective. I have studied leadership all my life. Low values and a disregard for the truth are just as bad in politics as they are in business (or for that matter the law perhaps?). My objectivity on Boris Johnson is possibly more sound than most who are blindly loyal Conservatives. At the moment he is popular. People mistake that for success. Ultimately I think my view will be vindicated. If it is not, it is a sad indictment of human nature.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
Ha, ha, nice one Malc ... my PB badge of honour earned. I feel strangely elated, like I've passed some weird initiation and been accepted into an exclusive club.
Welcome to our latest member.
Thank you ... as a fellow Scot and someone who also pays way too much tax, that means a lot ;-)
I recently got a modest pay increase and state pension has gone up , 41% of it goes straight to the clowns supposedly running the country.
I hear we live in a one party state these days. Can anyone tell me which fcuking one it is to make this voting lark easier?
The joys of PR, every party under the sun stands on the list, having now received my postal vote ballot I note the Police and Crime Commissioner elections this year are being held using the Supplementary Vote system too, so you get 2 votes.
So while I will be voting for the Tory candidate, Roger Hirst, as my first preference for Essex PCC I need to decide between the Labour, LD and English Democrats candidate for my second preference (not that it will make much difference, Hirst will almost certainly make the final 2, so my second preference will not be counted)
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
What if the people vote for a do-over?
You can’t interpret an election for the Scottish parliament to be a vote on a single issue. There could be all sorts of reasons for not wanting Douglas Ross as first minister
So you are saying that manifesto commitments are totally meaningless?
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi says ventilators are "not working effectively" and the hospital will run out of oxygen in less than an hour. 60 lives are at risk - ANI
BREAKING: 2 New Delhi hospitals treating COVID-19 patients issue SOS, say they're running out of oxygen
---
And in the Far East, COVID on the rise.
BREAKING: Japanese government declares state of emergency in Tokyo, Osaka, Hyogo, and Kyoto due to coronavirus
NEW: Thailand reports 2,070 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record
This still has some way to go globally if my SEIR fag packet calcs are anywhere near correct. NPIs delay infection; vaccines prevent it (slowly) only NPIs and massive takeup can really crush it
Yes, it's probably into July before we could safely open up - with most of the population vacinnated.
I don't think people should be going abroad on holiday until July.
Europe's wave seems to have peaked, though still active in the Balkans. The EU now has 20% vaccination, so about 2 months behind us and on a steeply rising trend. I expect that by July most of Europe will be in as good of place as we are now. It is travel to the rest of the world that is going to be a problem.
A pity we chose to turn it into a competition with the rest of Europe. In a few months we'll all be in the same place and the only legacy will be that our ex EU partners think a little bit less of us than they did already.
We chose to make it into a competition?
Utterly clueless as usual.
Oh Roger, another legacy of EU incompetence is a bunch more dead people.
Strange that you didn't think that worthy of a mention.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
What if the people vote for a do-over?
You can’t interpret an election for the Scottish parliament to be a vote on a single issue. There could be all sorts of reasons for not wanting Douglas Ross as first minister
So you are saying that manifesto commitments are totally meaningless?
From a regional branch manager of a non Scottish party who is scared to contest a seat as he prefers to sup at Westminster trough, I would suggest answer is YES.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
May I refer you to the Prescription and Limitation (S) Act 1973?
I've always said the Scottish legal system was a joke.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
[...] * Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
May I refer you to the Prescription and Limitation (S) Act 1973?
When did the cause of action arise? (If that's what you call it in Scotland)
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
The 'generation' argument is rapidly running out of road. There is a peculiar stripe of Englishman (it could be an Englishwoman I suppose but this particular need seems to be exclusively male) who wants to do a Fritzl and hang on to Scotland no matter what. They would be better off having it soon and quickly. The longer it is denied on specious grounds the more like the Scottish people are to vote yes. A quicker and proximate vote stands a much better chance of being won by the English with the destruction of Sturgeon and possibly the SNP into the bargain.
That's right. Also better to go while the Queen is still on the throne, because King Charles is only going to bring out the anti posh English twat vote (and yes I know he's the Duke of Rothesay and indeed Edinburgh) that Johnson hasn't already reached.
I would expect those with a negative view of Prince Charles are already mostly nationalists anyway and those with a positive view of Prince Charles are already mainly Unionists anyway, I doubt his becoming King makes any real difference
All differences are real differences when polls are routinely in the 48 - 52 kind of area.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
The 'generation' argument is rapidly running out of road. There is a peculiar stripe of Englishman (it could be an Englishwoman I suppose but this particular need seems to be exclusively male) who wants to do a Fritzl and hang on to Scotland no matter what. They would be better off having it soon and quickly. The longer it is denied on specious grounds the more like the Scottish people are to vote yes. A quicker and proximate vote stands a much better chance of being won by the English with the destruction of Sturgeon and possibly the SNP into the bargain.
That's right. Also better to go while the Queen is still on the throne, because King Charles is only going to bring out the anti posh English twat vote (and yes I know he's the Duke of Rothesay and indeed Edinburgh) that Johnson hasn't already reached.
I would expect those with a negative view of Prince Charles are already mostly nationalists anyway and those with a positive view of Prince Charles are already mainly Unionists anyway, I doubt his becoming King makes any real difference
All differences are real differences when polls are routinely in the 48 - 52 kind of area.
According to Yougov 34% of Scots think Charles will make a good King, ie mainly diehard Unionists, 32% of Scots think he will make a bad King, ie mainly diehard Nationalists and 33% are unsure so it will not make any real difference as it is that 33% in the middle who are also the waverers on the Union anyway.
Indeed if Charles does better than expected as King he might even increase support for the Union in Scotland, plus of course even Salmond and Sturgeon have said they would keep the monarch as Head of State in Scotland even if it went independent
Today's borrowing data in keeping with previous months, that is, not quite as terrible for the government as forecast.
The headline is c.£300bn for the 2020/21 year compared to forecasts of up to £394bn (most recent forecast c.£350bn by the OBR in, er, March 2021).
This keeps net debt symbolically below 100% of GDP, although unless the above is revised down further it is likely to hit that level this year.
Better still, income was very good for the government, with the deficit largely being the result of increased expenditure. With reasonable rebound growth this year, Sunak will have a much easier time than forecast as a result of that alone.
I think a 24 month boom is in the offing with a downturn or flattening return to mean afterwards.
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
The 'generation' argument is rapidly running out of road. There is a peculiar stripe of Englishman (it could be an Englishwoman I suppose but this particular need seems to be exclusively male) who wants to do a Fritzl and hang on to Scotland no matter what. They would be better off having it soon and quickly. The longer it is denied on specious grounds the more like the Scottish people are to vote yes. A quicker and proximate vote stands a much better chance of being won by the English with the destruction of Sturgeon and possibly the SNP into the bargain.
That's right. Also better to go while the Queen is still on the throne, because King Charles is only going to bring out the anti posh English twat vote (and yes I know he's the Duke of Rothesay and indeed Edinburgh) that Johnson hasn't already reached.
I would expect those with a negative view of Prince Charles are already mostly nationalists anyway and those with a positive view of Prince Charles are already mainly Unionists anyway, I doubt his becoming King makes any real difference
All differences are real differences when polls are routinely in the 48 - 52 kind of area.
According to Yougov 34% of Scots think Charles will make a good King, ie mainly diehard Unionists, 32% of Scots think he will make a bad King, ie mainly diehard Nationalists and 33% are unsure so it will not make any real difference as it is that 33% in the middle who are also the waverers on the Union anyway.
Indeed if Charles does better than expected as King he might even increase support for the Union in Scotland, plus of course even Salmond and Sturgeon have said they would keep the monarch as Head of State in Scotland even if it went independent
Unless he really screws it up, Charles will get a big bump in public opinion over the course of his coronation proceedings (not that I expect that to ever happen, of course). He'll probably never be as popular as our current Monarch, but I don't think he'll be far off enough to matter, when all is said and done.
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Greta has a pretty acute form of Asperger's syndrome, by her own admission she only talks when she feels it is essential, and isn't exactly renowned for her sense of humour in person. Wit requires a complex grasp of social dynamics, self-reflection, timing and irony.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Keep jogging loser
Your rapier wit is at it's best today lol.
Keep jogging loser
I don't think I was the loser in that exchange Mr. Angry lol. Seriously, if you won't get counselling for your anger and Anglo-xenophobia, how about some diversity training?
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Greta has a pretty acute form of Asperger's syndrome, by her own admission she only talks when she feels it is essential, and isn't exactly renowned for her sense of humour in person. Wit requires a complex grasp of social dynamics, self-reflection, timing and irony.
It's her social media team. She's a brand now.
I am not a fan of the publicity seeking Ms Thunberg, but it is not correct to suggest people with Asperberger's are not humorous or witty, it really depends on their focus.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
Interconnects across continents - made feasible by the extremely low price of the cheapest renewables at source (a recent deal is Saudi Arabia was done for supply at 1 US cent per kWh) - make intermittent renewables far less intermittent.
Thank you for the nice remarks and on topic replies to this thread.
It was interesting to see both agreement and disagreement on it from across the political and unionist/nationalist spectrum.
Coming late to the party - but an interesting and unusual analysis from you, thank you.
I wonder if that is already being realised by certian elements in the Tories and hence the shift towards accepting indyref2 (pace HYUFD) in recent discourse from them and their journalistic commentators?
Small note: for those of you who read any Sir Edric books, the character of Dog was partly based on Teal'c.
I would love to see this come to fruition, but don't have high hopes either that it will ever see the light of day, or that it will live up to the hype.
Stargate was a great movie and SG1 was one of the greatest Sci Fi series of all time, but the spin offs especially Universe were rather underwhelming.
Children of the Gods has to be in my opinion one of the best TV pilots of all time, not just in Sci Fi, but Universe was so bland I didn't make it through the first season and I can barely remember much of it.
Thank you for the nice remarks and on topic replies to this thread.
It was interesting to see both agreement and disagreement on it from across the political and unionist/nationalist spectrum.
Coming late to the party - but an interesting and unusual analysis from you, thank you.
I wonder if that is already being realised by certain elements in the Tories and hence the shift towards accepting indyref2 (pace HYUFD) in recent discourse from them and their journalistic commentators?
Should the Tory leadership change their stance, HYUFD will reverse ferret faster than @malcolmg can type 'jog on...'.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Keep jogging loser
Your rapier wit is at it's best today lol.
Keep jogging loser
I don't think I was the loser in that exchange Mr. Angry lol. Seriously, if you won't get counselling for your anger and Anglo-xenophobia, how about some diversity training?
Go and have aeronautical sex with a rolling doughnut loser, preferably on the M25. You really are a cretin.
Thank you for the nice remarks and on topic replies to this thread.
It was interesting to see both agreement and disagreement on it from across the political and unionist/nationalist spectrum.
Coming late to the party - but an interesting and unusual analysis from you, thank you.
I wonder if that is already being realised by certian elements in the Tories and hence the shift towards accepting indyref2 (pace HYUFD) in recent discourse from them and their journalistic commentators?
I accept indyref2 is likely but the SNP need to do well next month and the polling needs to improve from 48/44 no (most recent) otherwise it probably suits Nicola and Boris to kick it down the line
@HYUFD will not change his mind on this until it happens
Thank you for the nice remarks and on topic replies to this thread.
It was interesting to see both agreement and disagreement on it from across the political and unionist/nationalist spectrum.
Coming late to the party - but an interesting and unusual analysis from you, thank you.
I wonder if that is already being realised by certian elements in the Tories and hence the shift towards accepting indyref2 (pace HYUFD) in recent discourse from them and their journalistic commentators?
Good question, I've got no idea. Growing up down under the story of the ALP changing the electoral system on the way out while facing defeat was one well known for people interested in politics - and a conversation here a week or two put this train of thought into my mind connecting the dots as to how this could relate to Scotland.
No idea if this has been realised in those circles or not yet. To be modest, if it hasn't yet then would be nice if putting these thoughts out there on this blog gets people thinking about it.
Thank you for the nice remarks and on topic replies to this thread.
It was interesting to see both agreement and disagreement on it from across the political and unionist/nationalist spectrum.
Coming late to the party - but an interesting and unusual analysis from you, thank you.
I wonder if that is already being realised by certain elements in the Tories and hence the shift towards accepting indyref2 (pace HYUFD) in recent discourse from them and their journalistic commentators?
Should the Tory leadership change their stance, HYUFD will reverse ferret faster than @malcolmg can type 'jog on...'.
Dunno...
Could be the biggest 'I didn't leave party X, party X left me' moment in PB history.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Keep jogging loser
Your rapier wit is at it's best today lol.
Keep jogging loser
I don't think I was the loser in that exchange Mr. Angry lol. Seriously, if you won't get counselling for your anger and Anglo-xenophobia, how about some diversity training?
Go and have aeronautical sex with a rolling doughnut loser, preferably on the M25. You really are a cretin.
Use of the word "cretin" even in the context of your problem with psychological projection also suggests that diversity training is much required for you. Perhaps you could try a few courses and recommend them to Alex Salmond?
Interconnects across continents - made feasible by the extremely low price of the cheapest renewables at source (a recent deal is Saudi Arabia was done for supply at 1 US cent per kWh) - make intermittent renewables far less intermittent.
The key stat in that article is;
“Cable losses along the entire transmission line are estimated between 10 and 12%”
I wonder what the losses would be for a HVDC cable from Iceland? Tapping their geothermal would make a lot of sense.
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Greta has a pretty acute form of Asperger's syndrome, by her own admission she only talks when she feels it is essential, and isn't exactly renowned for her sense of humour in person. Wit requires a complex grasp of social dynamics, self-reflection, timing and irony.
It's her social media team. She's a brand now.
I am not a fan of the publicity seeking Ms Thunberg, but it is not correct to suggest people with Asperberger's are not humorous or witty, it really depends on their focus.
But, for the acute form that Greta has - she's publicly known for impassioned or even angry delivery of a quasi-religious message - then I doubt it. .
Water under the bridge for me. My Scottish Parliament votes went in last week. More significantly got my second AZ jag on Weds, and no negative reaction unlike the first one. Even more significantly my sister delving into ancestry sites has discovered that our parents' marriage was my father's second, totally unbeknown to us.
Interconnects across continents - made feasible by the extremely low price of the cheapest renewables at source (a recent deal is Saudi Arabia was done for supply at 1 US cent per kWh) - make intermittent renewables far less intermittent.
The key stat in that article is;
“Cable losses along the entire transmission line are estimated between 10 and 12%”
I wonder what the losses would be for a HVDC cable from Iceland? Tapping their geothermal would make a lot of sense.
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Greta has a pretty acute form of Asperger's syndrome, by her own admission she only talks when she feels it is essential, and isn't exactly renowned for her sense of humour in person. Wit requires a complex grasp of social dynamics, self-reflection, timing and irony.
It's her social media team. She's a brand now.
I am not a fan of the publicity seeking Ms Thunberg, but it is not correct to suggest people with Asperberger's are not humorous or witty, it really depends on their focus.
But, for the acute form that Greta has - she's publicly known for impassioned or even angry delivery of a quasi-religious message - then I doubt it. .
Without wishing to be uber-PC, I am not sure everything that you and I dislike about her can be put down to her Aspergers. I think she is just a very annoying person who has been given an in toxifying amount of publicity at an age when she is unable to deal with it with humility.
Busy morning, but just wanted to comment on the public sector finance data, it looks a lot better than what the OBR predicted and the collapse in tax receipts will probably bounce back extremely strongly this year while the virus spending will be virtually eliminated by the end of July as the need for people to be on furlough and other support schemes are reduced and actually eliminated by September.
As a wild guess, I'd say we're due a £80bn uplift in job related tax receipts this year as income tax, self assessment, NI and other job related taxes recover strongly and in terms of income support schemes we spent £78bn in the previous year, this should be close to around £15-20bn this year. Just in job terms the deficit will go down by around £130-140bn. The other thing to note is that industry support schemes will also wind down from September and tax take from businesses will begin to accrue again from then as they shake off the rust of lockdown. I'd estimate that this will be worth around £30bn saved in support schemes and around £50bn gained in VAT, rates, corporation tax and other smaller taxes on business/spending. That's another £80bn swing in the deficit.
Adding in all of the other smaller gains elsewhere in the economy and general uplift I think we're probably going to end the next year with a deficit under £100bn and the following year under £60bn. Compared to our trends before the virus that puts total virus borrowing at £400bn, almost all of which has been monetised by the BoE already.
The predictions of economic doom are hugely overdone IMO, at least for this country and the US.
Don't know why this hasn't had more attention, maybe because it's a long slow burning saga rather than a massive blow up? It really is one of the worst scandals of the last couple of decades.
Water under the bridge for me. My Scottish Parliament votes went in last week. More significantly got my second AZ jag on Weds, and no negative reaction unlike the first one. Even more significantly my sister delving into ancestry sites has discovered that our parents' marriage was my father's second, totally unbeknown to us.
You got an Az Jag? Wow, are they giving those away as an incentive? That should persuade a few anti-vaxxers.
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Greta has a pretty acute form of Asperger's syndrome, by her own admission she only talks when she feels it is essential, and isn't exactly renowned for her sense of humour in person. Wit requires a complex grasp of social dynamics, self-reflection, timing and irony.
It's her social media team. She's a brand now.
I am not a fan of the publicity seeking Ms Thunberg, but it is not correct to suggest people with Asperberger's are not humorous or witty, it really depends on their focus.
But, for the acute form that Greta has - she's publicly known for impassioned or even angry delivery of a quasi-religious message - then I doubt it. .
Without wishing to be uber-PC, I am not sure everything that you and I dislike about her can be put down to her Aspergers. I think she is just a very annoying person who has been given an in toxifying amount of publicity at an age when she is unable to deal with it with humility.
Interconnects across continents - made feasible by the extremely low price of the cheapest renewables at source (a recent deal is Saudi Arabia was done for supply at 1 US cent per kWh) - make intermittent renewables far less intermittent.
The key stat in that article is;
“Cable losses along the entire transmission line are estimated between 10 and 12%”
I wonder what the losses would be for a HVDC cable from Iceland? Tapping their geothermal would make a lot of sense.
I think people are often surprised to find how high cable loses are in our own national grid. Depending on the voltage they vary between 3 and 13% but average 6%. When the electricity is so cheap coming from North Africa I am not sure such losses are really an issue.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Keep jogging loser
Your rapier wit is at it's best today lol.
Keep jogging loser
I don't think I was the loser in that exchange Mr. Angry lol. Seriously, if you won't get counselling for your anger and Anglo-xenophobia, how about some diversity training?
Go and have aeronautical sex with a rolling doughnut loser, preferably on the M25. You really are a cretin.
There are strong rumours that things are not happy chez Sturgeon .
We are not allowed to talk about Superinjunctions
Isn't the biggest problem with superinjunctions is that now everyone knows they exist, they can be falsely referred to in order to back up any rumour?
Now the lack of evidence for any farfetched charge against (say) Sturgeon or Boris or even OGH becomes evidence of a superinjunction to suppress the non-existent evidence, and then the presumed existence of the superinjunction becomes itself evidence of whatever the initial charge was.
Thank you for the nice remarks and on topic replies to this thread.
It was interesting to see both agreement and disagreement on it from across the political and unionist/nationalist spectrum.
Coming late to the party - but an interesting and unusual analysis from you, thank you.
I wonder if that is already being realised by certian elements in the Tories and hence the shift towards accepting indyref2 (pace HYUFD) in recent discourse from them and their journalistic commentators?
Good question, I've got no idea. Growing up down under the story of the ALP changing the electoral system on the way out while facing defeat was one well known for people interested in politics - and a conversation here a week or two put this train of thought into my mind connecting the dots as to how this could relate to Scotland.
No idea if this has been realised in those circles or not yet. To be modest, if it hasn't yet then would be nice if putting these thoughts out there on this blog gets people thinking about it.
I suppose that the fixed term act could count as a UK analogue?
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Keep jogging loser
Your rapier wit is at it's best today lol.
Keep jogging loser
I don't think I was the loser in that exchange Mr. Angry lol. Seriously, if you won't get counselling for your anger and Anglo-xenophobia, how about some diversity training?
Go and have aeronautical sex with a rolling doughnut loser, preferably on the M25. You really are a cretin.
That is.... inventive.
Yea, I was thinking of giving it a go. I am not sure what a "rolling doughnut loser" is though.
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Greta has a pretty acute form of Asperger's syndrome, by her own admission she only talks when she feels it is essential, and isn't exactly renowned for her sense of humour in person. Wit requires a complex grasp of social dynamics, self-reflection, timing and irony.
It's her social media team. She's a brand now.
I am not a fan of the publicity seeking Ms Thunberg, but it is not correct to suggest people with Asperberger's are not humorous or witty, it really depends on their focus.
But, for the acute form that Greta has - she's publicly known for impassioned or even angry delivery of a quasi-religious message - then I doubt it. .
Without wishing to be uber-PC, I am not sure everything that you and I dislike about her can be put down to her Aspergers. I think she is just a very annoying person who has been given an in toxifying amount of publicity at an age when she is unable to deal with it with humility.
I think that's a fair assessment.
She has always reminded me of a modern day Joan of Arc. Utterly committed in her beliefs to the point of, in my view, foolish fanaticism, but somehow I get the impression that there is great deal of manipulation of her going on in the background and not always to her, or our, benefit.
Busy morning, but just wanted to comment on the public sector finance data, it looks a lot better than what the OBR predicted and the collapse in tax receipts will probably bounce back extremely strongly this year while the virus spending will be virtually eliminated by the end of July as the need for people to be on furlough and other support schemes are reduced and actually eliminated by September.
As a wild guess, I'd say we're due a £80bn uplift in job related tax receipts this year as income tax, self assessment, NI and other job related taxes recover strongly and in terms of income support schemes we spent £78bn in the previous year, this should be close to around £15-20bn this year. Just in job terms the deficit will go down by around £130-140bn. The other thing to note is that industry support schemes will also wind down from September and tax take from businesses will begin to accrue again from then as they shake off the rust of lockdown. I'd estimate that this will be worth around £30bn saved in support schemes and around £50bn gained in VAT, rates, corporation tax and other smaller taxes on business/spending. That's another £80bn swing in the deficit.
Adding in all of the other smaller gains elsewhere in the economy and general uplift I think we're probably going to end the next year with a deficit under £100bn and the following year under £60bn. Compared to our trends before the virus that puts total virus borrowing at £400bn, almost all of which has been monetised by the BoE already.
The predictions of economic doom are hugely overdone IMO, at least for this country and the US.
Excellent summary.
£400bn all monetarised looks about right to me. Worth noting that's the equivalent of 2-3 trillion USD but the total cost of this to the USA (including all programs, stimulus, deficit etc) seem to be far more than that.
How many trillions do you think America will be out by? And will it all be monetarised too?
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Keep jogging loser
Your rapier wit is at it's best today lol.
Keep jogging loser
I don't think I was the loser in that exchange Mr. Angry lol. Seriously, if you won't get counselling for your anger and Anglo-xenophobia, how about some diversity training?
Go and have aeronautical sex with a rolling doughnut loser, preferably on the M25. You really are a cretin.
That is.... inventive.
Yea, I was thinking of giving it a go. I am not sure what a "rolling doughnut loser" is though.
It almost sounds like it would be fun to try and find out
There are strong rumours that things are not happy chez Sturgeon .
We are not allowed to talk about Superinjunctions
Isn't the biggest problem with superinjunctions is that now everyone knows they exist, they can be falsely referred to in order to back up any rumour?
Now the lack of evidence for any farfetched charge against (say) Sturgeon or Boris or even OGH becomes evidence of a superinjunction to suppress the non-existent evidence, and then the presumed existence of the superinjunction becomes itself evidence of whatever the initial charge was.
What I don't understand is how OGH (or one of his Moderating elves) is supposed to know his guests are breaching a superinjunction if he is not supposed to know it exists in the first place. Seems to breach basic justice.
Don't know why this hasn't had more attention, maybe because it's a long slow burning saga rather than a massive blow up? It really is one of the worst scandals of the last couple of decades.
There are strong rumours that things are not happy chez Sturgeon .
We are not allowed to talk about Superinjunctions
Isn't the biggest problem with superinjunctions is that now everyone knows they exist, they can be falsely referred to in order to back up any rumour?
Now the lack of evidence for any farfetched charge against (say) Sturgeon or Boris or even OGH becomes evidence of a superinjunction to suppress the non-existent evidence, and then the presumed existence of the superinjunction becomes itself evidence of whatever the initial charge was.
What I don't understand is how OGH (or one of his Moderating elves) is supposed to know his guests are breaching a superinjunction if he is not supposed to know it exists in the first place. Seems to breach basic justice.
Whatever happened to the principle that justice must be seen to be done?
Water under the bridge for me. My Scottish Parliament votes went in last week. More significantly got my second AZ jag on Weds, and no negative reaction unlike the first one. Even more significantly my sister delving into ancestry sites has discovered that our parents' marriage was my father's second, totally unbeknown to us.
You got an Az Jag? Wow, are they giving those away as an incentive? That should persuade a few anti-vaxxers.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
Keep jogging loser
Your rapier wit is at it's best today lol.
Keep jogging loser
I don't think I was the loser in that exchange Mr. Angry lol. Seriously, if you won't get counselling for your anger and Anglo-xenophobia, how about some diversity training?
Go and have aeronautical sex with a rolling doughnut loser, preferably on the M25. You really are a cretin.
That is.... inventive.
Yea, I was thinking of giving it a go. I am not sure what a "rolling doughnut loser" is though.
It almost sounds like it would be fun to try and find out
I have tried looking it up on line to see if I would find such a thing attractive, and whether they are limited to being on the M25, but no reference is given anywhere I can see. Maybe it is something Malc has found on the dark web?
Mr. Thompson, yeah, I like SG-1 a lot, and share your concerns regarding a new series being poor (as seems to happen with lots of modern takes on classic sci-fi). But we shall see.
Busy morning, but just wanted to comment on the public sector finance data, it looks a lot better than what the OBR predicted and the collapse in tax receipts will probably bounce back extremely strongly this year while the virus spending will be virtually eliminated by the end of July as the need for people to be on furlough and other support schemes are reduced and actually eliminated by September.
As a wild guess, I'd say we're due a £80bn uplift in job related tax receipts this year as income tax, self assessment, NI and other job related taxes recover strongly and in terms of income support schemes we spent £78bn in the previous year, this should be close to around £15-20bn this year. Just in job terms the deficit will go down by around £130-140bn. The other thing to note is that industry support schemes will also wind down from September and tax take from businesses will begin to accrue again from then as they shake off the rust of lockdown. I'd estimate that this will be worth around £30bn saved in support schemes and around £50bn gained in VAT, rates, corporation tax and other smaller taxes on business/spending. That's another £80bn swing in the deficit.
Adding in all of the other smaller gains elsewhere in the economy and general uplift I think we're probably going to end the next year with a deficit under £100bn and the following year under £60bn. Compared to our trends before the virus that puts total virus borrowing at £400bn, almost all of which has been monetised by the BoE already.
The predictions of economic doom are hugely overdone IMO, at least for this country and the US.
Excellent summary.
£400bn all monetarised looks about right to me. Worth noting that's the equivalent of 2-3 trillion USD but the total cost of this to the USA (including all programs, stimulus, deficit etc) seem to be far more than that.
How many trillions do you think America will be out by? And will it all be monetarised too?
It's actually not easy to say as Biden has wrapped a lot of other spending into the US's virus related spending bills. I think stripping all of that out it's actually around $3-3.5tn, not very different from what we've done. The difference is that they had much looser lockdown terms so will be recovering from a higher base with a similar economic growth trajectory as us.
What's missing for the UK, IMO, is a big fiscal easing of say £300bn over the next 3 years in business related tax cuts and investment in key infrastructure. That would have a huge multiplier at the moment, the Biden team seems to have realised that which is why they've got a huge fiscal stimulus planned in addition to the virus spending.
Thank you for the nice remarks and on topic replies to this thread.
It was interesting to see both agreement and disagreement on it from across the political and unionist/nationalist spectrum.
Coming late to the party - but an interesting and unusual analysis from you, thank you.
I wonder if that is already being realised by certain elements in the Tories and hence the shift towards accepting indyref2 (pace HYUFD) in recent discourse from them and their journalistic commentators?
Should the Tory leadership change their stance, HYUFD will reverse ferret faster than @malcolmg can type 'jog on...'.
They will not change their stance, if Boris grants a legal indyref2 and loses he knows he would have to resign the next day or be toppled by his backbenchers for losing Scotland and allowing the break up of a 300 year Union and would go down in history for all eternity as a 21st century Lord North, not the architect of Brexit he wants to be remembered for.
Good morning everyone. How the English-dominated UK might break up is a slightly odd topic for St Georges Day. Scotland was, for years, the only country which joined the British Empire/Commonwealth voluntarily. Although I seem to recall money changed hands.
And I'm beginning to wonder whether the Coles trip to our family in Thailand later this/early next year might have to be postponed a bit longer. Even though we've both been vaccinated.
But, on the positive side, Mrs C and I are going out today for our first pub lunch of 2021.
Thailand is looking a bit iffy isn't it Mr Cole?
St George wasn't English. He was Greek and appropriated by the nutjob Crusaders.
On the subject of Saints, I do find it odd that the Anglican Church seems to recognise pre-reformation Catholic saints (though was St George Orthodox?) but has no mechanism to beatify new saints. Are there any post reformation Anglican Saints? If not, why not? Has the Church lost God's favour?
In the early days of the church Saints were more or less declared by local acclamation, i.e. anyone with a good enough reputation might be a Saint. Graudally it became regularised in the Western Church at least that only the Pope could declare a Saint. So after the Reformation, not having a Pope, the Anglican Church had no mechanism to declare a Saint. This didn't bother the protestant reformers much.
However, the rung below 'Beatus' (or 'Blessed') can be declared by the local diocesan bishop, and this is what has happened to King Charles the Martyr. I notice the rubric on the Book of Common Prayer calls his feast day as 'Blessed King Charles the Martyr' not Saint. A quick Google didn't throw up how exactly he was so raised, but I do remember reading an article explaining why he was a Beatus along the lines I've described. I don't think it's something that has happened often and I can't think of any others, maybe there are a few. Certainly other people are observed in the Calendar without titles, e.g. Cranmer, Wilberforce so effectively are the equivalent of saints in the old way without a capital S.
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Greta has a pretty acute form of Asperger's syndrome, by her own admission she only talks when she feels it is essential, and isn't exactly renowned for her sense of humour in person. Wit requires a complex grasp of social dynamics, self-reflection, timing and irony.
It's her social media team. She's a brand now.
I am not a fan of the publicity seeking Ms Thunberg, but it is not correct to suggest people with Asperberger's are not humorous or witty, it really depends on their focus.
But, for the acute form that Greta has - she's publicly known for impassioned or even angry delivery of a quasi-religious message - then I doubt it. .
Without wishing to be uber-PC, I am not sure everything that you and I dislike about her can be put down to her Aspergers. I think she is just a very annoying person who has been given an in toxifying amount of publicity at an age when she is unable to deal with it with humility.
She's said herself she suffers from this and I'm using evidence of her own words and actions in public.
Of course, I can't "prove" that her social media team wrote the tweets for her approval but this is commonplace amongst high profile tweeters. Even Andrew Adonis has helpers doing some of his.
Busy morning, but just wanted to comment on the public sector finance data, it looks a lot better than what the OBR predicted and the collapse in tax receipts will probably bounce back extremely strongly this year while the virus spending will be virtually eliminated by the end of July as the need for people to be on furlough and other support schemes are reduced and actually eliminated by September.
As a wild guess, I'd say we're due a £80bn uplift in job related tax receipts this year as income tax, self assessment, NI and other job related taxes recover strongly and in terms of income support schemes we spent £78bn in the previous year, this should be close to around £15-20bn this year. Just in job terms the deficit will go down by around £130-140bn. The other thing to note is that industry support schemes will also wind down from September and tax take from businesses will begin to accrue again from then as they shake off the rust of lockdown. I'd estimate that this will be worth around £30bn saved in support schemes and around £50bn gained in VAT, rates, corporation tax and other smaller taxes on business/spending. That's another £80bn swing in the deficit.
Adding in all of the other smaller gains elsewhere in the economy and general uplift I think we're probably going to end the next year with a deficit under £100bn and the following year under £60bn. Compared to our trends before the virus that puts total virus borrowing at £400bn, almost all of which has been monetised by the BoE already.
The predictions of economic doom are hugely overdone IMO, at least for this country and the US.
Excellent summary.
£400bn all monetarised looks about right to me. Worth noting that's the equivalent of 2-3 trillion USD but the total cost of this to the USA (including all programs, stimulus, deficit etc) seem to be far more than that.
How many trillions do you think America will be out by? And will it all be monetarised too?
It's actually not easy to say as Biden has wrapped a lot of other spending into the US's virus related spending bills. I think stripping all of that out it's actually around $3-3.5tn, not very different from what we've done. The difference is that they had much looser lockdown terms so will be recovering from a higher base with a similar economic growth trajectory as us.
What's missing for the UK, IMO, is a big fiscal easing of say £300bn over the next 3 years in business related tax cuts and investment in key infrastructure. That would have a huge multiplier at the moment, the Biden team seems to have realised that which is why they've got a huge fiscal stimulus planned in addition to the virus spending.
I think it highly unlikely that Boris will not want to drive infrastructure spending much higher. Its something he has consistently believed in.
I hear we live in a one party state these days. Can anyone tell me which fcuking one it is to make this voting lark easier?
Obviously the top one. Is this a trick question?
I like the offer that if you put your cross in there you could save £100 000 000 yearly. I wasn't aware my wife was spending that amount, but if we can save it just by putting an X in a box, why not?
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Greta has a pretty acute form of Asperger's syndrome, by her own admission she only talks when she feels it is essential, and isn't exactly renowned for her sense of humour in person. Wit requires a complex grasp of social dynamics, self-reflection, timing and irony.
It's her social media team. She's a brand now.
I am not a fan of the publicity seeking Ms Thunberg, but it is not correct to suggest people with Asperberger's are not humorous or witty, it really depends on their focus.
But, for the acute form that Greta has - she's publicly known for impassioned or even angry delivery of a quasi-religious message - then I doubt it. .
Without wishing to be uber-PC, I am not sure everything that you and I dislike about her can be put down to her Aspergers. I think she is just a very annoying person who has been given an in toxifying amount of publicity at an age when she is unable to deal with it with humility.
She's said herself she suffers from this and I'm using evidence of her own words and actions in public.
Of course, I can't "prove" that her social media team wrote the tweets for her approval but this is commonplace amongst high profile tweeters. Even Andrew Adonis has helpers doing some of his.
Someone having a media team is not quite the same thing as that person being controlled by dark and mysterious forces.
Comments
The headline is c.£300bn for the 2020/21 year compared to forecasts of up to £394bn (most recent forecast c.£350bn by the OBR in, er, March 2021).
This keeps net debt symbolically below 100% of GDP, although unless the above is revised down further it is likely to hit that level this year.
Better still, income was very good for the government, with the deficit largely being the result of increased expenditure. With reasonable rebound growth this year, Sunak will have a much easier time than forecast as a result of that alone.
There are a few anglican churches dedicated to him, one in Potters Bar - https://kcm-church.org.uk/
Do we know who is behind her BTW, I haven't got the time to research it but I'm assuming it's organized and well funded? Is she putting the likes of Greenpeace's nose out of joint or are they in on it?
My view of Boris is that those who oppose his policies, particularly Brexit, want to paint him as some sort of monster of depravity but he is just a common or garden liar and fantasist, or politician as they are often called.
I find it bewildering that people believe what he says but then I find it exactly the same when anyone believes anything that Sturgeon says either. We really should grow up and go past this. We should judge politicians by what they do and whether we approve of that or not, not what they say which is fluff. What Boris has done of late is get a somewhat unsatisfactory deal to allow the paralysis of Brexit to be broken, been responsible for a government which has handled vaccines astonishingly well both in development and distribution but has a weird blind spot about the risks of international travel to and from this country.
Like every government it is a mixed bag but I personally give him a pass mark of about 7/10 at the moment. Those who obsess on Brexit would no doubt give him a lower score and that is fair enough. But it is not necessary to paint him as some peculiar category of rogue to do this. He's a politician. Treat him as such and try to be just a tad more objective.
Not sure I completely agree on Scotland though the opinion poll date on the date is very interesting. I think the problem with Scotland so divided is that the Nats will continually agitate even if they have another referendum and lose. It is difficult to know how it will end. Theirs is teh politics of hatred and division. You only need to look at "Malcolmg"'s hate filled posts calling anyone that dares to have a view "Little Englanders" (the irony that he is a Little Scotlander seems to have passed him by), and the other Nats are not much better. It is sad state of affairs for a beautiful country
https://twitter.com/janeygodley/status/1385507122251714561?s=21
How this oppression is consistent with his father being a distinguished doctor is not immediately apparent either but that is a minor complication.
I hope it is as nice a day in Ayrshire as it is here
You can huff, puff, insult and 'haver' but you do not have answers to the defining questions.
Most posters on here would recognize I have a lifetime connection with Scotland and have every right to comment on matters relating to independence, not least as they have a direct effect on my wife and our family
And on pensions you said this yesterday
'It is utter bollox, as stated it would be negotiated and depend on where you were in the agreement, existing pensioners would be rUK , remainder would have a mix of both parties having some liability depending on pre and post contributions, it is not rocket science'.
You are the one suggesting Scots pension payments are up for negotiation with RUK and to be honest any idea Scots pensions are negotiable will be as I said the SNP's poll tax moment on speed
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1385504873467285504?s=19
So while I will be voting for the Tory candidate, Roger Hirst, as my first preference for Essex PCC I need to decide between the Labour, LD and English Democrats candidate for my second preference (not that it will make much difference, Hirst will almost certainly make the final 2, so my second preference will not be counted)
Thank goodness we also don’t have a state broadcaster pumping out propaganda on behalf of the ruling clique.
Apart from it being bi lingual there were pagers of instructions and procedures to follow
They have been completed and posted but seems unnecessarily complicated
ReformUK down 1% to the Tories benefit who are up 1% too
Utterly clueless as usual.
Oh Roger, another legacy of EU incompetence is a bunch more dead people.
Strange that you didn't think that worthy of a mention.
I'll take my claim to the ECHR.
It explains why I am so shy and modest.
Indeed if Charles does better than expected as King he might even increase support for the Union in Scotland, plus of course even Salmond and Sturgeon have said they would keep the monarch as Head of State in Scotland even if it went independent
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/will-prince-charles-make-a-good-king?crossBreak=scotland
It was interesting to see both agreement and disagreement on it from across the political and unionist/nationalist spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate#Untitled_Fourth_Stargate_Television_Series
Small note: for those of you who read any Sir Edric books, the character of Dog was partly based on Teal'c.
It's her social media team. She's a brand now.
Submarine cable to connect 10.5 GW wind-solar complex in Morocco to the UK grid
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/22/submarine-cable-to-connect-10-5-gw-wind-solar-complex-in-morocco-to-the-uk-grid/
Interconnects across continents - made feasible by the extremely low price of the cheapest renewables at source (a recent deal is Saudi Arabia was done for supply at 1 US cent per kWh) - make intermittent renewables far less intermittent.
I wonder if that is already being realised by certian elements in the Tories and hence the shift towards accepting indyref2 (pace HYUFD) in recent discourse from them and their journalistic commentators?
Stargate was a great movie and SG1 was one of the greatest Sci Fi series of all time, but the spin offs especially Universe were rather underwhelming.
Children of the Gods has to be in my opinion one of the best TV pilots of all time, not just in Sci Fi, but Universe was so bland I didn't make it through the first season and I can barely remember much of it.
@HYUFD will not change his mind on this until it happens
No idea if this has been realised in those circles or not yet. To be modest, if it hasn't yet then would be nice if putting these thoughts out there on this blog gets people thinking about it.
Could be the biggest 'I didn't leave party X, party X left me' moment in PB history.
“Cable losses along the entire transmission line are estimated between 10 and 12%”
I wonder what the losses would be for a HVDC cable from Iceland? Tapping their geothermal would make a lot of sense.
.
As a wild guess, I'd say we're due a £80bn uplift in job related tax receipts this year as income tax, self assessment, NI and other job related taxes recover strongly and in terms of income support schemes we spent £78bn in the previous year, this should be close to around £15-20bn this year. Just in job terms the deficit will go down by around £130-140bn. The other thing to note is that industry support schemes will also wind down from September and tax take from businesses will begin to accrue again from then as they shake off the rust of lockdown. I'd estimate that this will be worth around £30bn saved in support schemes and around £50bn gained in VAT, rates, corporation tax and other smaller taxes on business/spending. That's another £80bn swing in the deficit.
Adding in all of the other smaller gains elsewhere in the economy and general uplift I think we're probably going to end the next year with a deficit under £100bn and the following year under £60bn. Compared to our trends before the virus that puts total virus borrowing at £400bn, almost all of which has been monetised by the BoE already.
The predictions of economic doom are hugely overdone IMO, at least for this country and the US.
https://twitter.com/RevRichardColes/status/1385532298653806592?s=20
Because of the way these elections work I have also voted for all 3 main political parties across the two elections.
Now the lack of evidence for any farfetched charge against (say) Sturgeon or Boris or even OGH becomes evidence of a superinjunction to suppress the non-existent evidence, and then the presumed existence of the superinjunction becomes itself evidence of whatever the initial charge was.
£400bn all monetarised looks about right to me. Worth noting that's the equivalent of 2-3 trillion USD but the total cost of this to the USA (including all programs, stimulus, deficit etc) seem to be far more than that.
How many trillions do you think America will be out by? And will it all be monetarised too?
https://twitter.com/AmandaFBelfast/status/1385519175247044609?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56859357
What's missing for the UK, IMO, is a big fiscal easing of say £300bn over the next 3 years in business related tax cuts and investment in key infrastructure. That would have a huge multiplier at the moment, the Biden team seems to have realised that which is why they've got a huge fiscal stimulus planned in addition to the virus spending.
So it will not happen
Might go Lib Dem in that one, he's mentioned the way too high precept on his website (Labour's work)
In the early days of the church Saints were more or less declared by local acclamation, i.e. anyone with a good enough reputation might be a Saint. Graudally it became regularised in the Western Church at least that only the Pope could declare a Saint. So after the Reformation, not having a Pope, the Anglican Church had no mechanism to declare a Saint. This didn't bother the protestant reformers much.
However, the rung below 'Beatus' (or 'Blessed') can be declared by the local diocesan bishop, and this is what has happened to King Charles the Martyr. I notice the rubric on the Book of Common Prayer calls his feast day as 'Blessed King Charles the Martyr' not Saint. A quick Google didn't throw up how exactly he was so raised, but I do remember reading an article explaining why he was a Beatus along the lines I've described. I don't think it's something that has happened often and I can't think of any others, maybe there are a few. Certainly other people are observed in the Calendar without titles, e.g. Cranmer, Wilberforce so effectively are the equivalent of saints in the old way without a capital S.
Of course, I can't "prove" that her social media team wrote the tweets for her approval but this is commonplace amongst high profile tweeters. Even Andrew Adonis has helpers doing some of his.