Looking forward to tomorrow’s locals from Michael Thrasher – politicalbetting.com

tlg86 said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think Peter Mandelson has just sealed the deal for the Tories:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1389957213763117062?s=20

What ever happened to the man who claimed he was “a fighter and not a quitter”?

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Laura K on PM "Hartlepool has been red forever." FFS.

It has been 100% red since the seat was created yes.

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Your ludicrous interruptions on this issue make you look like a tad hysterical

You think?

God, that's brilliant

Is that like a whole pot kettle black meme thing?

I get it. That's a black pot-like vessel in the picture, so that implies I'm like a black pot looking at that black pot, in your picture, and calling him - it, in the picture - black, whereas I myself, a kettle, or a pot, am also black, tho that is a pot there not a kettle, so I'm a..... black kettle? Looking at a black pot, or cauldron type thing, but this is confusing, because this is apparently suggesting I am a kettle calling the pot black, implying that the kettle is black and therefore cannot call out other vessels for being black in a similar way. But are they? Are kettles black? I don't think so. Therefore this is just a pot. A picture of a fucking pot you stupid lame-ass pensionable Scottish dwarf

I think it needs work

Brom said:

Starmer urging people on social media to 'vote with their heart' now is pretty desperate stuff. No thanks I'll vote with my head. What's wrong with suggesting a few good policies? At least Corbyn had some interesting ideas rather than just begging rhetoric.

RobD said:

Leon said:

Wait, there could be WAR WITH FRANCE

"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats

The quote from a government source was "at least the Nazis kept the lights on"

Leon said:

Wait, there could be WAR WITH FRANCE

"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats

Leon said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

Wait, there could be WAR WITH FRANCE

"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats

The quote from a government source was "at least the Nazis kept the lights on"

hahaha

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

This is a very interesting read:

"There is a grand deal to be done with Brussels to keep Scotland in the union. European leaders are no fans of separatism. From Catalonia to Flanders and Transylvania to the Basques, most have separatist movements of their own they are keen to quash. As they did during the 2014 independence campaign, senior EU figures have quietly suggested to our ministers that they are prepared to be very helpful on an independent Scotland’s ambitions to rejoin the EU: a rejection that would kill Sturgeon’s project dead.

But the EU has a price: an agreement to heal the festering sore that is the Northern Ireland Protocol once and for all. It wants the UK to align to a thinned-down book of EU standards on food and agriculture, a move that would slash the need for the lion’s share of disruptive and costly border checks on imports into the province from the British mainland in a stroke. Some ministers in Johnson’s Cabinet also want closer alignment on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (as they’re technically known), and have pressed Brexit negotiator Lord Frost on it. And I understand this is now happening.

Frost and his opposite number in the EU, Commission vice president Maroš Šefčovič, are inching towards agreeing a set of common standards on agri-food. It won’t be called alignment (No10 prefers the terms “equivalence”). It may even involve the option to diverge if the UK feels it must, to avoid the incandescent rage of hardline Brexiteers who insist the UK must never again be beholden to Brussels on anything. But it amounts to the same thing."

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/no10-scottish-independence-boris-johnson-nicola-sturgeon-b933342.html

There’s a huge difference between “alignment” and “equivalence” relating to future standards.
Basically, the U.K. doesn’t trust the EU not to “evolve” their “standards” in a way that deliberately targets U.K. exports to the EU.

If they can solve that issue, with a classic piece of NI fudge, then we have progress.

As that is just paranoia as a result of the EU having to be the big bad, they'll get past it. I don't care what they call it, lets go back to the sensible solution of the UK standards remaining as they are. As the EU standards are also as they are, we can remove overnight the game ending barriers that we have had to postpone.

We aren't (so they say) going to lower food standards, we're going to enhance them. So there is no problem staying aligned / equivalenced to the EU standards. We will have the right to have babies without having the ability to have babies. Huzzah!

There is no issue with equivalence, there is an issue with alignment.

The UK has always been OK with equivalence AFAIK, it is the EU that has been demanding alignment. If you've got no qualms with either then lets hope the EU catch up and we can agree to equivalence and move on.

Alignment - following EU rules. Equivalence - having UK rules that are accepted as having parity with EU rules. Whatever. Our rules are their rules are our rules because nether side have changed the sodding rules. Drop the barriers and worry about future divergence as and when it happens. As we both say we will be moving in the same direction on standards there won't be a problem.

Good you've caught up with us. What you're talking about is equivalence, which is what we want. We can't make the EU grant that yet though, but if they do it will be sensible.

Its the same bloody thing. We left the EU but kept UK standards which are also UK standards. We have the right to change our standards but have pledged to only increase them and not decrease them to allow weevil-invested american food in.

So why have we demanded and implemented 3rd country status to give us the ability to do things we aren't going to do? We have shagged our own food sector and now are going to unshag it having gained literally nothing. Petulant posturing from a government who haven't a clue how any of this works.

Its not the same bloody thing, its two very different things. I find it amusing that you can understand the self-determination concept for Scots and explain it quite well, but pretend not to understand it for Brexiteers which you yourself voted for.

We've demanded and implemented 3rd country status to determine our own standards. Those standards probably will remain equivalent to European ones, which they should recognise hopefully, but that's our choice.

Great! We are choosing to keep the same standards as the Europeans at least for now. Can we remove the paperwork and SPS checks we insisted on now? We wanted to determine our own standards and having done so we've decided to keep their standards. Huzzah!

No we can't since the EU are the ones refusing to grant equivalence. If they choose to grant equivalence, then the paperwork can be removed. If they don't, then we can keep the paperwork and SPS checks forever.

There is an entertaining blame game because you need the UK to be seen to win. Whatever. The UK could fix this tomorrow. And won't. I have no doubt the EU have stopped wasting their time trying to work with our increasingly stupid positions.

Meanwhile, in reality, there remains no difference between our respective food standards. You can blame them, I can blame us, they can blame each other. Not only does it get us nowhere, it also achieves nothing. Equivalence is alignment is equivalence when our equivalent rules remain aligned to their rules and will continue to be.

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Laura K on PM "Hartlepool has been red forever." FFS.

It has been 100% red since the seat was created yes.

Scott_xP said:

The UK concedes that the EU ambassador in London will have "a status consistent with heads of missions of states, including agrément and presentation of the credentials to the Head of State". That sound you can hear is the screech of tyres in Whitehall...
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

The UK concedes that the EU ambassador in London will have "a status consistent with heads of missions of states, including agrément and presentation of the credentials to the Head of State". That sound you can hear is the screech of tyres in Whitehall...
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045

Who cares?

Gallowgate said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

The UK concedes that the EU ambassador in London will have "a status consistent with heads of missions of states, including agrément and presentation of the credentials to the Head of State". That sound you can hear is the screech of tyres in Whitehall...
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045

Who cares?

Brexiteers seemed to care a lot when this first came about a while back. They don't care now though, funnily enough.

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

The UK concedes that the EU ambassador in London will have "a status consistent with heads of missions of states, including agrément and presentation of the credentials to the Head of State". That sound you can hear is the screech of tyres in Whitehall...
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045

Who cares?

Brexiteers seemed to care a lot when this first came about a while back. They don't care now though, funnily enough.

It's been posted for less than three minutes.

Scott_xP said:

The UK concedes that the EU ambassador in London will have "a status consistent with heads of missions of states, including agrément and presentation of the credentials to the Head of State". That sound you can hear is the screech of tyres in Whitehall...
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.

Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence

The other major historical difference was that the Scots were not the colonised and oppressed but the colonisers and the oppressors. They loved it! The British Empire was disproportionately Scottish. Their universities turned out huge numbers of enthusiastic colonialists and their regiments provided the muscle. For them to now claim they were the oppressed like Ireland is an insult to every non-Unionist Irishman

That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.

gealbhan said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Hartlepool now at 91% win for conservatives

It seems almost walk over territory

When I went to bed on EU Referendum night, that was the figure Remain were on.

I don't think it tells us much other than what punters think, which isn't the accurate statistic, I once thought it was.

That said, I have said comfortable Tory gain all along. Check my posts.

I have as well. But I am having doubts now.

If you look at what same polling firms consistently report last few months and contrast with what they are saying this week, it’s quite some late surge to Labour. Sort of reminds me of Tory surge ‘92.

I think If it wasn’t for Jab Factor Labour would win Super Thursday, but the fly in the ointment is underestimating how unpopular Boris is, and can suppress his party’s support.

rcs1000 said:

Who cares?

Scott_xP said:

rcs1000 said:

Who cares?

BoZo

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Labour 5 short

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1389960827462197249?s=19

LostPassword said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.

Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence

The other major historical difference was that the Scots were not the colonised and oppressed but the colonisers and the oppressors. They loved it! The British Empire was disproportionately Scottish. Their universities turned out huge numbers of enthusiastic colonialists and their regiments provided the muscle. For them to now claim they were the oppressed like Ireland is an insult to every non-Unionist Irishman

That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.

The way I've just heard it in a history podcast is that the first plantation was instituted by James VI when he tried to send Lowland Scots to the island of Lewis, before he became James I of England.

Perhaps all countries need a few lies about their past. It's often easier that way. But is fostering a sense of grievance and victimhood about your neighbour really the best set of lies to choose?

They'd be better off with exaggerating in the other direction, and arguing that Britain was only great when Scots were running the place, and now that the English don't want the benefits of their leadership it's time for Scotland to plow their own furrow.

It's still cobblers, though I'd argue less so, but at least it's positive cobblers.

Gallowgate said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

The UK concedes that the EU ambassador in London will have "a status consistent with heads of missions of states, including agrément and presentation of the credentials to the Head of State". That sound you can hear is the screech of tyres in Whitehall...
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045

Who cares?

Brexiteers seemed to care a lot when this first came about a while back. They don't care now though, funnily enough.

Leon said:

Wait, there could be WAR WITH FRANCE

"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Casino_Royale said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sean_F said:

Selebian said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

Endillion said:

Gallowgate said:

ridaligo said:

Scott_xP said:

ridaligo said:

This, to me, epitomizes the new divide in British politics. And I think it's why Labour will continue to struggle ... it is on the side of diversity officers and translation services, which your ordinary voter thinks is BS.

That strikes me as a very Little England view, and I agree that is why Labour are struggling.

Little Englanders are in the ascendancy and the Tories are their party, for now.

Call it a Little England view if you like but it's becoming a Bigger England view as the woke BS increases. I'm not sure how Labour copes with that. Does it even want to?

You're relying on the young becoming less "woke" as they grow older. They probably will not. The Overton window will simply shift, as it has done over the past 100 years. Believing in gay marriage used to be woke af.

Very possibly. I think there are three (interrelated) counterarguments:

1) It's easy to forget that over half of people don't go to University. A lot of the "woke" agenda is driven by people with did, got excited about issues, and use social media to amplify their voices. However, they do not necessarily represent the consensus among their age group.

2) Priorities change as people settle down and have children, and stop caring about whatever it was that exercised them as students.

3) It's easy to support rights for a particular group in principle with seemingly no consequences, but as you get older you realise that the world is more complicated, and (for example) the trans rights issue becomes more difficult if you're suddenly worried about your daughter being assaulted in a public facility.

I counteract your first point somewhat from personal experience.

My girlfriend is 25, from Ashington, and never went to university and neither did many of her friends.

They don't spend their time discussing pronouns socially, obviously — they're not weirdos, but their views on things like self-ID and BLM are incredibly "woke" and would make some of those here on the right blush. They don't discuss them because they're just normal for them and their age group, it seems.

Maybe they're unusual but I would guess not. They spent their formative years on Facebook groups and watching YouTube influencers, both British and American, where these things are completely normalised.

In some respects, I don't blame them.

If the "worst" you can be now is a straight cisgender white male, and that's all down to self-ID, why on earth would you identify as one if you could avoid it? It could threaten to disadvantages you in your career, and possibly put you on the defensive socially.

You'd need to shield yourself with some individual intersectionality so you don't get targeted - so I might say instead that I'm non-binary, male was just my birth gender and I'm not wedded to it, and emphasise I had family all over the world.

Of course, it's comestic; I'm still interested in girls, but I'm reframing myself to protect my interests in the context of the times.

Astute


It's almost impossible to find a person between 15-20 who self IDs as "straight". Why would you expose yourself like that? Zero Oppression Boxes Ticked, plus you also sound conservative in the most boring way

They all self-ID as "genderqueer, queer, bi-curious, genderfluid" - or whatever. I presume 95% of them are actually straight, as there is no reason gayness or lesbianism should have ten-tupled overnight, as a proportion of society.

And of course the deep irony is that, despite this obsession with sexual identities, they are having much less sex than their parents or maybe grandparents did, at the same age

Wut, literally all of my younger friends "identify" as straight

I'm talking under 20, and I'm talking specifically of my daughters and their friends - 14-15. They ALL claim some letter or other on LGBTQAIPK

Edit: and I am also, I think, talking more of females than males. It is still socially more problematic, I guess, for a boy to pose as gay than for a girl to say she's "genderfluid". This is a guess, however

When I was at school, we all made jokes about so-and-so being "gay" or looking or being "a bit gay" all the time. And that was for males across the political spectrum, including those who were solid Lefties then and are still so today. Even one or two gay teenagers I knew at the time did the same.

None of us thought we were being homophobic at the time, because we weren't - we used "gay" to mean pathetic/crap/stupid. But, we'd obviously never do that today.

Times change.

A gay friend of mine got REALLY angry when I casually described a naff restaurant as "a bit gay"

It occurred to me that he had a good point, and I was possibly skirting around homophobia (which was not my intention). I could have gotten into a long heated debate about "Well you guys stole the word in the first place and you don't own it", but life is too short, really

I have not publicly used it in that way since, and won't - unless lexical fashions change. Which is also possible

Don't the negative connotations of "a bit gay" come from homophobia, though? That's what I always thought - it came about when 'gay' meant 'homosexual' and mainstream opinion was that was a bad thing.

If you'd been referring to the restaurant having a happy and jolly atmosphere, then you'd have had your friend bang to rights with the "you guys stole the word" argument.

I was not even aware that it the word gay meant naff till about 15 years ago, when my step-son got sent home from school for he and his friends laughing at his teacher for being gay. That's when I learned they weren't making fun of him for being homosexual but for being an idiot.

I am surprised the Inbetweeners, which is from that sort of period, hasn't had the old ban hammer outrage bus treatment, as one of the recurring jokes is basically calling stuff gay and that one of the parents is a closeted homosexual and taking the piss out of the son for that and that his dad does "gay" stuff.

Indeed, it was utterly mainstream. This is why I'm so reticent about casting sweeping judgements on people who lived 30, 50, or 100 years ago based on the values of today.

Values can change extremely quickly - they've certainly done so even in my lifetime, and in relation to exactly the same people - and ethics and morals simply aren't that black and white.

Another way of thinking about it is how "we" will be judged by future generations living 50-100 years hence. Because I can absolutely guarantee you their views and perspectives will have moved on too.

I imagine many of the old wokies in their late 20s / early 30s will more than likely have aped The Inbetweeners memes when they were teenagers.

It could go in various directions. They might get critiqued by their kids when they hit their 40s/50s for being "old", "out of date" and "unWoke" - even @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate will age - or, their kids will rebel in the other direction and gasp in astonishment at how their parents ever thought intersectionality and formalising racial stratification, except in reverse, was a good idea.

The only constant is the young generation will think the older ones out of touch! Applies through history.

I am 99% certain we will look back - quite soon - on the advent of Critical Race Theory and the recolorisation of everything as aberrant - and abhorrent.

"What, you obsessed about people's skin colour??""

It's a terrible wrong turning

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

The UK concedes that the EU ambassador in London will have "a status consistent with heads of missions of states, including agrément and presentation of the credentials to the Head of State". That sound you can hear is the screech of tyres in Whitehall...
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045

Who cares?

Brexiteers seemed to care a lot when this first came about a while back. They don't care now though, funnily enough.

Weren't you around for the discussions on this days ago?

The not granting diplomatic status was a petty tit-for-tat for them not ratifying the TCA.

Now they've ratified the TCA, we're granting diplomatic status.

That's how diplomacy works. They remove their tit, we withdraw our tat.

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

The UK concedes that the EU ambassador in London will have "a status consistent with heads of missions of states, including agrément and presentation of the credentials to the Head of State". That sound you can hear is the screech of tyres in Whitehall...
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/97837/united-kingdom-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-and-foreign-secretary-dominic_en
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1389980124926423045

Who cares?

The EU. A lot, apparently.

I genuinely couldn't care a jot. It makes no difference to anyone, except the egos of a few people. And it was a stupid argument to have.

Interestingly, the Trump administration bumped up the the status of the EU Ambassador to the US to full country status in 2019.

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Wait, there could be WAR WITH FRANCE

"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats

The net effect of this, regardless of what happens?

Long-term, we'll simply tap the Channel Island grid into the UK grid.

And redirect some of the power we buy from France?

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Surprisingly little comment on the TND article I posted from the Standard earlier that showed the EU is ready to do a deal to ease SPS standards and the GB-NI border *and* go public on rejecting straightforward ascension of Scotland to the EU.

The EU and Frost are already talking about it.

That means it will happen, and it's just a question of when. So this should be factored into betting.

Given the last few years the sensible course is generally to ignore any whispers coming out of discussions between the UK and the EU, until things actually materialise out of it.

Stocky said:

TOPPING said:

Absolutely crappy weather here. Pissing it down. Am off to have supper with a friend and can't bloody wait. The place has blankets and hot water bottles apparently.

My wife calls dinner supper too. She knows it mildly irritates. Isn''t supper a snackette in front of the telly with a hot drink and slippers type thing? Is this a class thing?

Mind you, in my family we always used to call lunch dinner, so who am I to judge?

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Surprisingly little comment on the TND article I posted from the Standard earlier that showed the EU is ready to do a deal to ease SPS standards and the GB-NI border *and* go public on rejecting straightforward ascension of Scotland to the EU.

The EU and Frost are already talking about it.

That means it will happen, and it's just a question of when. So this should be factored into betting.

I think there's little doubt an independent Scotland could join if it wanted to. May be faster/slower than some are predicting, but I strongly doubt there would be a refusal.

rpjs said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

rpjs said:

Leon said:

Wait, there could be WAR WITH FRANCE

"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats

Calling Rear-Adm HYUFD to get HMS Epping Forest out of dry-dock!

HMS Victory could be pressed back into service, with a bit of refurbishment. A Johnson administration speciality IIRC.

HMS Victory never left service. She is still under commission and is the flagship of the First Sea Lord.

kle4 said:

rpjs said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

rpjs said:

Leon said:

Wait, there could be WAR WITH FRANCE

"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats

Calling Rear-Adm HYUFD to get HMS Epping Forest out of dry-dock!

HMS Victory could be pressed back into service, with a bit of refurbishment. A Johnson administration speciality IIRC.

HMS Victory never left service. She is still under commission and is the flagship of the First Sea Lord.

I hope other countries do the same, and we can put it out to sea against whatever Admiral Yi's flagship was called for sport.

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.

Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence

The other major historical difference was that the Scots were not the colonised and oppressed but the colonisers and the oppressors. They loved it! The British Empire was disproportionately Scottish. Their universities turned out huge numbers of enthusiastic colonialists and their regiments provided the muscle. For them to now claim they were the oppressed like Ireland is an insult to every non-Unionist Irishman

That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.

And then there's this:

https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1389919525731250183?s=20

That is as chilling as it is grotesque. Reminds me of the Wicker Man. The schoolkids torturing the beetle


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SX3lSN9NIY

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.

Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence

The other major historical difference was that the Scots were not the colonised and oppressed but the colonisers and the oppressors. They loved it! The British Empire was disproportionately Scottish. Their universities turned out huge numbers of enthusiastic colonialists and their regiments provided the muscle. For them to now claim they were the oppressed like Ireland is an insult to every non-Unionist Irishman

That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.

And then there's this:

https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1389919525731250183?s=20

That is as chilling as it is grotesque. Reminds me of the Wicker Man. The schoolkids torturing the beetle


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SX3lSN9NIY

You know it's all about 'civic nationalism' when they keeping invoking William Wallace.

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.

Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence

The other major historical difference was that the Scots were not the colonised and oppressed but the colonisers and the oppressors. They loved it! The British Empire was disproportionately Scottish. Their universities turned out huge numbers of enthusiastic colonialists and their regiments provided the muscle. For them to now claim they were the oppressed like Ireland is an insult to every non-Unionist Irishman

That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.

And then there's this:

https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1389919525731250183?s=20

That is as chilling as it is grotesque. Reminds me of the Wicker Man. The schoolkids torturing the beetle


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SX3lSN9NIY

You know it's all about 'civic nationalism' when they keeping invoking William Wallace.

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Leon is correct, this is not the same as the American colonies before the War of Independence who had demanded 'no taxation without representation' and had no MPs in the House of Commons. India also lacked MPs before it got independence in 1947.

Scotland elects MPs and also has some Home Rule too now via Holyrood which Ireland lacked before the Irish War of Independence

The other major historical difference was that the Scots were not the colonised and oppressed but the colonisers and the oppressors. They loved it! The British Empire was disproportionately Scottish. Their universities turned out huge numbers of enthusiastic colonialists and their regiments provided the muscle. For them to now claim they were the oppressed like Ireland is an insult to every non-Unionist Irishman

That's not the way my kid's school teaches it. At least not these days.

And then there's this:

https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1389919525731250183?s=20

That is as chilling as it is grotesque. Reminds me of the Wicker Man. The schoolkids torturing the beetle


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SX3lSN9NIY

You know it's all about 'civic nationalism' when they keeping invoking William Wallace.

The Nats are trying to contextualise it, by saying Oh it was probably part of a play, or an assembly, about Wallace

Not understanding that even then it is wholly unacceptable, when the Scottish nation is bitterly divided over this incendiary issue. You don't make kids chant "Scottish independence!" again and again on a stage, at the rest of the school.

They are imposing a false narrative of Scottish victimisation at the hands of the English, inculcating it into the kids from the age of about 6

Yuk

rpjs said:

kle4 said:

rpjs said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

rpjs said:

Leon said:

Wait, there could be WAR WITH FRANCE

"French fishers threaten to blockade Jersey ports as row escalates"



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats

Calling Rear-Adm HYUFD to get HMS Epping Forest out of dry-dock!

HMS Victory could be pressed back into service, with a bit of refurbishment. A Johnson administration speciality IIRC.

HMS Victory never left service. She is still under commission and is the flagship of the First Sea Lord.

I hope other countries do the same, and we can put it out to sea against whatever Admiral Yi's flagship was called for sport.

The US Navy would have an advantage as their oldest commissioned warship, the USS Constitution, is still afloat.

Leon said:

Who knew that about 5 months after Brexit the French would be blockading a British island and trying to starve the people into submission, in a row about scallops?

Come on, who knew that. No one knew that. Brilliant

El_Capitano said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, I think Michael is right to highlight the threat to the LibDems from the Greens. This is the first time since the early 1990s that the Greens are making a real push in the local elections, and they are helped by the fact that there is very little traditional canvassing this year.

I suspect that this is going to make the LDs job very difficult this year.

The smart LDs and Greens are working together.

That's happening both above the radar (one party standing down) and below the radar (not bothering to campaign) here in Oxfordshire. But I've seen signs of it elsewhere - I've just seen a northern Green candidate approvingly tweet an interview with his supposed LD rival in an LD/Labour marginal.

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrankBooth said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FrankBooth said:

RochdalePioneers said:

LostPassword said:

FrankBooth said:

I would like a patriotic Scot to explain to me what benefit there would be in holding another referendum just 7 years after the last very divisive referendum when all the polls indicate that Scotland is split down the middle and whilst we are attempting to recover from a health and economic disaster.

As a committed Unionist the case is very clear - the referendum in 2014 was fought, in part, on a falsehood, that only by voting No would Scotland remain in the EU.

There is therefore an understandable bitterness that the 2016 referendum has resulted in Scotland leaving the EU. Another referendum would be a chance to settle the question of whether that was sufficient for voters to choose Independence or renew the mandate for the Union in the new circumstances created by Brexit.

I don't think the English living in England get the fundamental self-determination question. Scotland has been dragged out of something it voted to not be dragged out of, it has caused economic damage and the government is saying tough. Whats then worse is that the government is saying that it has the legal right to do whatever it likes in and to Scotland and that the Scottish people have no ability to do anything about it.

The union - in the sense of being a union of equals and not an annexation like NI and Wales are - is dead. That is why there must be another referendum. Everything has changed since 2014. Literally everything.

I would prefer a new constitutional settlement to create a federation that is fit for the future. But as we aren't going to get that Scotland and NI and potentially Wales are going to get a divorce.

So there must be another referendum even if there isn't a clear majority who want one? Scots are being oppressed whether they realise it or not.

If people elect a majority of MSPs on a manifesto of independence that is the literal definition of wanting one. We have a representative democracy not one based on opinion polls or even national vote tallies in elections - all that counts is who gets elected.

If I vote SNP or Green or Alba tomorrow I vote for an independence referendum. It is explicit in their manifestos. I won't vote for them, but more of their MSPs will get elected than those opposed to independence. It is - to retread the Brexit line - the will of the people.

It is a reserved power. The UK government has every right to say you had a referendum just seven years ago. By your logic every time there is a majority for independent parties they should be allowed to hold another referendum. Leaving the EU may represent a substantial change but I still don't see the case for another referendum unless there is overwhelming support for it. It doesn't appear that there is.

Yes every time there's a majority for a party, that party gets to implement its manifesto. That's called democracy.

If the Scottish voters don't want that manifesto, they can elect a different party instead.

There is a way to tell if there is a "case for another referendum" or not, and that is whether those pledging one win a majority at an election or not.

So they are allowed "one referendum" per parliament? Or can they have one every two years? Every month?

What are the rules? There aren't any. Your pulling it your ass.

The power to approve referendums is reserved to Westminster for a reason, no state can withstand the constitutional and economic chaos of endless referendums threatening to break up the country - and plunging everyone - not just Scotland - into deep recession and a decade of bitter arguments.

It is commonly accepted that grave constitutional matters - and it doesn't get bigger than shattering the UK - should be addressed by very rare referendums. We had two EU votes in forty-odd years.

The rules are that elected governments decide what they're going to do, which they put to the voters at elections. If a government chooses to have two referenda in a Parliament I wouldn't support that if they didn't have that in their manifesto, but if they're the elected government that's their choice. If the voters don't like it, they should elect a different government.

As for "commonly accepted" it should be rare - by whom?

As for the example of having only two referenda on the EU in forty-odd years, many would argue (including me) that in hindsight that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Had we followed the Irish path of having a referendum every step of the way - on the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Nice, Lisbon etc - then things might have gone better than letting it all boil until an explosive vote to terminate the union instead.

Yes, we should have had referendums at earlier stages of our EU membership, thus avoiding the eruption of Brexit

Yes, 40 years is too long to wait for a 2nd referendum, a generation is about right (as Nicola said) = 15-20 years

Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd vote

Roll on Sindyref2 in about 2030?

I actually think that's roughly when it will happen. 2030

That's up to the Scottish voters. If the Scottish voters don't want a referendum they have the choice not to elect a government pledging one, it isn't difficult.

The Quebecois had another one when they elected a government pledging one.

The issue is you are saying that the only reason for voting SNP is you want a referendum. There could be good reasons for think they would be a better Scottish government than the alternatives and voting for them on that basis.