I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
Good article. I have had similar musings on Citizens of Nowhere and the effect of the Internet and Social Media on the national question.
Benedict Anderson in his influential book "Imagined Communities" linked the rise of the nation state to the rise of a national press, and increased literacy. Communication as the spark to nationalism.
That is now history. On this board I can argue politics with people on different continents, while my neighbours watch either Al Jazeera or satellite TV from India. I can read the Rand Daily Mail as easily as the British one.
On my travels, I note that middle class and professional people are increasingly alike and internationalisd. We have common interests and aspirations and similar lifestyles. It's not just deluxe hotels serving gin and tonics to ageing roues that have become homogeneous.
Is this the end of the Westphalian nation state? Or simply a return to what existed before? A return to polyglot multicultural empires, where loyalty was to class and individual, where French, German, Italian and British nobles felt more in common with each other than with the peasants that they ruled.
In other words are we back under the Hapsburgs, Ottomans, Aztecs and Manchus?
Those polyglot empires make the basic functioning of democracy much more difficult. It is no surprise that democracy started in well defined city states, was preserved in a debased form in geographically delimited Kingdoms and republics and, as Viewcode points out, was only really able to flourish after the Westphalian Treaties.
Blair wanted an end to the Westphalian Settlement. What he was actually pushing for - though I don't accuse him of knowingly doing this - was an end to functional democracy.
That was one of the issues with the EU - without a common demos a functioning democracy is far harder
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
The island status does mae a difference, I think, illustrated by the fact that (I think) most people feel pretty indifferent about Northern Ireland but would be alienated by a proposal to merge Wales with Ireland.
But at some level the importance of the nation state has declined, perhaps reflecting the interconnectedness of countries economically.
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
Judging by the chanting of usa neanderthal soldiers in Greenland in Vance's visit I wouldn't be sure that the military would think again.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
I'm in this camp, I have close friends all over the world, my family includes people with origins outside of the UK, but I am also deeply rooted in my local community, through school, through voluntary groups, through community arts projects, just from being neighbours. I also have family and friends spread over most parts of the UK. Being British doesn't mean being insular. And having an international mindset doesn't mean I've forgotten where I come from, or have turned my back on my own community. I think this nowhere vs somewhere stuff obscures rather than illuminates.
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
The Danish foreign minister has basically said the US can have as big a military presence on Greenland as it wants.
Justin Welby not a very sharp tool. Kuenssberg asks the q do you forgive the abuser John Smythe, after a pause Welby answers yes. He then goes on to say it’s not really for him to forgive but for the victims (which should be his only answer). Guess which part the BBC news bulletin is leading with.
Forgiveness being a fundamental part of the Christian religious concept of course…
Nice piece @viewcode - thanks. Personally I still believe in the nation, as defined by a mishmash of shared culture, history, principles and interests. And I still believe that the nation state is the best way of protecting and advancing the interests of the people who belong to that nation. Nations aren't immutable, but nor are they mutable without some remarkable effort. (Could Europe or CANZUK be a nation? My answer would be yes, but not without an effort of will on the part of those bodies constituent peoples, and the barriers to doing so (of disparate language/culture or disparate geography) are strong - but there is no better nation builder than an external threat or two, which is what Europe and CANZUK currently face. Clearly the nation state faces some headwinds, but it's been here before (e.g. political ideology or religion as a primary unifier of interests).
I think the digital nomad aspect is overstated. Most of us aren't travel writers. We're joiners or dinner ladies or some other job which requires our physical presence. Even those of us with office jobs find it convenient to be in an appropriate geography - those of us who moved to the Isle of Muck during Covid to work remotely henceforth have found our professional lives more inconvenient than we thought would be the case. And we are rooted in communities - most of us have friends and family whom it is pleasant and convenient to be close to. Community is, after all, the building block of nationhood.
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
The Danish foreign minister has basically said the US can have as big a military presence on Greenland as it wants.
That's always been the case. The US argument is not that they need to have more military assets in Greenland, it's that Greenland should be US territory. Denmark can't let that happen without the genuine consent of the people of Greenland.
Good article. I have had similar musings on Citizens of Nowhere and the effect of the Internet and Social Media on the national question.
Benedict Anderson in his influential book "Imagined Communities" linked the rise of the nation state to the rise of a national press, and increased literacy. Communication as the spark to nationalism.
That is now history. On this board I can argue politics with people on different continents, while my neighbours watch either Al Jazeera or satellite TV from India. I can read the Rand Daily Mail as easily as the British one.
On my travels, I note that middle class and professional people are increasingly alike and internationalisd. We have common interests and aspirations and similar lifestyles. It's not just deluxe hotels serving gin and tonics to ageing roues that have become homogeneous.
Is this the end of the Westphalian nation state? Or simply a return to what existed before? A return to polyglot multicultural empires, where loyalty was to class and individual, where French, German, Italian and British nobles felt more in common with each other than with the peasants that they ruled.
In other words are we back under the Hapsburgs, Ottomans, Aztecs and Manchus?
Those polyglot empires make the basic functioning of democracy much more difficult. It is no surprise that democracy started in well defined city states, was preserved in a debased form in geographically delimited Kingdoms and republics and, as Viewcode points out, was only really able to flourish after the Westphalian Treaties.
Blair wanted an end to the Westphalian Settlement. What he was actually pushing for - though I don't accuse him of knowingly doing this - was an end to functional democracy.
That was one of the issues with the EU - without a common demos a functioning democracy is far harder
The problem comes because the promise of democracy.
Th great and the good feel that they shouldn’t necessarily prioritise the people of their nominal country. The Head Count find this attitude rude.
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
The Danish foreign minister has basically said the US can have as big a military presence on Greenland as it wants.
That's always been the case. The US argument is not that they need to have more military assets in Greenland, it's that Greenland should be US territory. Denmark can't let that happen without the genuine consent of the people of Greenland.
They only need to send 60,000 personnel for the majority of the people of Greenland to be Americans.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
The island status does mae a difference, I think, illustrated by the fact that (I think) most people feel pretty indifferent about Northern Ireland but would be alienated by a proposal to merge Wales with Ireland.
But at some level the importance of the nation state has declined, perhaps reflecting the interconnectedness of countries economically.
And in some respects it hasn’t. As Ukraine demonstrates.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
Mmm. I'm a bit unusual as I mostly grew up abroad, but speaking politically I have real difficulty caring about local issues - potholes, traffic lights, views - and the low turnout at local elections suggests that's not unique. I think we all vary how "local" we feel, but it's been in steady decline since mass media became nearly universal, so that the news rightly leads with deaths from earthquakes in Asia rather than changes in speed limits in Surrey. It's a subtle, very gradual, process, but a real one for many.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
One Nation isn’t about geography though - it was Dizzy’s attempt modernise the Conservative Party by taking a large step towards the Whiggish paternalist tradition and away from the thuggish Ultras.
Sadly our own Ultras are running rampant at the moment but it is, and always has been, a cul de sac. You need to engage with the world as it is, not how you wish it used to be.
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
Not with Christian Nationalist Pete Hegseth as Defence Secretary.
I would say, firstly, that it is an economic unit that supports those within its community that are in need. Being British, for example, entitles you to a range of benefits from welfare, the NHS, cleanish water, disposal of sewerage, some sort of an education and the great British tradition of a right to moan about it all.
Much of the argument is at the margins. Who has the right to join us? What are they entitled to when they do and at what stage? Are we content to have multiculturism or are we wanting a more homogeneous sense of unity with the restrictions that imposes?
Such a nation state serves a useful purpose for almost all of us at different stages of our lives and some pride as well as some angst in how our particular unit operates is a part of human nature. A world without it would be much harsher, no doubt more comfortable for the better off, better skilled and more mobile but nasty, brutish and short for the majority.
Increasingly the Broligarchy is opting out of the nation state, gutting US government services in order to drop their taxes even lower.
Similarly there is the issue with companies making fortunes out of the British consumer, but paying next to no tax here.
It's a bit like the aristocracy being tax exempt in pre-revolutionary France.
And what happened to the French aristocracy?
Indeed. At some point the Broligarchy will realise that the people they are screwing all have guns
Hattie Jacques: What do you stand for? Kenneth Williams: SFA. Hattie Jacques: Oh, come on, you must stand for something. Kenneth Williams: Yes, SFA, Save the French Aristocracy.
From Don't Lose Your Head, the only Carry On film that didn't have 'Carry On' in the title.
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
When first mooted, it was widely mocked as a ridiculous idea. Which it is.
But for whatever reason, an ageing Trump has fixated on it, and the entire US right is now trying to rationalise it as both essential to US interests, and completely justified.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Good article. I have had similar musings on Citizens of Nowhere and the effect of the Internet and Social Media on the national question.
Benedict Anderson in his influential book "Imagined Communities" linked the rise of the nation state to the rise of a national press, and increased literacy. Communication as the spark to nationalism.
That is now history. On this board I can argue politics with people on different continents, while my neighbours watch either Al Jazeera or satellite TV from India. I can read the Rand Daily Mail as easily as the British one.
On my travels, I note that middle class and professional people are increasingly alike and internationalisd. We have common interests and aspirations and similar lifestyles. It's not just deluxe hotels serving gin and tonics to ageing roues that have become homogeneous.
Is this the end of the Westphalian nation state? Or simply a return to what existed before? A return to polyglot multicultural empires, where loyalty was to class and individual, where French, German, Italian and British nobles felt more in common with each other than with the peasants that they ruled.
In other words are we back under the Hapsburgs, Ottomans, Aztecs and Manchus?
Those polyglot empires make the basic functioning of democracy much more difficult. It is no surprise that democracy started in well defined city states, was preserved in a debased form in geographically delimited Kingdoms and republics and, as Viewcode points out, was only really able to flourish after the Westphalian Treaties.
Blair wanted an end to the Westphalian Settlement. What he was actually pushing for - though I don't accuse him of knowingly doing this - was an end to functional democracy.
No, the EU was simply democracy on a larger scale. I appreciate that you never felt loyalty to the EU, but many of us did, and I was personally affronted when my European identity was stripped away, and that was true for many other Britons.
Nationality has never been the be all and end all, whether within Empire or in other international bodies like the UN or NATO.
Parochialism has been an absolute curse in this country. I blame our chauvanistic history books that told us we won the war which became ingrained into a generation who are now old but still around.
Worse in the US.
@NOELreports 🇺🇸 Fox News host Jesse Watters: “We don’t need friends. If we have to burn some bridges with Denmark to take Greenland, so be it. We’re big boys. We dropped bombs on Japan, and now they’re our ally. America isn’t handcuffed by history.” https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1905927108712386791
I think this remains Trump's greatest strategic mistake of perception, and the false assumption which will lead him to attempt to follow through on the creation of a new USA which will not stand.
He (and his mushrooms like Jesse Watters) are running helter-skelter towards a vision of the USA which only exists in their head. Trump has an idea from earlier in his life of the USA as globally predominant, which has not been true for several decades, depending how it is measured.
They will imo eventually wake up and realised that, having believed they can be isolationist and dominant and extort everyone, having burnt down all their accumulated political capital and their relationships with all and sundry, the world has reorganised to isolate them.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
Not with Christian Nationalist Pete Hegseth as Defence Secretary.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
It would be nice if living in the UK were something to aspire to, and consequently life in the North was appreciably better than life in the south. Then there wouldn't be a push for reunification, except perhaps the other way.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
It has ever been thus and yet the nation state has endured as the most stable system we have for ensuring democracy.
They will imo eventually wake up and realised that, having believed they can be isolationist and dominant and extort everyone, having burnt down all their accumulated political capital and their relationships with all and sundry, the world has reorganised to isolate them.
I think there was a quote from Musk recently along the lines of "America is the pillar holding up the rest of the World"
If that is true in any sense, it's ironic that he is the one attacking that pillar with a chainsaw
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Which curently looks to be the most likely outcome. I will add 'unfortiunately' as someone who would like to see reunification.
Good article. I have had similar musings on Citizens of Nowhere and the effect of the Internet and Social Media on the national question.
Benedict Anderson in his influential book "Imagined Communities" linked the rise of the nation state to the rise of a national press, and increased literacy. Communication as the spark to nationalism.
That is now history. On this board I can argue politics with people on different continents, while my neighbours watch either Al Jazeera or satellite TV from India. I can read the Rand Daily Mail as easily as the British one.
On my travels, I note that middle class and professional people are increasingly alike and internationalisd. We have common interests and aspirations and similar lifestyles. It's not just deluxe hotels serving gin and tonics to ageing roues that have become homogeneous.
Is this the end of the Westphalian nation state? Or simply a return to what existed before? A return to polyglot multicultural empires, where loyalty was to class and individual, where French, German, Italian and British nobles felt more in common with each other than with the peasants that they ruled.
In other words are we back under the Hapsburgs, Ottomans, Aztecs and Manchus?
Those polyglot empires make the basic functioning of democracy much more difficult. It is no surprise that democracy started in well defined city states, was preserved in a debased form in geographically delimited Kingdoms and republics and, as Viewcode points out, was only really able to flourish after the Westphalian Treaties.
Blair wanted an end to the Westphalian Settlement. What he was actually pushing for - though I don't accuse him of knowingly doing this - was an end to functional democracy.
No, the EU was simply democracy on a larger scale. I appreciate that you never felt loyalty to the EU, but many of us did, and I was personally affronted when my European identity was stripped away, and that was true for many other Britons.
Nationality has never been the be all and end all, whether within Empire or in other international bodies like the UN or NATO.
I wasn't talking only about the EU. But no, it did not function as a proper democracy should and never will.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
It has ever been thus and yet the nation state has endured as the most stable system we have for ensuring democracy.
It ceases to be stable if you open its borders too much.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
It would be nice if living in the UK were something to aspire to, and consequently life in the North was appreciably better than life in the south. Then there wouldn't be a push for reunification, except perhaps the other way.
People are voting on emotional lines not economic. A sense of community is not driven by money
Good article. I have had similar musings on Citizens of Nowhere and the effect of the Internet and Social Media on the national question.
Benedict Anderson in his influential book "Imagined Communities" linked the rise of the nation state to the rise of a national press, and increased literacy. Communication as the spark to nationalism.
That is now history. On this board I can argue politics with people on different continents, while my neighbours watch either Al Jazeera or satellite TV from India. I can read the Rand Daily Mail as easily as the British one.
On my travels, I note that middle class and professional people are increasingly alike and internationalisd. We have common interests and aspirations and similar lifestyles. It's not just deluxe hotels serving gin and tonics to ageing roues that have become homogeneous.
Is this the end of the Westphalian nation state? Or simply a return to what existed before? A return to polyglot multicultural empires, where loyalty was to class and individual, where French, German, Italian and British nobles felt more in common with each other than with the peasants that they ruled.
In other words are we back under the Hapsburgs, Ottomans, Aztecs and Manchus?
Those polyglot empires make the basic functioning of democracy much more difficult. It is no surprise that democracy started in well defined city states, was preserved in a debased form in geographically delimited Kingdoms and republics and, as Viewcode points out, was only really able to flourish after the Westphalian Treaties.
Blair wanted an end to the Westphalian Settlement. What he was actually pushing for - though I don't accuse him of knowingly doing this - was an end to functional democracy.
No, the EU was simply democracy on a larger scale. I appreciate that you never felt loyalty to the EU, but many of us did, and I was personally affronted when my European identity was stripped away, and that was true for many other Britons.
Nationality has never been the be all and end all, whether within Empire or in other international bodies like the UN or NATO.
No one took away your European identity. the EU was not Europe and being in or out of it makes you no more or less European. For all that it matters, I was personally affronted when I was forced to be an EU citizen - a member of an organisation I actively opposed and which I viewed then and now as being thoroughly undemocratic.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
Back in Victorian times many of the big industrialists DID live in, or close to, the communities in which they made their money.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
It has ever been thus and yet the nation state has endured as the most stable system we have for ensuring democracy.
It ceases to be stable if you open its borders too much.
Is Luxembourg unstable? They have extremely open borders.
Russia, meanwhile, has closed borders and seems much less stable.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Yes, not only is the UK based on consent in principle, but also in practice - I don't think there would be more than a tiny minority in the mainland who would emotionally regret NI going its own way. Scotland is more vexed: most of us English have been to Scotland, and because for most of us this has been 'on holiday' we are emotionally attached to it. Scotland is more recognisably part of our mental map of 'our' country. Yet while many of us may regret Scotland departing, very few would dispute the principle of the Scots' freedom to choose. I don't think we really recognise how unusual, by international standards, this position is.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
It has ever been thus and yet the nation state has endured as the most stable system we have for ensuring democracy.
It ceases to be stable if you open its borders too much.
Is Luxembourg unstable? They have extremely open borders.
Russia, meanwhile, has closed borders and seems much less stable.
Luxembourg has strong mental borders. French people are very much "them", not "us".
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
The island status does mae a difference, I think, illustrated by the fact that (I think) most people feel pretty indifferent about Northern Ireland but would be alienated by a proposal to merge Wales with Ireland.
But at some level the importance of the nation state has declined, perhaps reflecting the interconnectedness of countries economically.
I disagree. In the examples you give it is not that the importance of the Nation State has decliend but rather that for many of us, the rights of self determination are more important than any particular arrangment of the Nation State.
So if Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or Cornwall want to be independent or if they want to become part of another Nation State then we should support them in that aspiration. That doesn't unermine the Nation State. If anything it strengthens it.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
Back in Victorian times many of the big industrialists DID live in, or close to, the communities in which they made their money.
Only becuase they brought those communities to them. They literally built the towns and cities that fed their factories and which, inevitably, tended to close to their own estates.
Note that the wildly inaccurate measurements claimed by the lab for the quality control sample are very similar to the ones reported for Baby L.
The jury were instructed that they could rely on their assessment of the use of insulin by Letby to poison baby L & F to inform their opinion of her guilt in all the other deaths or injuries. They were also instructed that they could rely on the lab’s assessment of the insulin / C-peptide in the blood samples by the judge in his summing up.
If the insulin tests were as wildly inaccurate as claimed, then the entire prosecution falls apart I think? The cross-admissibility instruction makes the rest of the convictions unsafe.
The problem with that article is that it is high on hyperbole, and light on data. "Multiple false readings" sounds terrible... But is it multiple false readings over tens of tests, or millions of tests? Without that information, it's hard to get a handle on whether it is likely that the insulin - c-peptide levels measured were likely the result of measurement error (and there were no murders), or not.
A fair criticism. But if you send a bunch of tests to a lab & one of them comes back out by a factor of eight then it’s utility as a forensic test is surely fatally compromised?
At the very least, the jury should have been accurately informed of what level of confidence they should place in the insulin / C-peptide tests. Instead the judge told them they could have absolute confidence in the reported values.
A factor of ten out is no where near large enough to account for the imbalance of insulin and c peptide in the baby.
"Blood samples taken from Child F returned an "extremely high" insulin level of 4,657 and a very low C-peptide level of less than 169, indicating synthetic insulin was in his system."
The C peptide would naturally be higher than the insulin. It would take an assay to be 2 orders of magnitude out to explain the result.
@Foxy Just replying to this late (was out at the opera last night) because I think it needs highlighting.
In the linked Unherd article the QC sample was reported by the lab shortly after the Letby samples were analysed as having a C-Peptide level that was much too low: 130 instead of the real value 873.5. That’s a factor of ~7 difference in C-peptide levels.
You (& the court) have placed great weight on the difference between C-peptide & insulin levels as being of primary importance in this case, yet it seems that this assay / lab can & has returned false results where the C-peptide / insulin ratio is completely wrong & wrong with the kind of ratios reported in the Letby case.
It’s possible that this was a one-off mis-handling of the QC sample of course. I would really like to see an explanation of how these wild mis-readings in both insulin & c-peptide can happen & why that would not apply to the babies in this case. Otherwise it seems that the reliability of this central evidence has been undermined - the jury should have been told that false readings of the levels they were being told about were entirely possible.
Even a c peptide of 873 would be strongly indicative of synthetic rather than endogenous insulin.
Also there is no obvious reason in the patients history to suddenly have hypoglycemia unresponsive to dextrose infusion. People don't suddenly and randomly produce such surges of natural insulin.
Criminal cases are decided on many pieces of evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt, but not unreasonable doubt.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
It has ever been thus and yet the nation state has endured as the most stable system we have for ensuring democracy.
It ceases to be stable if you open its borders too much.
No it doesn't. Except at the most extreme. A country like Norway with many times the immigrant population of the UK is as stable, if not more stable, than we are.
NB. On the Matter of Britain: I recently enjoyed reading Rosemary Sutcliffe’s retelling of the Arthurian legends “Sword at Sunset”. The book is a realist telling of events that might have inspired the legends - small warbands & conflicts between the Britons & the Saxons that play out over decade. The characters keep their original, Saxon, names: Yseult, Bedwyr, Cei, etc.
The book opens with a poem by Francis Brett Young taken from a work that was published during WWII & was apparently immensely popular at the time, although it seems to have fallen from the canon since. A few stanzas in the middle of this poem sets the tone for Sutcliffe’s book (and probably explains the poem’s wartime popularity):
“Hic Jacet Arthurus, Rex Quondam Rexque Futurus”
...
Nor pry too deeply, lest you should discover The bower of Astolat a smoky hut Of mud and wattle – find the knightliest lover A braggart, and his Lily Maid a slut;
And all that coloured tale a tapestry Woven by poets. As the spider’s skeins Are spun of its own substance, so have they Embroidered empty legend – What remains?
This: That Rome fell, like a writhen oak That age had sapped and cankered at the root, Resistant, from her topmost bough there broke The miracle of one unwithering shoot
Which was the spirit of Britain – that certain men Uncouth, untutored, of our island brood Loved freedom better than their lives; and when The tempest crashed around them, rose and stood
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
Back in Victorian times many of the big industrialists DID live in, or close to, the communities in which they made their money.
While some of these were notable in providing sound communities for their workers, such as Cadbury in Bourneville, others were happy for their workers to live in squalor and be uneducated, such as many mine and mill owners. Sound communities cannot rely on the charitable whims of the rich.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
Back in Victorian times many of the big industrialists DID live in, or close to, the communities in which they made their money.
Only becuase they brought those communities to them. They literally built the towns and cities that fed their factories and which, inevitably, tended to close to their own estates.
True in some cases but many of the industrialists were local men who 'made good'.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
It has ever been thus and yet the nation state has endured as the most stable system we have for ensuring democracy.
It ceases to be stable if you open its borders too much.
No it doesn't. Except at the most extreme. A country like Norway with many times the immigrant population of the UK is as stable, if not more stable, than we are.
They don't give everyone in the Commonwealth the right to vote.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
Back in Victorian times many of the big industrialists DID live in, or close to, the communities in which they made their money.
While some of these were notable in providing sound communities for their workers, such as Cadbury in Bourneville, others were happy for their workers to live in squalor and be uneducated, such as many mine and mill owners. Sound communities cannot rely on the charitable whims of the rich.
That wasn't my point; I agree that there was, for many of those men (and they generally were) a policy of "pull up the ladder, Jack; I'm all right!"
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
The island status does mae a difference, I think, illustrated by the fact that (I think) most people feel pretty indifferent about Northern Ireland but would be alienated by a proposal to merge Wales with Ireland.
But at some level the importance of the nation state has declined, perhaps reflecting the interconnectedness of countries economically.
I disagree. In the examples you give it is not that the importance of the Nation State has decliend but rather that for many of us, the rights of self determination are more important than any particular arrangment of the Nation State.
So if Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or Cornwall want to be independent or if they want to become part of another Nation State then we should support them in that aspiration. That doesn't unermine the Nation State. If anything it strengthens it.
Far from it, the recent wars in Europe in the Balkans and now between Russia and Ukraine are the direct result of smaller states breaking away from previous unions of states. See also the conflicts between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the tensions between China and Taiwan etc.
You can argue a case for self determination but there is certainly no guarantee it leads to peace and prosperity, indeed often the opposite
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
It has ever been thus and yet the nation state has endured as the most stable system we have for ensuring democracy.
It ceases to be stable if you open its borders too much.
Is Luxembourg unstable? They have extremely open borders.
Russia, meanwhile, has closed borders and seems much less stable.
Luxembourg has strong mental borders. French people are very much "them", not "us".
Great, so “mental borders” are what matters, not border/immigration policies.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Yes, not only is the UK based on consent in principle, but also in practice - I don't think there would be more than a tiny minority in the mainland who would emotionally regret NI going its own way. Scotland is more vexed: most of us English have been to Scotland, and because for most of us this has been 'on holiday' we are emotionally attached to it. Scotland is more recognisably part of our mental map of 'our' country. Yet while many of us may regret Scotland departing, very few would dispute the principle of the Scots' freedom to choose. I don't think we really recognise how unusual, by international standards, this position is.
The UK government now has refused the Scottish government indyref2, the Spanish government continues to refuse the Catalan nationalist government even one independence referendum.
The Canadian government did allow a second independence vote for Quebec but only 15 years after the first
Good article. I have had similar musings on Citizens of Nowhere and the effect of the Internet and Social Media on the national question.
Benedict Anderson in his influential book "Imagined Communities" linked the rise of the nation state to the rise of a national press, and increased literacy. Communication as the spark to nationalism.
That is now history. On this board I can argue politics with people on different continents, while my neighbours watch either Al Jazeera or satellite TV from India. I can read the Rand Daily Mail as easily as the British one.
On my travels, I note that middle class and professional people are increasingly alike and internationalisd. We have common interests and aspirations and similar lifestyles. It's not just deluxe hotels serving gin and tonics to ageing roues that have become homogeneous.
Is this the end of the Westphalian nation state? Or simply a return to what existed before? A return to polyglot multicultural empires, where loyalty was to class and individual, where French, German, Italian and British nobles felt more in common with each other than with the peasants that they ruled.
In other words are we back under the Hapsburgs, Ottomans, Aztecs and Manchus?
Those polyglot empires make the basic functioning of democracy much more difficult. It is no surprise that democracy started in well defined city states, was preserved in a debased form in geographically delimited Kingdoms and republics and, as Viewcode points out, was only really able to flourish after the Westphalian Treaties.
Blair wanted an end to the Westphalian Settlement. What he was actually pushing for - though I don't accuse him of knowingly doing this - was an end to functional democracy.
That was one of the issues with the EU - without a common demos a functioning democracy is far harder
Though the recent actions of Putin and Trump have probably strengthened the idea of a common demos.
Justin Welby not a very sharp tool. Kuenssberg asks the q do you forgive the abuser John Smythe, after a pause Welby answers yes. He then goes on to say it’s not really for him to forgive but for the victims (which should be his only answer). Guess which part the BBC news bulletin is leading with.
Forgiveness being a fundamental part of the Christian religious concept of course…
Indeed but only if the sinner repents which Smyth can't as he is dead and no evidence he did in life either
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
That 20% will though include large numbers of ex UVF and LVF loyalist terrorists and paramilitaries as the IRA also drew substantial numbers of recruits for decades pre GFA despite only representing a small minority of Northern Irish peope
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
It would be nice if living in the UK were something to aspire to, and consequently life in the North was appreciably better than life in the south. Then there wouldn't be a push for reunification, except perhaps the other way.
Since polling started, there has always been a chunk of the Nationalist community that states they would vote No on unification.
They were always present, even in the membership of SF at the time of the Armalite-and-ballot box approach.
They are still there.
Surprisingly little research has been done on motivations. Abortion and the U.K. welfare state have been offered as explanations.
I think hanging the death of the nation state on the transience of a few high flyers and on social media interactions ignores that everyone, even most of the high flyers, live in their communities, send their children to school, work with people in their own communities. Each of these has extended and internationalised - I find my community online more than in the pub, I work with international colleagues to a far greater extent, but at the end of the day, the localisation of my interactions on PB, on social media, through my kids particularly, at work is still pretty strong. Yes, Musk and perhaps Leon overarch that - but Musk has an unusual domestic setup even for a top executive, those people always travelled and often have a spouse who acted in a supporting role, more rooted in a given place. Even Leon, broadly footloose and fancy free, were I to meet him, I know the places that would likely be, particularly as my daughter seems to share a lot of the thoughts processes as his.
But the shareholders of the company don’t live in the same communities, don’t send their children to the same schools, as the customers of the corporations they hold shares in. Something that turns a big profit but is bad for the customers’ community is chosen over something that turns a smaller profit but supports a local community.
It has ever been thus and yet the nation state has endured as the most stable system we have for ensuring democracy.
It ceases to be stable if you open its borders too much.
Is Luxembourg unstable? They have extremely open borders.
Russia, meanwhile, has closed borders and seems much less stable.
Luxembourg has strong mental borders. French people are very much "them", not "us".
Great, so “mental borders” are what matters, not border/immigration policies.
Are you really conceding that point because it's a very Konstantin Kisin view of the world.
It's one thing to allow people to move to a country, but another to say that they are "as x as the x".
Here's a question for Dr. Foxy: Can you give me any examples of significant policy changes by the EU, following an election. I am not trying to be provocative; if there have been, I would like to know about them.
And a second question: How high was the participation in EU elections? Did it increase, or decrease over time?
In between dropping atomic bombs and becoming allies, Japan surrendered and was occupied by the US for 7 years. Is that the plan for former European allies and Canada? Sounds expensive.
I doubt that any real thinking about "what next" has occurred, because if it had I think that none of this nonsense would be happening.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
I hope Democratic World leaders are thinking about this; the Canadian leaders will be.
It's a bit of a Knot of Gordion, needing to potentially be addressed at the same time as Europe, and also democratic countries outside Europe, seek to stabilise themselves geo-politically, deal with Russia, and face down the USA if it does anything (else) 'problematic'.
Canada have even more problems with their Defence procurement processes than we and Germany do. But US procurement is no great shakes, either.
Here's a question for Dr. Foxy: Can you give me any examples of significant policy changes by the EU, following an election. I am not trying to be provocative; if there have been, I would like to know about them.
And a second question: How high was the participation in EU elections? Did it increase, or decrease over time?
I take the view that a part of the issue was the acceleration of integration, post 1989.
The EU (as it became) suddenly put very long term aspirations (single currency, no borders etc) from “we’ll do that over 50 years” to “now”.
The massive power shift caused by German reunification also kicked things about.
NB. On the Matter of Britain: I recently enjoyed reading Rosemary Sutcliffe’s retelling of the Arthurian legends “Sword at Sunset”. The book is a realist telling of events that might have inspired the legends - small warbands & conflicts between the Britons & the Saxons that play out over decade. The characters keep their original, Saxon, names: Yseult, Bedwyr, Cei, etc.
...
Sigh. They did not keep their Saxon names, because they were Britons fighting the Saxons!
Here's a question for Dr. Foxy: Can you give me any examples of significant policy changes by the EU, following an election. I am not trying to be provocative; if there have been, I would like to know about them.
And a second question: How high was the participation in EU elections? Did it increase, or decrease over time?
2024 was higher than 2019’s turnout, which was higher than 2014’s. It was 51% in 2024, so not great, but not terrible.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Yes, not only is the UK based on consent in principle, but also in practice - I don't think there would be more than a tiny minority in the mainland who would emotionally regret NI going its own way. Scotland is more vexed: most of us English have been to Scotland, and because for most of us this has been 'on holiday' we are emotionally attached to it. Scotland is more recognisably part of our mental map of 'our' country. Yet while many of us may regret Scotland departing, very few would dispute the principle of the Scots' freedom to choose. I don't think we really recognise how unusual, by international standards, this position is.
Unfortunately those ‘very few’ include the politicians you elect.
Here's a question for Dr. Foxy: Can you give me any examples of significant policy changes by the EU, following an election. I am not trying to be provocative; if there have been, I would like to know about them.
And a second question: How high was the participation in EU elections? Did it increase, or decrease over time?
There were lots of policy changes passed by the EU parliament, and the council of ministers was also democratic representatives of democratic governments, albeit indirectly appointed like ministers in both the UK and US cabinets.
There's also more to democracy than the tyranny of majority, as the USA is demonstrating to the world.
Here's a question for Dr. Foxy: Can you give me any examples of significant policy changes by the EU, following an election. I am not trying to be provocative; if there have been, I would like to know about them.
And a second question: How high was the participation in EU elections? Did it increase, or decrease over time?
2024 was higher than 2019’s turnout, which was higher than 2014’s. It was 51% in 2024, so not great, but not terrible.
Similar to the US turnout for the POTUS, and not far short of our election last July.
NB. On the Matter of Britain: I recently enjoyed reading Rosemary Sutcliffe’s retelling of the Arthurian legends “Sword at Sunset”. The book is a realist telling of events that might have inspired the legends - small warbands & conflicts between the Britons & the Saxons that play out over decade. The characters keep their original, Saxon, names: Yseult, Bedwyr, Cei, etc.
The book opens with a poem by Francis Brett Young taken from a work that was published during WWII & was apparently immensely popular at the time, although it seems to have fallen from the canon since. A few stanzas in the middle of this poem sets the tone for Sutcliffe’s book (and probably explains the poem’s wartime popularity):
“Hic Jacet Arthurus, Rex Quondam Rexque Futurus”
...
Nor pry too deeply, lest you should discover The bower of Astolat a smoky hut Of mud and wattle – find the knightliest lover A braggart, and his Lily Maid a slut;
And all that coloured tale a tapestry Woven by poets. As the spider’s skeins Are spun of its own substance, so have they Embroidered empty legend – What remains?
This: That Rome fell, like a writhen oak That age had sapped and cankered at the root, Resistant, from her topmost bough there broke The miracle of one unwithering shoot
Which was the spirit of Britain – that certain men Uncouth, untutored, of our island brood Loved freedom better than their lives; and when The tempest crashed around them, rose and stood
...
Sutcliffe is a great writer. In fact one idea of British greatness I’d definitely support is how good British children’s literature was (and of course children’s literature is really literature without qualification).
Some more interesting charts in the thread too, looking at income taxes as a percentage of total taxes, and our high rate of property tax compared with other countries.
Not discussed though was how this compares with what people get, so in the US the average citizen is paying for health insurance too, the average Briton does not.
Some good news from the US: We are slowly restoring our civil rights laws. For example: "The U.S. Naval Academy has changed its admissions policy to no longer consider race, the Trump administration said in a court filing Friday, a shift that comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court rejected the use of affirmative action in college admissions." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/03/28/naval-academy-race-admissions-trump-affirmative-action/
Mitch McConnell deserves much of the credit for this; he has supported civil rights laws all through his political career.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
Do you mean the Liberal National strain? The Liberal Unionists were pre-WW1 and Joseph Chamberlain was certainly not too big on fiscal discipline and free trade.
Some good news from the US: We are slowly restoring our civil rights laws. For example: "The U.S. Naval Academy has changed its admissions policy to no longer consider race, the Trump administration said in a court filing Friday, a shift that comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court rejected the use of affirmative action in college admissions." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/03/28/naval-academy-race-admissions-trump-affirmative-action/
Mitch McConnell deserves much of the credit for this; he has supported civil rights laws all through his political career.
till they apply the same to the US prison system I don't see why this is a good thing.
Some more interesting charts in the thread too, looking at income taxes as a percentage of total taxes, and our high rate of property tax compared with other countries.
Not discussed though was how this compares with what people get, so in the US the average citizen is paying for health insurance too, the average Briton does not.
Above average earners are certainly paying more in the UK in tax than many comparable developed nations, especially the US, Australia and Spain. Though average earners pay less here than any other comparable nation except Japan
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Yes, not only is the UK based on consent in principle, but also in practice - I don't think there would be more than a tiny minority in the mainland who would emotionally regret NI going its own way. Scotland is more vexed: most of us English have been to Scotland, and because for most of us this has been 'on holiday' we are emotionally attached to it. Scotland is more recognisably part of our mental map of 'our' country. Yet while many of us may regret Scotland departing, very few would dispute the principle of the Scots' freedom to choose. I don't think we really recognise how unusual, by international standards, this position is.
The UK government now has refused the Scottish government indyref2, the Spanish government continues to refuse the Catalan nationalist government even one independence referendum.
The Canadian government did allow a second independence vote for Quebec but only 15 years after the first
...and I think this might be the point TUD was referring to - while I have no principled objection to Scottish independence, I don't think it should be the only issue - I don't think it's unreasonable that referenda on independence aren't a once-a-year thing.
Never considering at all is too little. Thinking about that issue alone is too much. Once a generation seems about right (i.e. once every 18-35 years or so?)
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Yes, not only is the UK based on consent in principle, but also in practice - I don't think there would be more than a tiny minority in the mainland who would emotionally regret NI going its own way. Scotland is more vexed: most of us English have been to Scotland, and because for most of us this has been 'on holiday' we are emotionally attached to it. Scotland is more recognisably part of our mental map of 'our' country. Yet while many of us may regret Scotland departing, very few would dispute the principle of the Scots' freedom to choose. I don't think we really recognise how unusual, by international standards, this position is.
The UK government now has refused the Scottish government indyref2, the Spanish government continues to refuse the Catalan nationalist government even one independence referendum.
The Canadian government did allow a second independence vote for Quebec but only 15 years after the first
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Can't quickly find that number, but carbon intensity is 37g per unit of electricity right now. The record was 15 April last year, when we got down to 19. That's probably a pretty good proxy.
Fairly sunny with a decent breeze is pretty much perfect conditions.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
It would be nice if living in the UK were something to aspire to, and consequently life in the North was appreciably better than life in the south. Then there wouldn't be a push for reunification, except perhaps the other way.
Since polling started, there has always been a chunk of the Nationalist community that states they would vote No on unification.
They were always present, even in the membership of SF at the time of the Armalite-and-ballot box approach.
They are still there.
Surprisingly little research has been done on motivations. Abortion and the U.K. welfare state have been offered as explanations.
All those lads who've been kneecapped don't want to give up the their PIP.
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
The idea of blessing the sun and the gusts for a 'plentiful harvest' that has given us temporary respite from countries that don't wish us well is like something from the dark ages.
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Solar on rooves shows as a reduction in demand, not increased solar
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Solar on rooves shows as a reduction in demand, not increased solar
That includes an estimate for rooftop production based on the reduced demand.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
The island status does mae a difference, I think, illustrated by the fact that (I think) most people feel pretty indifferent about Northern Ireland but would be alienated by a proposal to merge Wales with Ireland.
But at some level the importance of the nation state has declined, perhaps reflecting the interconnectedness of countries economically.
I disagree. In the examples you give it is not that the importance of the Nation State has decliend but rather that for many of us, the rights of self determination are more important than any particular arrangment of the Nation State.
So if Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or Cornwall want to be independent or if they want to become part of another Nation State then we should support them in that aspiration. That doesn't unermine the Nation State. If anything it strengthens it.
That is obviously wrong. Independence for any of those places would most definitely unermine them, since none of them would want their own House of Lords.
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Just a pity it always drops to zero just when demand is at its highest.
[Reeves] is almost completely friendless in the media. Rightwing outlets blame the paucity of growth on higher business taxes while voices of the left decry reductions to incapacity benefits as balancing the books on the backs of the poor. The public mood is grim.
Can the chancellor survive so much opprobrium and opposition? Yes she can, so long as she still has a friend at Number 10. The dynamic between the current duo is interesting. Cabinet colleagues generally portray their relationship as “rock solid”. They have maintained a front of unity for public consumption, but there have been disagreements behind the scenes. She was initially resistant to extra funding for defence.
I have it on exceedingly good authority that the prime minister himself has come to the view that it is unhelpful, to the point of being barmy, that the government has to live in dread of an OBR report card every six months, rather than face an annual verdict at budget time. Faced with crunchy decisions they’d rather not have to make, many Labour people, including a significant number of the cabinet, think life could be made a lot easier by relaxing the fiscal rules, which the chancellor declares to be “non-negotiable”.
It looks like a coin toss on as to whether or not Ms Reeves will be meeting her fiscal rules in time for her autumn budget. In bad case scenarios, she will have to further tighten spending and/or introduce more tax increases. Then she will really need a foul-weather friend at Number 10.
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Solar on rooves shows as a reduction in demand, not increased solar
That includes an estimate for rooftop production based on the reduced demand.
No-one's ever explained satisfactorily to me why new houses are bing built without solar panels. We've dozens round here with nary a panel to be seen.
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Solar on rooves shows as a reduction in demand, not increased solar
That includes an estimate for rooftop production based on the reduced demand.
No-one's ever explained satisfactorily to me why new houses are bing built without solar panels. We've dozens round here with nary a panel to be seen.
And here...on a big south facing hill that catches the sun like anything.
The fact that so many MPs can earn more by not being MPs, suggests we are underpaying MPs?
He is an exception and got that post in large part as he had been Deputy PM.
The average MPs salary now is £91,346 so well above average and many MPs find it hard to get any work again if they lose their seat and are not yet at retirement age, let alone highly paid work
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Irony abounds if it is the south going "No! No! NO!"
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Solar on rooves shows as a reduction in demand, not increased solar
That includes an estimate for rooftop production based on the reduced demand.
No-one's ever explained satisfactorily to me why new houses are bing built without solar panels. We've dozens round here with nary a panel to be seen.
Because it's not a legal requirement (it should be) and the house builders moan that it will put the price up of constructing a house, and thus the cost of the house to the buyer.
It's bonkers. I don't understand why they can't mandate renewable energy in new builds, when building a street of houses they could put in a big ground source heat pump along with the foundations and have it as a shared heat source for the new homes. Even if it was only used to pre heat the home or the hot water it would help reduce costs for the home owner, and much cheaper than retro fitting.
Equally, why not install a grey water tank that collects rainwater from the roof and uses filtered rainwater to flush the loos and for the washing machine? It would cut people's water bills and maybe also help to reduced localised flooding due to overloading of storm drains.
I can't believe the inaction on this is due to lack of imagination, so I can only assume it's avarice and vested interest.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
The 'advantage' that 'we' currently possess is that we are One Nation on an island. Our borders, since Scotland joined the Union are set by nature, unlike other 'Westphalian' states, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It heavily influences our upper class's thinking.
Imagine there was a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and a majority in both places voted for Northern Ireland to unify with the Republic of Ireland. Please indicate what your reaction would be…
The percentage among NI protestants saying "Almost impossible to accept" has fallen from 32% in 2022 to 20% in 2024, and is now outnumbered by the percentage of protestants saying "Happily accept" (21% in 2022, 29% in 2024)
Very simple. The UK is based on consent, not on occupation. If the voters of both countries want to recombine the six counties with the south then that is their decision. Obviously there would need to be detailed negotiations about how, but the principle would be established.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
Yes, not only is the UK based on consent in principle, but also in practice - I don't think there would be more than a tiny minority in the mainland who would emotionally regret NI going its own way. Scotland is more vexed: most of us English have been to Scotland, and because for most of us this has been 'on holiday' we are emotionally attached to it. Scotland is more recognisably part of our mental map of 'our' country. Yet while many of us may regret Scotland departing, very few would dispute the principle of the Scots' freedom to choose. I don't think we really recognise how unusual, by international standards, this position is.
The UK government now has refused the Scottish government indyref2, the Spanish government continues to refuse the Catalan nationalist government even one independence referendum.
The Canadian government did allow a second independence vote for Quebec but only 15 years after the first
Indyref2 in 2029, you heard it here first.
Only if a Labour minority government needing SNP confidence and supply.
A Tory and Reform government would again refuse it outright
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Solar on rooves shows as a reduction in demand, not increased solar
That includes an estimate for rooftop production based on the reduced demand.
No-one's ever explained satisfactorily to me why new houses are bing built without solar panels. We've dozens round here with nary a panel to be seen.
And here...on a big south facing hill that catches the sun like anything.
Also why is there not a rule that says all public buildings should have solar panels? Eg council offices, leisure centres, schools, etc.
Comments
But at some level the importance of the nation state has declined, perhaps reflecting the interconnectedness of countries economically.
Denmark is in an incredibly difficult position, they can't allow the US to simply take Greenland, they have to oppose it, and perhaps even use force to defend Greenland come what may.
It is now realistic to think we may see the US attempt to occupy Greenland, and conflict between the US and Denmark to occur. Which will likely be the end of NATO that day, and drag in Denmark's allies in Europe.
Can we count on MAGA/GOP to stop Trump? No. Congress? No.
If Trump can be stopped it will be by US protests and perhaps even the US military refusing his orders, but I'm not confident of the latter.
Personally I still believe in the nation, as defined by a mishmash of shared culture, history, principles and interests. And I still believe that the nation state is the best way of protecting and advancing the interests of the people who belong to that nation. Nations aren't immutable, but nor are they mutable without some remarkable effort. (Could Europe or CANZUK be a nation? My answer would be yes, but not without an effort of will on the part of those bodies constituent peoples, and the barriers to doing so (of disparate language/culture or disparate geography) are strong - but there is no better nation builder than an external threat or two, which is what Europe and CANZUK currently face. Clearly the nation
state faces some headwinds, but it's been here before (e.g. political ideology or religion as a primary unifier of interests).
I think the digital nomad aspect is overstated. Most of us aren't travel writers. We're joiners or dinner ladies or some other job which requires our physical presence. Even those of us with office jobs find it convenient to be in an appropriate geography - those of us who moved to the Isle of Muck during Covid to work remotely henceforth have found our professional lives more inconvenient than we thought would be the case. And we are rooted in communities - most of us have friends and family whom it is pleasant and convenient to be close to. Community is, after all, the building block of nationhood.
Th great and the good feel that they shouldn’t necessarily prioritise the people of their nominal country. The Head Count find this attitude rude.
https://x.com/SharonGChiara/status/1906271933257458165
As Ukraine demonstrates.
Sadly our own Ultras are running rampant at the moment but it is, and always has been, a cul de sac. You need to engage with the world as it is, not how you wish it used to be.
Kenneth Williams: SFA.
Hattie Jacques: Oh, come on, you must stand for something.
Kenneth Williams: Yes, SFA, Save the French Aristocracy.
From Don't Lose Your Head, the only Carry On film that didn't have 'Carry On' in the title.
Which it is.
But for whatever reason, an ageing Trump has fixated on it, and the entire US right is now trying to rationalise it as both essential to US interests, and completely justified.
More challenging - and not impossible - would be if the North voted to join the Republic and the Republic said no.
He (and his mushrooms like Jesse Watters) are running helter-skelter towards a vision of the USA which only exists in their head. Trump has an idea from earlier in his life of the USA as globally predominant, which has not been true for several decades, depending how it is measured.
They will imo eventually wake up and realised that, having believed they can be isolationist and dominant and extort everyone, having burnt down all their accumulated political capital and their relationships with all and sundry, the world has reorganised to isolate them.
If that is true in any sense, it's ironic that he is the one attacking that pillar with a chainsaw
https://x.com/DachshundColin/status/1906268344811987021
Ask Ukraine...
Russia, meanwhile, has closed borders and seems much less stable.
Scotland is more vexed: most of us English have been to Scotland, and because for most of us this has been 'on holiday' we are emotionally attached to it. Scotland is more recognisably part of our mental map of 'our' country. Yet while many of us may regret Scotland departing, very few would dispute the principle of the Scots' freedom to choose. I don't think we really recognise how unusual, by international standards, this position is.
So if Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or Cornwall want to be independent or if they want to become part of another Nation State then we should support them in that aspiration. That doesn't unermine the Nation State. If anything it strengthens it.
Also there is no obvious reason in the patients history to suddenly have hypoglycemia unresponsive to dextrose infusion. People don't suddenly and randomly produce such surges of natural insulin.
Criminal cases are decided on many pieces of evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt, but not unreasonable doubt.
The book opens with a poem by Francis Brett Young taken from a work that was published during WWII & was apparently immensely popular at the time, although it seems to have fallen from the canon since. A few stanzas in the middle of this poem sets the tone for Sutcliffe’s book (and probably explains the poem’s wartime popularity):
“Hic Jacet Arthurus, Rex Quondam Rexque Futurus”
...
Nor pry too deeply, lest you should discover
The bower of Astolat a smoky hut
Of mud and wattle – find the knightliest lover
A braggart, and his Lily Maid a slut;
And all that coloured tale a tapestry
Woven by poets. As the spider’s skeins
Are spun of its own substance, so have they
Embroidered empty legend – What remains?
This: That Rome fell, like a writhen oak
That age had sapped and cankered at the root,
Resistant, from her topmost bough there broke
The miracle of one unwithering shoot
Which was the spirit of Britain – that certain men
Uncouth, untutored, of our island brood
Loved freedom better than their lives; and when
The tempest crashed around them, rose and stood
...
For those who enjoy explosions.
https://x.com/pascal__2k/status/1906299267364315569
You can argue a case for self determination but there is certainly no guarantee it leads to peace and prosperity, indeed often the opposite
The Canadian government did allow a second independence vote for Quebec but only 15 years after the first
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCpmSEOvA8
They were always present, even in the membership of SF at the time of the Armalite-and-ballot box approach.
They are still there.
Surprisingly little research has been done on motivations. Abortion and the U.K. welfare state have been offered as explanations.
It's one thing to allow people to move to a country, but another to say that they are "as x as the x".
And a second question: How high was the participation in EU elections? Did it increase, or decrease over time?
Launch site will be a mess.
It's a bit of a Knot of Gordion, needing to potentially be addressed at the same time as Europe, and also democratic countries outside Europe, seek to stabilise themselves geo-politically, deal with Russia, and face down the USA if it does anything (else) 'problematic'.
Canada have even more problems with their Defence procurement processes than we and Germany do. But US procurement is no great shakes, either.
The EU (as it became) suddenly put very long term aspirations (single currency, no borders etc) from “we’ll do that over 50 years” to “now”.
The massive power shift caused by German reunification also kicked things about.
There's also more to democracy than the tyranny of majority, as the USA is demonstrating to the world.
This is something I've thought about a lot. It's hard to conceive of a world without nation states, but things could fall apart quickly.
In a world beyond nation states, my advice is, don't be poor.
🧵 NEW: Is Britain really a high tax country?
Our collective tax bill is at its highest share of GDP since the 1940s
But actually, the tax and NI paid by the average worker are at their lowest in decades.
What’s going on?
1/7
@thetimes.com
Free link 🔗 www.thetimes.com/article/25aa...
https://bsky.app/profile/tomcalver.bsky.social/post/3lllizftvp227
Some more interesting charts in the thread too, looking at income taxes as a percentage of total taxes, and our high rate of property tax compared with other countries.
Not discussed though was how this compares with what people get, so in the US the average citizen is paying for health insurance too, the average Briton does not.
"The U.S. Naval Academy has changed its admissions policy to no longer consider race, the Trump administration said in a court filing Friday, a shift that comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court rejected the use of affirmative action in college admissions."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/03/28/naval-academy-race-admissions-trump-affirmative-action/
Mitch McConnell deserves much of the credit for this; he has supported civil rights laws all through his political career.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-attack-private-schools-far-more-sinister-vat-raid/
Is that a record?
Never considering at all is too little. Thinking about that issue alone is too much. Once a generation seems about right (i.e. once every 18-35 years or so?)
Which essentially is what Britain owes its existence to. It came about thanks to dynastic problems in 1603 and 1707, arguably also 1688.
Britain is a very odd construct really.
Fairly sunny with a decent breeze is pretty much perfect conditions.
[Reeves] is almost completely friendless in the media. Rightwing outlets blame the paucity of growth on higher business taxes while voices of the left decry reductions to incapacity benefits as balancing the books on the backs of the poor. The public mood is grim.
Can the chancellor survive so much opprobrium and opposition? Yes she can, so long as she still has a friend at Number 10. The dynamic between the current duo is interesting. Cabinet colleagues generally portray their relationship as “rock solid”. They have maintained a front of unity for public consumption, but there have been disagreements behind the scenes. She was initially resistant to extra funding for defence.
I have it on exceedingly good authority that the prime minister himself has come to the view that it is unhelpful, to the point of being barmy, that the government has to live in dread of an OBR report card every six months, rather than face an annual verdict at budget time. Faced with crunchy decisions they’d rather not have to make, many Labour people, including a significant number of the cabinet, think life could be made a lot easier by relaxing the fiscal rules, which the chancellor declares to be “non-negotiable”.
It looks like a coin toss on as to whether or not Ms Reeves will be meeting her fiscal rules in time for her autumn budget. In bad case scenarios, she will have to further tighten spending and/or introduce more tax increases. Then she will really need a foul-weather friend at Number 10.
We could pay football salaries to MPs and we'd get exactly the same people elected.
The average MPs salary now is £91,346 so well above average and many MPs find it hard to get any work again if they lose their seat and are not yet at retirement age, let alone highly paid work
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/16/ex-tory-mp-unemployed-political-views/
Nowhere better on the planet on a day like this.
(Probably.)
It's bonkers. I don't understand why they can't mandate renewable energy in new builds, when building a street of houses they could put in a big ground source heat pump along with the foundations and have it as a shared heat source for the new homes. Even if it was only used to pre heat the home or the hot water it would help reduce costs for the home owner, and much cheaper than retro fitting.
Equally, why not install a grey water tank that collects rainwater from the roof and uses filtered rainwater to flush the loos and for the washing machine? It would cut people's water bills and maybe also help to reduced localised flooding due to overloading of storm drains.
I can't believe the inaction on this is due to lack of imagination, so I can only assume it's avarice and vested interest.
A Tory and Reform government would again refuse it outright
Eg council offices, leisure centres, schools, etc.