[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.
Starmer has never struck me as someone you'd want to share a foxhole with. When Reeves has served her purpose she will be gone. She's not quite done yet. Someone is going to have to take the opprobrium of further tax increases and spending cuts in the Autumn and it won't be anyone in Number 10.
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.
AIUI the military had a carve out from the previous SCOTUS decision, the rationale being that the forces need a similar mix of ethnicities amongst the officers and troops - experience showing that that made the military more effective.
To me this looks like another boneheaded faceplant from weekend TV presenter turned Sec Def Pete Hegseth, His movement's level of obsession makes nuance, even where necessary, impossible.
This is an interesting article but it singularly fails to understand the nature of the United Kingdom which has a relationship with the idea/stories of 'Britain;.
For a start the UK is a Union made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and at its core it is a union state and not as is commonly misunderstood a unitary state. The UK could never be a unitary state as Scotland never legally disappeared post-1707; and the UK now has four distinct territorial legal systems as well as for example four NHS systems.
The most egregious fallacy in the piece is its misunderstanding of the UK as a "nation-state" when it is nothing of the sort. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. No serious scholar or writer on the UK thinks the UK is a nation-state. rather it is a state made up of different nations and territories. And this misconception and its characteristic will be germane in its future evolution/fragmentation and any reconfiguration. But we have to start by understanding what the UK is and IS NOT and it is not a nation-state or unitary state.
[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.
Starmer has never struck me as someone you'd want to share a foxhole with. When Reeves has served her purpose she will be gone. She's not quite done yet. Someone is going to have to take the opprobrium of further tax increases and spending cuts in the Autumn and it won't be anyone in Number 10.
Indeed but for now she will be his human shield.
Once again, we have a Government floundering because of the relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor. It's something with which the UK seems to have particular problems and highlights an underlying problem with our Governance - the relationship between the Treasury and the rest of Government.
Yes, there are examples of Prime Minister and Chancellor working well together - you could argue Sunak and Hunt wasn't too bad but better relationships are the product of two factors - a growing and strong economy and, perhaps more important, no aspiration on the part of the Chancellor to become Prime Minister.
Technocratic Chancellors probably serve us better than ambitious ones - the last three Prime Ministers to lose power at an election - John Major, Gordon Brown and Rishi Sunak - were all Chancellors. It's become even more of a poisoned chalise than Home Secretary and with the Foreign Secretary's role devalued significantly, it's the de facto Deputy Prime Minister role, even if not de jure.
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
My expectation is that there will be a Unionist coalition government of one stripe or another in Holyrood after the elections in 2026. The Nationalists have had a spectacular run but are running out of road (and I don't just mean the undualled A9). A change is needed and, once that happens, any talk of Indyref 2 will be in the long grass. Not necessarily forever of course, but for at least another decade.
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.
We are even exporting electricity through the interconnectors. Happy days indeed.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
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.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
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.
The fact that so many MPs can earn more by not being MPs, suggests we are underpaying MPs?
Nope. Why do you think Facebook would pay Clegg so much?
We could pay football salaries to MPs and we'd get exactly the same people elected.
It's worth a note that Clegg's package was more like 500k plus a lot of share options etc. 500k is year one aiui, so it would have gone up.
Worth every penny, I am sure.
Its a bit like Stonewall to whom the Scottish government pays £400k a year. They have one member of staff covering matters in Scotland, Wales and NI. They haven't really operated in Scotland for some time. But if that is what it takes to keep them out of here you can make the case for it being VFM.
[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.
That Reeves was resistant to additional spending for defence, if true, makes me even more skeptical of her.
Personally I think Starmer should just cut his losses with Reeves as I think she’s a significant drag on the government’s ratings and I think there’s now too much working against her with the public (bluntly, they neither trust, nor respect, nor like her) but I do accept that politically it’s more likely he will keep her as a shield.
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.
I was referring to Hartington’s followers - really the remnants of the Whigs and the Peelites. Chamberlain was never more an uneasy ally who temporarily linked up with the Liberal Unionists because of his Imperialism.
On the threader, I'm quite interested in Number 6, and a monarchy which looks a little thin.
I think that Will and Kate are suitable, but the prospects if they should have an 'accident' are not brilliant. In the previous generation, we have 4, with Charles and Anne being (imo) good, and Edward being OK for his role with only Andrew as an evidenced dud.
The setup now is a little more resilient, but if WIlliam went under a bus we might need a Regency in a couple of years' time.
On the threader, I'm quite interested in Number 6, and a monarchy which looks a little thin.
I think that Will and Kate are suitable, but the prospects if they should have an 'accident' are not brilliant. In the previous generation, we have 4, with Charles and Anne being (imo) good, and Edward being OK for his role with only Andrew as an evidenced dud.
The setup now is a little more resilient, but if WIlliam went under a bus we might need a Regency in a couple of years' time.
Perhaps we need a *larger* Royal Family !
Kate has of course 'learned' to be royal. Anyway, what about Harry?
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
That £900 "pet rent" for the MP's cockerpoo in their Parliament funded weekday housing for work is an interesting one.
If they hadn't fucked up the last lot of rental legislation, that would just have been a bit extra on the deposit, and a fee for a professional clean at the end of the tenancy after several years.
But they made both of those normal solutions unlawful. Twats.
[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.
That Reeves was resistant to additional spending for defence, if true, makes me even more skeptical of her.
Personally I think Starmer should just cut his losses with Reeves as I think she’s a significant drag on the government’s ratings and I think there’s now too much working against her with the public (bluntly, they neither trust, nor respect, nor like her) but I do accept that politically it’s more likely he will keep her as a shield.
If a Chancellor doesn't want to be subject to fear of the OBR report card, it's very simple. All they have to do in increase the amount of fiscal headroom they build into their planning.
In Reeves case that would have meant either increasing taxation and/or cutting spending.
She should have done so at the budget instead of pretending that it's possible to predict fiscal outcomes to within £10bn, with any kind of reliability.
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.
I was referring to Hartington’s followers - really the remnants of the Whigs and the Peelites. Chamberlain was never more an uneasy ally who temporarily linked up with the Liberal Unionists because of his Imperialism.
By the time that the Liberal Unionists actually merged with the Conservatives in 1911, most of them were dead.
It is true Hartington/Devonshire, James of Hereford, Balfour of Burleigh, Goschen, etc were in favour of those things. But so were Hicks Beach, CT Ritchie and the Cecil brothers, James, Robert and Hugh, who were hardly Liberal Unionists.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
See the Czech Republic and Slovakia…
Which of course was the final split between the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
See the Czech Republic and Slovakia…
That was relatively peaceful, no?
Indeed. Because of a complete lack of irredentist comedy.
This is an interesting article but it singularly fails to understand the nature of the United Kingdom which has a relationship with the idea/stories of 'Britain;.
For a start the UK is a Union made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and at its core it is a union state and not as is commonly misunderstood a unitary state. The UK could never be a unitary state as Scotland never legally disappeared post-1707; and the UK now has four distinct territorial legal systems as well as for example four NHS systems.
The most egregious fallacy in the piece is its misunderstanding of the UK as a "nation-state" when it is nothing of the sort. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. No serious scholar or writer on the UK thinks the UK is a nation-state. rather it is a state made up of different nations and territories. And this misconception and its characteristic will be germane in its future evolution/fragmentation and any reconfiguration. But we have to start by understanding what the UK is and IS NOT and it is not a nation-state or unitary state.
Just over 55% of Scots did not agree with that analysis in 2014 Gerry. Many, indeed most, Scots consider themselves British and do regard the UK as a nation state.
This was very good from Camilla Tominey on an unfortunate Dan Jarvis - she repeatedly asks him to defend Reeves' claim that households will be £500 better off and he doesn't have an answer.
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
My expectation is that there will be a Unionist coalition government of one stripe or another in Holyrood after the elections in 2026. The Nationalists have had a spectacular run but are running out of road (and I don't just mean the undualled A9). A change is needed and, once that happens, any talk of Indyref 2 will be in the long grass. Not necessarily forever of course, but for at least another decade.
Who do you foresee being the senior party in such a government? The available evidence suggests SLab and SCons will be pumped in various exciting ways. The unerring foresight of Dame Jackie just adds to the mix.
The National @ScotNational NEW: Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie has said her party is not 'in trouble' ahead of the Holyrood elections despite polls indicating they could face their worst result of the devolution era.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
See the Czech Republic and Slovakia…
That was relatively peaceful, no?
Jury's still out.
Having been to both countries and working with people from there, it almost been forgotten about. Already. Sure, there are a few ancient blowhards, but they have no traction.
This is an interesting article but it singularly fails to understand the nature of the United Kingdom which has a relationship with the idea/stories of 'Britain;.
For a start the UK is a Union made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and at its core it is a union state and not as is commonly misunderstood a unitary state. The UK could never be a unitary state as Scotland never legally disappeared post-1707; and the UK now has four distinct territorial legal systems as well as for example four NHS systems.
The most egregious fallacy in the piece is its misunderstanding of the UK as a "nation-state" when it is nothing of the sort. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. No serious scholar or writer on the UK thinks the UK is a nation-state. rather it is a state made up of different nations and territories. And this misconception and its characteristic will be germane in its future evolution/fragmentation and any reconfiguration. But we have to start by understanding what the UK is and IS NOT and it is not a nation-state or unitary state.
Just over 55% of Scots did not agree with that analysis in 2014 Gerry. Many, indeed most, Scots consider themselves British and do regard the UK as a nation state.
(Welcome aboard btw)
Eh?
'Scottish identity only
62.4% of Scotland's population said they were ‘Scottish only’.
3.3 million people had Scottish identity only. This was most common in 10 to 14 year olds, at 71.5%.
It was least common among 30 to 34 year olds, at 56.7%.
18.3% of the population said their national identity was ‘Scottish and British identities only’.'
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 don't know how rigid a rule it is, but there is a solid trend in UK cities and towns that the west of the city is more affluent than the east of the city, as they represent upwind and downwind respectively.
I finally got around to reading an unusually popular and glossy recent local Huddersfield history tome called 'The Villas of Edgerton' about our substantially intact mill owner's suburb, and that was explicitly developed on the hill to the west of the town.
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
My expectation is that there will be a Unionist coalition government of one stripe or another in Holyrood after the elections in 2026. The Nationalists have had a spectacular run but are running out of road (and I don't just mean the undualled A9). A change is needed and, once that happens, any talk of Indyref 2 will be in the long grass. Not necessarily forever of course, but for at least another decade.
Who do you foresee being the senior party in such a government? The available evidence suggests SLab and SCons will be pumped in various exciting ways. The unerring foresight of Dame Jackie just adds to the mix.
The National @ScotNational NEW: Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie has said her party is not 'in trouble' ahead of the Holyrood elections despite polls indicating they could face their worst result of the devolution era.
AlexCole-Hamilton4FM would be an exciting new addition to the genre of Yoonadamus predictions.
Yet the biggest gainers on 2021 will be Reform and the LDs based on the latest Holyrood polls, the SNP will likely lose MSPs even if they stay largest party
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
Most big and medium sized nations haven't, even today, certainly if the nation in question is a neighbour of the bigger nation
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
My expectation is that there will be a Unionist coalition government of one stripe or another in Holyrood after the elections in 2026. The Nationalists have had a spectacular run but are running out of road (and I don't just mean the undualled A9). A change is needed and, once that happens, any talk of Indyref 2 will be in the long grass. Not necessarily forever of course, but for at least another decade.
Who do you foresee being the senior party in such a government? The available evidence suggests SLab and SCons will be pumped in various exciting ways. The unerring foresight of Dame Jackie just adds to the mix.
The National @ScotNational NEW: Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie has said her party is not 'in trouble' ahead of the Holyrood elections despite polls indicating they could face their worst result of the devolution era.
AlexCole-Hamilton4FM would be an exciting new addition to the genre of Yoonadamus predictions.
I think that Labour will form the core of the government but will be well short of a majority. The Lib Dems are obvious bed fellows and I expect some sort of a deal with the Tories even if they are not in the government. Reform will be a pain for everyone.
Of course Labour do have a bit of work to do to get to this position but the SNP are doing their best to help.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
Most big and medium sized nations haven't, even today, certainly if the nation in question is a neighbour of the bigger nation
Please tell me this isn't a sign you have stopped threatening to invade Scotland only to start talking about invading Ireland instead.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
Most big and medium sized nations haven't, even today, certainly if the nation in question is a neighbour of the bigger nation
Small countries bordering on very large ones are always beholden to some extent to those large ones. Monaco with France is another example. That has nothing to do with 'evolution' just hard facts.
And if they want to break away, they need a powerful sponsor. The Republic of Ireland for example is sponsored by the US, with Biden flying there to 'stop the Brits screwing around'.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
Most big and medium sized nations haven't, even today, certainly if the nation in question is a neighbour of the bigger nation
Please tell me this isn't a sign you have stopped threatening to invade Scotland only to start talking about invading Ireland instead.
The Irish Sea divides GB from Ireland but the north remains part of the UK anyway
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.
I was referring to Hartington’s followers - really the remnants of the Whigs and the Peelites. Chamberlain was never more an uneasy ally who temporarily linked up with the Liberal Unionists because of his Imperialism.
By the time that the Liberal Unionists actually merged with the Conservatives in 1911, most of them were dead.
It is true Hartington/Devonshire, James of Hereford, Balfour of Burleigh, Goschen, etc were in favour of those things. But so were Hicks Beach, CT Ritchie and the Cecil brothers, James, Robert and Hugh, who were hardly Liberal Unionists.
The date of the actual merger is irrelevant - although it’s actually 1912 😉 - as they were in a political alliance from 1886 onwards.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
This is an interesting article but it singularly fails to understand the nature of the United Kingdom which has a relationship with the idea/stories of 'Britain;.
For a start the UK is a Union made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and at its core it is a union state and not as is commonly misunderstood a unitary state. The UK could never be a unitary state as Scotland never legally disappeared post-1707; and the UK now has four distinct territorial legal systems as well as for example four NHS systems.
The most egregious fallacy in the piece is its misunderstanding of the UK as a "nation-state" when it is nothing of the sort. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. No serious scholar or writer on the UK thinks the UK is a nation-state. rather it is a state made up of different nations and territories. And this misconception and its characteristic will be germane in its future evolution/fragmentation and any reconfiguration. But we have to start by understanding what the UK is and IS NOT and it is not a nation-state or unitary state.
Just over 55% of Scots did not agree with that analysis in 2014 Gerry. Many, indeed most, Scots consider themselves British and do regard the UK as a nation state.
(Welcome aboard btw)
Eh?
'Scottish identity only
62.4% of Scotland's population said they were ‘Scottish only’.
3.3 million people had Scottish identity only. This was most common in 10 to 14 year olds, at 71.5%.
It was least common among 30 to 34 year olds, at 56.7%.
18.3% of the population said their national identity was ‘Scottish and British identities only’.'
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
Most big and medium sized nations haven't, even today, certainly if the nation in question is a neighbour of the bigger nation
Please tell me this isn't a sign you have stopped threatening to invade Scotland only to start talking about invading Ireland instead.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
Most big and medium sized nations haven't, even today, certainly if the nation in question is a neighbour of the bigger nation
Please tell me this isn't a sign you have stopped threatening to invade Scotland only to start talking about invading Ireland instead.
The Irish Sea divides GB from Ireland but the north remains part of the UK anyway
As a Welshman I had noticed the existence of the Irish Sea, but I'm not sure what your point is in relation to my question?
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
Most big and medium sized nations haven't, even today, certainly if the nation in question is a neighbour of the bigger nation
That literally makes no sense
I think you are claiming that most big and medium sized nations haven’t evolved beyond insisting that a smaller neighbour has no right to determine their own future.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
Most big and medium sized nations haven't, even today, certainly if the nation in question is a neighbour of the bigger nation
That literally makes no sense
I think you are claiming that most big and medium sized nations haven’t evolved beyond insisting that a smaller neighbour has no right to determine their own future.
In which case you are certifiably batshit.
Hardly, Russia has invaded Ukraine which used to be part of the USSR, China is threatening Taiwan which was part of pre Communist China and occupies Tibet, the US is threatening to annex Canada, Greenland and Panama Canal. India wants all of Kashmir
This is an interesting article but it singularly fails to understand the nature of the United Kingdom which has a relationship with the idea/stories of 'Britain;.
For a start the UK is a Union made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and at its core it is a union state and not as is commonly misunderstood a unitary state. The UK could never be a unitary state as Scotland never legally disappeared post-1707; and the UK now has four distinct territorial legal systems as well as for example four NHS systems.
The most egregious fallacy in the piece is its misunderstanding of the UK as a "nation-state" when it is nothing of the sort. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. No serious scholar or writer on the UK thinks the UK is a nation-state. rather it is a state made up of different nations and territories. And this misconception and its characteristic will be germane in its future evolution/fragmentation and any reconfiguration. But we have to start by understanding what the UK is and IS NOT and it is not a nation-state or unitary state.
Just over 55% of Scots did not agree with that analysis in 2014 Gerry. Many, indeed most, Scots consider themselves British and do regard the UK as a nation state.
(Welcome aboard btw)
Eh?
'Scottish identity only
62.4% of Scotland's population said they were ‘Scottish only’.
3.3 million people had Scottish identity only. This was most common in 10 to 14 year olds, at 71.5%.
It was least common among 30 to 34 year olds, at 56.7%.
18.3% of the population said their national identity was ‘Scottish and British identities only’.'
I notice that you did not quote that only 4.4% thought that they had no UK identity. Being Scots we can manage more than 1 thing at a time.
It takes a degree of emotional Unionism to divine 62.4% of Scotland's population saying they were ‘Scottish only’ as including an attachment to Britishness and the UK nation state.
This is an interesting article but it singularly fails to understand the nature of the United Kingdom which has a relationship with the idea/stories of 'Britain;.
For a start the UK is a Union made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and at its core it is a union state and not as is commonly misunderstood a unitary state. The UK could never be a unitary state as Scotland never legally disappeared post-1707; and the UK now has four distinct territorial legal systems as well as for example four NHS systems.
The most egregious fallacy in the piece is its misunderstanding of the UK as a "nation-state" when it is nothing of the sort. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. No serious scholar or writer on the UK thinks the UK is a nation-state. rather it is a state made up of different nations and territories. And this misconception and its characteristic will be germane in its future evolution/fragmentation and any reconfiguration. But we have to start by understanding what the UK is and IS NOT and it is not a nation-state or unitary state.
Just over 55% of Scots did not agree with that analysis in 2014 Gerry. Many, indeed most, Scots consider themselves British and do regard the UK as a nation state.
(Welcome aboard btw)
Eh?
'Scottish identity only
62.4% of Scotland's population said they were ‘Scottish only’.
3.3 million people had Scottish identity only. This was most common in 10 to 14 year olds, at 71.5%.
It was least common among 30 to 34 year olds, at 56.7%.
18.3% of the population said their national identity was ‘Scottish and British identities only’.'
I notice that you did not quote that only 4.4% thought that they had no UK identity. Being Scots we can manage more than 1 thing at a time.
It takes a degree of emotional Unionism to divine 62.4% of Scotland's population saying they were ‘Scottish only’ as including an attachment to Britishness and the UK nation state.
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.
I was referring to Hartington’s followers - really the remnants of the Whigs and the Peelites. Chamberlain was never more an uneasy ally who temporarily linked up with the Liberal Unionists because of his Imperialism.
By the time that the Liberal Unionists actually merged with the Conservatives in 1911, most of them were dead.
It is true Hartington/Devonshire, James of Hereford, Balfour of Burleigh, Goschen, etc were in favour of those things. But so were Hicks Beach, CT Ritchie and the Cecil brothers, James, Robert and Hugh, who were hardly Liberal Unionists.
The date of the actual merger is irrelevant - although it’s actually 1912 😉 - as they were in a political alliance from 1886 onwards.
I wasn't even in this discussion but Ydoethur is right, the Liberal Unionists were protectionist, anti free trade, pro imperial preference throughout the Empire. It was the Peelite and Gladstone wing who were the pro free trade wing as you mentioned
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 don't know how rigid a rule it is, but there is a solid trend in UK cities and towns that the west of the city is more affluent than the east of the city, as they represent upwind and downwind respectively.
I finally got around to reading an unusually popular and glossy recent local Huddersfield history tome called 'The Villas of Edgerton' about our substantially intact mill owner's suburb, and that was explicitly developed on the hill to the west of the town.
I don't think that true of Leicester. The South of the city is the posh leafy bit, the West and north of the city more working class.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
See the Czech Republic and Slovakia…
That was relatively peaceful, no?
Jury's still out.
Like on the French Revolution 😜
I think Zhou Enlai was misinterpreted in his famous 1971 quote. He understood the question to be about the events of 1968 in France rather than 1789.
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 don't know how rigid a rule it is, but there is a solid trend in UK cities and towns that the west of the city is more affluent than the east of the city, as they represent upwind and downwind respectively.
I finally got around to reading an unusually popular and glossy recent local Huddersfield history tome called 'The Villas of Edgerton' about our substantially intact mill owner's suburb, and that was explicitly developed on the hill to the west of the town.
I don't think that true of Leicester. The South of the city is the posh leafy bit, the West and north of the city more working class.
I love this header: informative, thought provoking and oddly moving. I don't have anything to add to it, other than to say that I feel just as British as the people who are into flag waving and loud proclamations of patriotism. And sometimes, perhaps, a bit more 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)
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
See the Czech Republic and Slovakia…
That was relatively peaceful, no?
Jury's still out.
Having been to both countries and working with people from there, it almost been forgotten about. Already. Sure, there are a few ancient blowhards, but they have no traction.
It isn't their mutual amity I was referring to but that the Slovaks tend to be Putinists while the Czechs are not. Brezhnev sent his tanks to Prague, not Bratislava.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gullis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
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
My expectation is that there will be a Unionist coalition government of one stripe or another in Holyrood after the elections in 2026. The Nationalists have had a spectacular run but are running out of road (and I don't just mean the undualled A9). A change is needed and, once that happens, any talk of Indyref 2 will be in the long grass. Not necessarily forever of course, but for at least another decade.
Who do you foresee being the senior party in such a government? The available evidence suggests SLab and SCons will be pumped in various exciting ways. The unerring foresight of Dame Jackie just adds to the mix.
The National @ScotNational NEW: Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie has said her party is not 'in trouble' ahead of the Holyrood elections despite polls indicating they could face their worst result of the devolution era.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gillis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
See the Czech Republic and Slovakia…
That was relatively peaceful, no?
Jury's still out.
Having been to both countries and working with people from there, it almost been forgotten about. Already. Sure, there are a few ancient blowhards, but they have no traction.
It isn't their mutual amity I was referring to but that the Slovaks tend to be Putinists while the Czechs are not. Brezhnev sent his tanks to Prague, not Bratislava.
The different history and political background was the reason for the Velvet Divorce. Two countries with different outlooks agreed to part ways.
Keeping them together would have ended up with trouble, I think.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gillis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
How was he cruel?
Give over. Performative cruelty via policy. What he voted for. And what he said as he voted for it. He was an effective minister too - a single appearance at the dispatch box in his 5 minutes in office where he was reprimanded for not sounding suitably ministerial.
I don’t want him to be out of work, but I’m not surprised that he isn’t being welcomed back into his former profession.
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.
Our local mill was run by child rapists that bought children off the London poor houses and ran them til they suicided.
Inequality has costs. Down with that sort of thing.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gillis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
How was he cruel?
Give over. Performative cruelty via policy. What he voted for. And what he said as he voted for it. He was an effective minister too - a single appearance at the dispatch box in his 5 minutes in office where he was reprimanded for not sounding suitably ministerial.
I don’t want him to be out of work, but I’m not surprised that he isn’t being welcomed back into his former profession.
As one of the few PBers in WhatsApp groups with Jonathan Gullis from 2019 onwards I have to say I am shocked he is struggling for gainful employment.
The fact he was a teacher explains why the country is buggered.
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
See the Czech Republic and Slovakia…
That was relatively peaceful, no?
Jury's still out.
Having been to both countries and working with people from there, it almost been forgotten about. Already. Sure, there are a few ancient blowhards, but they have no traction.
It isn't their mutual amity I was referring to but that the Slovaks tend to be Putinists while the Czechs are not. Brezhnev sent his tanks to Prague, not Bratislava.
The different history and political background was the reason for the Velvet Divorce. Two countries with different outlooks agreed to part ways.
Keeping them together would have ended up with trouble, I think.
Trouble either way, I fear, because history has not ended as advertised. We seem to be on the eve of another great power stitch-up like Vienna, Berlin, Versailles and Potsdam in which the little people have their futures mapped out for them. And, of course, it doesn't last for long.
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.
An odd little vignette: my daughter has a singing exam so I have come into Manchester with her. On the tram in, a toothless crone engaged us in conversation in a wet rasping, spluttering Mancunian. At first I silently lamented my choice of seats - then felt glad to have sat where we did because we were clearly doing the woman good by giving someone to talk to - then felt glad to have sat where we did because we were being treated to a genuinely enjoyable semi-comic monologue, touching on the improbable medical histories of at least three people (including the time when she swelled up like the Michelin man and nearly died because of, if I understood correctly, a leaking boiler) - and concluding with telling us that this was all true, she never fibs, she'd never lie except to keep her husband from getting in trouble with the police. I wished her a happy rest-of-her-day and told her it had been nice to talk to her, and genuinely meant it. I'm now waiting, improbably, in a surprisingly opulent piano salesroom on an otherwise slightly disreputable street in the Northern Quarter. Nice to get out of your comfort zone.
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.
Our local mill was run by child rapists that bought children off the London poor houses and ran them til they suicided.
Inequality has costs. Down with that sort of thing.
Golly, I hope that was at least 150 years ago, though the way the world is going..
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
I believe (although I'm not 100% sure) that Quebec doesn't need the Canadian government's permission to hold a binding referendum on independence, they can have one whenever they want?
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 don't know how rigid a rule it is, but there is a solid trend in UK cities and towns that the west of the city is more affluent than the east of the city, as they represent upwind and downwind respectively.
I finally got around to reading an unusually popular and glossy recent local Huddersfield history tome called 'The Villas of Edgerton' about our substantially intact mill owner's suburb, and that was explicitly developed on the hill to the west of the town.
I don't think that true of Leicester. The South of the city is the posh leafy bit, the West and north of the city more working class.
Not sure it’s true of Newcastle either.
I'm not sure how hard and fast it is, more a rule of thumb.
As prevailing wind is from SW and other westerly directions are common., posh suburbs in the S, SW of a city work as well, but there are other factors, how many chimneys the city had, where the hills are, how the river runs.
Sort of works for Manchester (a lot of nicer areas in the S to SW, east thought of as poor), Leeds (E very poor, but some best areas uphill in the N/NW), Stoke, London, but it is very variable and most relevant to Victorian suburbs.
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
I certainly didn't do it for the money (when I put my name forward the salary IIRC was £37,000), but I did feel relieved to get full-time work again when I lost in 2010 at age 60. If I'd hung on, as I nearly did, it would have been curtains next time, whereas in practice I was able to carry on till I was over 70. Conclusion: the salary is ample and could be reduced without harm, but the pension rights should kick in early.
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 don't know how rigid a rule it is, but there is a solid trend in UK cities and towns that the west of the city is more affluent than the east of the city, as they represent upwind and downwind respectively.
I finally got around to reading an unusually popular and glossy recent local Huddersfield history tome called 'The Villas of Edgerton' about our substantially intact mill owner's suburb, and that was explicitly developed on the hill to the west of the town.
I don't think that true of Leicester. The South of the city is the posh leafy bit, the West and north of the city more working class.
Not sure it’s true of Newcastle either.
Isn't it? Possibly just an outsiders perception, but I thought Denton was (relatively) well off, and Byker and Wallsend were the poor areas? Am I being overly influenced by Byker Grove et al?
An odd little vignette: my daughter has a singing exam so I have come into Manchester with her. On the tram in, a toothless crone engaged us in conversation in a wet rasping, spluttering Mancunian. At first I silently lamented my choice of seats - then felt glad to have sat where we did because we were clearly doing the woman good by giving someone to talk to - then felt glad to have sat where we did because we were being treated to a genuinely enjoyable semi-comic monologue, touching on the improbable medical histories of at least three people (including the time when she swelled up like the Michelin man and nearly died because of, if I understood correctly, a leaking boiler) - and concluding with telling us that this was all true, she never fibs, she'd never lie except to keep her husband from getting in trouble with the police. I wished her a happy rest-of-her-day and told her it had been nice to talk to her, and genuinely meant it. I'm now waiting, improbably, in a surprisingly opulent piano salesroom on an otherwise slightly disreputable street in the Northern Quarter. Nice to get out of your comfort zone.
My daughter flying a concert grand, a long, long time ago.
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 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.
Our local mill was run by child rapists that bought children off the London poor houses and ran them til they suicided.
Inequality has costs. Down with that sort of thing.
Golly, I hope that was at least 150 years ago, though the way the world is going..
Some of the shittier places in the U.K. where they exclusively employee the Document Disadvantaged are probably just as bad as the worst Satanic Mills.
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?
The second question is difficult to answer, as the countries participating have changed over time. Also turnout varies a lot between different countries.
So, just to take the turnout in the biggest country - Germany: 2024: 64.8% 2019 61.4% 2014 48.1% 2009 42.3% 2004 43.0% 1999 45.2% 1994 60.0% Before that it was still only West Germany.
So, decreased, then increased.
How high? Depends what you compare it to. Recent ones are higher than recent US House midterm elections (2022 45.1%). Germany has higher than average turnout - the overall 2024 turnout was 50.74%.
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
I believe (although I'm not 100% sure) that Quebec doesn't need the Canadian government's permission to hold a binding referendum on independence, they can have one whenever they want?
It would have no legal force. In 1995 the Quebec Supreme Court allowed the referendum to go ahead but made clear 'Justice Lesage of the Court found that secession could only legally be performed by constitutional amendment pursuant to Section V of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that a unilateral declaration of independence would be "manifestly illegal."
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gullis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
Well he had and held a job as a teacher before he was elected, had he been elected as a Labour MP I suspect he would have found a job in a state school rather quicker
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
In all the cases you mention it is caused by the larger entity refusing to accept that the smaller has the right to determine their own future.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
See the Czech Republic and Slovakia…
That was relatively peaceful, no?
Jury's still out.
Having been to both countries and working with people from there, it almost been forgotten about. Already. Sure, there are a few ancient blowhards, but they have no traction.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gillis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
How was he cruel?
He jeered, when people were talking, and was insulting to opposition MPs. His manners was at the least sarcastic. No wonder he has problems getting another job.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gillis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
How was he cruel?
He jeered, when people were talking, and was insulting to opposition MPs. His manners was at the least sarcastic. No wonder he has problems getting another job.
Worth remembering in his case - and this was also something unique to teaching - by walking out mid-year he was in breach of contract and such teachers are not normally rehired afterwards.
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 don't know how rigid a rule it is, but there is a solid trend in UK cities and towns that the west of the city is more affluent than the east of the city, as they represent upwind and downwind respectively.
I finally got around to reading an unusually popular and glossy recent local Huddersfield history tome called 'The Villas of Edgerton' about our substantially intact mill owner's suburb, and that was explicitly developed on the hill to the west of the town.
Because the prevailing wind is from the west, consequently‘ ‘industrial smells’ get blown away eastwards.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gullis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
Well he had and held a job as a teacher before he was elected, had he been elected as a Labour MP I suspect he would have found a job in a state school rather quicker
I suspect not. His behaviour in parliament and interviews as well as his social media would have been obvious red flags in a classroom situation.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gillis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
How was he cruel?
He jeered, when people were talking, and was insulting to opposition MPs. His manners was at the least sarcastic. No wonder he has problems getting another job.
Worth remembering in his case - and this was also something unique to teaching - by walking out mid-year he was in breach of contract and such teachers are not normally rehired afterwards.
I hold no candle for Gullis - and perhaps it’s fair he’s not got another teaching job (I don’t know to be honest) - but if the teaching profession won’t make an exception for someone democratically elected to our national parliament, that is frankly disgraceful.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gillis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
How was he cruel?
He jeered, when people were talking, and was insulting to opposition MPs. His manners was at the least sarcastic. No wonder he has problems getting another job.
Worth remembering in his case - and this was also something unique to teaching - by walking out mid-year he was in breach of contract and such teachers are not normally rehired afterwards.
I hold no candle for Gullis - and perhaps it’s fair he’s not got another teaching job (I don’t know to be honest) - but if the teaching profession won’t make an exception for someone democratically elected to our national parliament, that is frankly disgraceful.
Yes.
Feel free to take it up with the government, who wrote the policy...
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gullis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
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
I'm not sure which is worse. An ex-MP going on to make a fortune on the back of their time in office, or an ex-MP who has been enjoying £90k a year (plus expenses) being revealed to be unemployable in the outside world.
Gullis was a teacher before election as an MP, now he can't get a job in his former career, moral of the story probably being that sadly unless you are a millionaire don't stand for Parliament in a marginal seat in your 30s or 40s which you might lose an election or two later.
Gillis showed himself off as being low intelligence and cruel. No wonder he can’t get a job teaching.
How was he cruel?
He jeered, when people were talking, and was insulting to opposition MPs. His manners was at the least sarcastic.
Comments
To me this looks like another boneheaded faceplant from weekend TV presenter turned Sec Def Pete Hegseth, His movement's level of obsession makes nuance, even where necessary, impossible.
For a start the UK is a Union made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and at its core it is a union state and not as is commonly misunderstood a unitary state. The UK could never be a unitary state as Scotland never legally disappeared post-1707; and the UK now has four distinct territorial legal systems as well as for example four NHS systems.
The most egregious fallacy in the piece is its misunderstanding of the UK as a "nation-state" when it is nothing of the sort. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. No serious scholar or writer on the UK thinks the UK is a nation-state. rather it is a state made up of different nations and territories. And this misconception and its characteristic will be germane in its future evolution/fragmentation and any reconfiguration. But we have to start by understanding what the UK is and IS NOT and it is not a nation-state or unitary state.
Once again, we have a Government floundering because of the relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor. It's something with which the UK seems to have particular problems and highlights an underlying problem with our Governance - the relationship between the Treasury and the rest of Government.
Yes, there are examples of Prime Minister and Chancellor working well together - you could argue Sunak and Hunt wasn't too bad but better relationships are the product of two factors - a growing and strong economy and, perhaps more important, no aspiration on the part of the Chancellor to become Prime Minister.
Technocratic Chancellors probably serve us better than ambitious ones - the last three Prime Ministers to lose power at an election - John Major, Gordon Brown and Rishi Sunak - were all Chancellors. It's become even more of a poisoned chalise than Home Secretary and with the Foreign Secretary's role devalued significantly, it's the de facto Deputy Prime Minister role, even if not de jure.
IIRC, some members of Congress and the Senate came into possession of options at 20% of the current share price of the companies involved.
You are arguing that once conquered always conquered - that’s Putin’s view.
Most of us have evolved beyond that
WHAT A FLIGHT!
On our first flight today we got to a clean liftoff, 30sec of flight, and didn't blow up the pad in the meantime...
https://x.com/danielmetzler/status/1906307777242275881
Now the landing site...
Personally I think Starmer should just cut his losses with Reeves as I think she’s a significant drag on the government’s ratings and I think there’s now too much working against her with the public (bluntly, they neither trust, nor respect, nor like her) but I do accept that politically it’s more likely he will keep her as a shield.
I think that Will and Kate are suitable, but the prospects if they should have an 'accident' are not brilliant. In the previous generation, we have 4, with Charles and Anne being (imo) good, and Edward being OK for his role with only Andrew as an evidenced dud.
The setup now is a little more resilient, but if WIlliam went under a bus we might need a Regency in a couple of years' time.
Perhaps we need a *larger* Royal Family !
Anyway, what about Harry?
If they hadn't fucked up the last lot of rental legislation, that would just have been a bit extra on the deposit, and a fee for a professional clean at the end of the tenancy after several years.
But they made both of those normal solutions unlawful. Twats.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/taiwo-owwatemi-labour-mp-expenses-pet-rent-b2724000.html
All they have to do in increase the amount of fiscal headroom they build into their planning.
In Reeves case that would have meant either increasing taxation and/or cutting spending.
She should have done so at the budget instead of pretending that it's possible to predict fiscal outcomes to within £10bn, with any kind of reliability.
Sadly, it is the Brummie football team, rather than the voting system.
It is true Hartington/Devonshire, James of Hereford, Balfour of Burleigh, Goschen, etc were in favour of those things. But so were Hicks Beach, CT Ritchie and the Cecil brothers, James, Robert and Hugh, who were hardly Liberal Unionists.
If Greenland is so important, why has the United States cancelled most of its 17 bases there?
https://x.com/LarsNunne/status/1906097923974390134
(Welcome aboard btw)
This was very good from Camilla Tominey on an unfortunate Dan Jarvis - she repeatedly asks him to defend Reeves' claim that households will be £500 better off and he doesn't have an answer.
6.50 is when it starts.
The National
@ScotNational
NEW: Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie has said her party is not 'in trouble' ahead of the Holyrood elections despite polls indicating they could face their worst result of the devolution era.
https://x.com/ScotNational/status/1906306089110352059
AlexCole-Hamilton4FM would be an exciting new addition to the genre of Yoonadamus predictions.
'Scottish identity only
62.4% of Scotland's population said they were ‘Scottish only’.
3.3 million people had Scottish identity only. This was most common in 10 to 14 year olds, at 71.5%.
It was least common among 30 to 34 year olds, at 56.7%.
18.3% of the population said their national identity was ‘Scottish and British identities only’.'
https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/national-identity/
I finally got around to reading an unusually popular and glossy recent local Huddersfield history tome called 'The Villas of Edgerton' about our substantially intact mill owner's suburb, and that was explicitly developed on the hill to the west of the town.
Of course Labour do have a bit of work to do to get to this position but the SNP are doing their best to help.
And if they want to break away, they need a powerful sponsor. The Republic of Ireland for example is sponsored by the US, with Biden flying there to 'stop the Brits screwing around'.
My point was simply that @HYUFD was wrong
Probably sorts out the cooling problems….
I think you are claiming that most big and medium sized nations haven’t evolved beyond insisting that a smaller neighbour has no right to determine their own future.
In which case you are certifiably batshit.
https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2025/03/why-you-should-rethink-traveling-to-the-u-s-amid-shocking-detention-scandals/
Ive got a message on my WhatsApp about Meta A1.
Not sure why but can I refuse it?
Ginsburg is another liberal who stayed too long in office given her age and health.
Because she did so RvW was overturned.
But still the Dems have not realised that if you do not learn from mistakes you are at risk of repeating them.
“We did everything right. The other guys did bad stuff. Therefore if we repeat what we did, it will work next time.”
Keeping them together would have ended up with trouble, I think.
I don’t want him to be out of work, but I’m not surprised that he isn’t being welcomed back into his former profession.
Inequality has costs.
Down with that sort of thing.
The fact he was a teacher explains why the country is buggered.
I wished her a happy rest-of-her-day and told her it had been nice to talk to her, and genuinely meant it.
I'm now waiting, improbably, in a surprisingly opulent piano salesroom on an otherwise slightly disreputable street in the Northern Quarter. Nice to get out of your comfort zone.
https://x.com/fernand46357857/status/1906077208210223430?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
As prevailing wind is from SW and other westerly directions are common., posh suburbs in the S, SW of a city work as well, but there are other factors, how many chimneys the city had, where the hills are, how the river runs.
Sort of works for Manchester (a lot of nicer areas in the S to SW, east thought of as poor), Leeds (E very poor, but some best areas uphill in the N/NW), Stoke, London, but it is very variable and most relevant to Victorian suburbs.
https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1903245771635318972
So, just to take the turnout in the biggest country - Germany:
2024: 64.8%
2019 61.4%
2014 48.1%
2009 42.3%
2004 43.0%
1999 45.2%
1994 60.0%
Before that it was still only West Germany.
So, decreased, then increased.
How high? Depends what you compare it to. Recent ones are higher than recent US House midterm elections (2022 45.1%). Germany has higher than average turnout - the overall 2024 turnout was 50.74%.
Can I embed a Youtube video in a putative header?
( @TSE @rcs1000 )
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/donald-trump-angry-vladimir-putin-ukraine-nbc
He obviously got Putin and Zelenskyy mixed up
Feel free to take it up with the government, who wrote the policy...
https://x.com/rangersfc/status/1906343779897901101?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Saw this on the Twitter. Lots of fun to be had with one's preconceptions.