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.
I'm sure he's a complete ****, but I would also say his parliamentary and ministerial career gives him an interesting perspective that I think would add value to his teaching career. If he's really been totally unable to get a teaching job, it doesn't speak well for the seriousness of the profession.
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)
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
But what about countries that _don't_ have authoritarian leaders?
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.
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.
Possibly - it was after all a new mill town.
But maybe it's just geography ? The new railway made a couple of other directions undesirable, and Edgerton is directly off the road to Halifax, the nearest large town, which started to be developed some time before Huddersfield.
And it's not much of a hill - so a fairly easy drive into town, in horse drawn days, again unlike a few other directions.
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.
How unique for a politician in our Parliament.
Now who's being sarcastic...
being an obnoxious sh!t is not a transferable skill needed in education, unless there's a vacancy for school SMT* or Ofsted inspector.
(As far as I am concerned, SMT stood for shirkers, malingerers and timewasters).
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.
How unique for a politician in our Parliament.
Now who's being sarcastic...
being an obnoxious sh!t is not a transferable skill needed in education, unless there's a vacancy for school SMT* or Ofsted inspector.
(As far as I am concerned, SMT stood for shirkers, malingerers and timewasters).
He’s someone who you don’t like or don’t like his politics. so fuck him. That’s what it boils down to.
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.
Possibly - it was after all a new mill town.
But maybe it's just geography ? The new railway made a couple of other directions undesirable, and Edgerton is directly off the road to Halifax, the nearest large town, which started to be developed some time before Huddersfield.
And it's not much of a hill - so a fairly easy drive into town, in horse drawn days, again unlike a few other directions.
Almost all UK towns - and especially indusrrial ones - have their more desirable residential areas in the west and south west as that is where the prevailing wind comes from, so especially in an era of coal burning, that was where the air was cleaner. Sheffield is the archetype.
On topic and thanks to @viewcode for a thought provoking piece, the concept of the nation state has always evolved and is still so doing.
Many thought there would come a time when Governments would go out of business and business would go into Governments and global corporations would in effect rule large parts of the planet as their personal fiefdoms.
It hasn't quite worked like that but as @viewcode suggests, there is a cohort of extremely wealthy individuals who are able to be effectively "stateless". Money talks, men walk as someone once said and you will always find people going to where the money is (or where they think the money is). The mega-rich can therefore build their own state-like entourages of property and support networks much as I imagine powerful people throughout the ages were able so to do. These people operate if not above the law then without much regard for it.
We are now both in awe of and terrified by extreme wealth in equal measure. There's the obvious aspiration but in terms of policy making "soaking the rich" is now deemed impossible as "the rich" will simply move elsewhere and if necessary buy a Government which does what they want.
I digress..
There is clearly a "British" identity emerging among those often (but not always) coming here and settling from other parts of the world. and this will become stronger with time, British is not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish (though it may have elements). I find it hard to define but I know it exists.
That's part of the evolution of nation states, the input of cultures and traditions from other parts of the world, elements of which become part of the local culture. Look at food for example - we now have access to cuisines which our parents let alone our grandparents never had. You have a choice - either embrace the change aqnd accept the evolution of national identity or resist it and retreat to the safety of the past.
So much of what is happening now is predicated on a fear of the future, the "comfort zone" of the culture with which we are familiar so we trot out phrases from Python, Fawlty Towers and Blackadder. On my walk this afternoon, two young men had their phone music on loud but what was disappointing was it was just hip hop. Music has stagnated and nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
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.
I'm sure he's a complete ****, but I would also say his parliamentary and ministerial career gives him an interesting perspective that I think would add value to his teaching career. If he's really been totally unable to get a teaching job, it doesn't speak well for the seriousness of the profession.
I'm a bit sceptical about the idea he's been unable to get a job despite best efforts - it feels all a bit of a convenient way to eke out some publicity for himself.
But, if it's true, isn't it partly that the election fell at in a really inconvenient month for getting a teaching job? I understood departing teachers tend to make their intentions known around Easter, with recruitment April-June. As it happens, the election fell just after the busiest recruitment period by far, and in a really rather dead period. Posts do come up at other times, but not nearly as many.
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.
How unique for a politician in our Parliament.
Now who's being sarcastic...
being an obnoxious sh!t is not a transferable skill needed in education, unless there's a vacancy for school SMT* or Ofsted inspector.
(As far as I am concerned, SMT stood for shirkers, malingerers and timewasters).
He’s someone who you don’t like or don’t like his politics. so fuck him. That’s what it boils down to.
There are obnoxious sh!TS across the political spectrum. I'm even handed there. Many Tories, labour and libdems are like that.
On topic and thanks to @viewcode for a thought provoking piece, the concept of the nation state has always evolved and is still so doing.
Many thought there would come a time when Governments would go out of business and business would go into Governments and global corporations would in effect rule large parts of the planet as their personal fiefdoms.
It hasn't quite worked like that but as @viewcode suggests, there is a cohort of extremely wealthy individuals who are able to be effectively "stateless". Money talks, men walk as someone once said and you will always find people going to where the money is (or where they think the money is). The mega-rich can therefore build their own state-like entourages of property and support networks much as I imagine powerful people throughout the ages were able so to do. These people operate if not above the law then without much regard for it.
We are now both in awe of and terrified by extreme wealth in equal measure. There's the obvious aspiration but in terms of policy making "soaking the rich" is now deemed impossible as "the rich" will simply move elsewhere and if necessary buy a Government which does what they want.
I digress..
There is clearly a "British" identity emerging among those often (but not always) coming here and settling from other parts of the world. and this will become stronger with time, British is not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish (though it may have elements). I find it hard to define but I know it exists.
That's part of the evolution of nation states, the input of cultures and traditions from other parts of the world, elements of which become part of the local culture. Look at food for example - we now have access to cuisines which our parents let alone our grandparents never had. You have a choice - either embrace the change aqnd accept the evolution of national identity or resist it and retreat to the safety of the past.
So much of what is happening now is predicated on a fear of the future, the "comfort zone" of the culture with which we are familiar so we trot out phrases from Python, Fawlty Towers and Blackadder. On my walk this afternoon, two young men had their phone music on loud but what was disappointing was it was just hip hop. Music has stagnated and nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
I think a substantial proportion of our governing class aspire to the internationalism you describe. They regard the Head Count as a problem to be solved.
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.
I'm sure he's a complete ****, but I would also say his parliamentary and ministerial career gives him an interesting perspective that I think would add value to his teaching career. If he's really been totally unable to get a teaching job, it doesn't speak well for the seriousness of the profession.
I'm a bit sceptical about the idea he's been unable to get a job despite best efforts - it feels all a bit of a convenient way to eke out some publicity for himself.
But, if it's true, isn't it partly that the election fell at in a really inconvenient month for getting a teaching job? I understood departing teachers tend to make their intentions known around Easter, with recruitment April-June. As it happens, the election fell just after the busiest recruitment period by far, and in a really rather dead period. Posts do come up at other times, but not nearly as many.
There is that. Also he doesn't appear to have subject skills which are particularly in demand - and gave himself a less than glowing public testimonial: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gullis
I hope he manages to overcome any personal shortcomings, and finds gainful employment in the end, though.
After much soul searching, weak cups of teas, and vague niceness, I have decided that I don’t forgive Justin Welby.
Can we resurrect burning at the stake? Some religious rituals should be brought back...
In the style of the modern church, burning at the stake has been replaced by being roasted over a 1 watt LED bulb, powered by vicars on stationary bikes.
Re header: Are you @viewcode the guy in the video? What on earth is that in the corner.. well much of the room. And does anyone actually wear braces when at home?
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
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.
Possibly - it was after all a new mill town.
But maybe it's just geography ? The new railway made a couple of other directions undesirable, and Edgerton is directly off the road to Halifax, the nearest large town, which started to be developed some time before Huddersfield.
And it's not much of a hill - so a fairly easy drive into town, in horse drawn days, again unlike a few other directions.
I think Edgerton is late enough that siting relative to Huddersfield was probably the central factor, I don't imagine the Victorian route dropping into Halifax was that easy - the modern Elland by-pass sweeps down at a tolerably steep gradient courtesy of a lot of earth clearance and a mile or two of extra distance, the older roads into Elland are brutally downhill, and Halifax was probably better accessed on a longer route via Brighouse.
Re header: Are you @viewcode the guy in the video? What on earth is that in the corner.. well much of the room. And does anyone actually wear braces when at home?
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.
Are they not recruiting in Public Schools?
they obviously would know he was crap and so not entertain him.
The problem is Putin and Zelenskyy may want peace but Trump needs peace.
The overwhelming problem is, and has been for eleven years, that Putin does not want peace, he wants Ukraine.
That's true of course but I also think the war suits Putin in many ways. In particular, he has strengthened his grip on Russia, he has murdered dozens of his opponents, he obviously finds posing as a warlord more interesting than boring, intractable economic and social problems, it gives him a place in Russian nationalist history books which probably would have eluded him otherwise and he and his cronies have doubtless amassed yet bigger fortunes through smuggling and profiteering.
So even though Putin must realise he won't get all, or even most, of Ukraine, he'll be in no hurry to stop fighting, even if he gets most his war aims.
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Another Old Etonian with a brain the size of a mollusc and an ego the size of a planet.
It's due to his well-meant but ill-thought-through commitment to net zero that my parish church has been without heating from August 2023 until this week - which has led to considerable damage to both the building and the organ.
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Solar on rooves shows as a reduction in demand, not increased solar
That includes an estimate for rooftop production based on the reduced demand.
No-one's ever explained satisfactorily to me why new houses are bing built without solar panels. We've dozens round here with nary a panel to be seen.
And here...on a big south facing hill that catches the sun like anything.
Also why is there not a rule that says all public buildings should have solar panels? Eg council offices, leisure centres, schools, etc.
The cost of getting up on the roof and exposing the trusses is still the main issue, and some council buildings may not have the structural integrity for it anyway. We should certainly make it compulsory for any new public buildings.
I'm not sure about making it compulsory for new private buildings, but there does seem to be some sort of issue with the market in that such an obvious private demand - cheap energy and EV charging - is not being met by developers. I suppose it demonstrates that for buyers the initial outlay remains a huge obstacle, and any way to reduce that is desirable even if the costs over the long term are significantly higher.
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.
It'll be an SNP/Labour coalition if there isn't a pro-indy majority. With a referendum off the table, there is v little in policy between them. LibDems also likely to be part of"progressive" coalition. There will NOT be a unionist coalition. No way Lab and Con co-habit. Death for both.
To be fair, he goes to great lengths to say that forgiveness is really in the gift of the victims.
The abuser being dead, he cannot repent to a human like Welby. So what else is there to do for a Christian than forgive him unconditionally and rely on the judgement of God?
Re header: Are you @viewcode the guy in the video? What on earth is that in the corner.. well much of the room. And does anyone actually wear braces when at home?
On topic and thanks to @viewcode for a thought provoking piece, the concept of the nation state has always evolved and is still so doing.
Many thought there would come a time when Governments would go out of business and business would go into Governments and global corporations would in effect rule large parts of the planet as their personal fiefdoms.
It hasn't quite worked like that but as @viewcode suggests, there is a cohort of extremely wealthy individuals who are able to be effectively "stateless". Money talks, men walk as someone once said and you will always find people going to where the money is (or where they think the money is). The mega-rich can therefore build their own state-like entourages of property and support networks much as I imagine powerful people throughout the ages were able so to do. These people operate if not above the law then without much regard for it.
We are now both in awe of and terrified by extreme wealth in equal measure. There's the obvious aspiration but in terms of policy making "soaking the rich" is now deemed impossible as "the rich" will simply move elsewhere and if necessary buy a Government which does what they want.
I digress..
There is clearly a "British" identity emerging among those often (but not always) coming here and settling from other parts of the world. and this will become stronger with time, British is not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish (though it may have elements). I find it hard to define but I know it exists.
That's part of the evolution of nation states, the input of cultures and traditions from other parts of the world, elements of which become part of the local culture. Look at food for example - we now have access to cuisines which our parents let alone our grandparents never had. You have a choice - either embrace the change aqnd accept the evolution of national identity or resist it and retreat to the safety of the past.
So much of what is happening now is predicated on a fear of the future, the "comfort zone" of the culture with which we are familiar so we trot out phrases from Python, Fawlty Towers and Blackadder. On my walk this afternoon, two young men had their phone music on loud but what was disappointing was it was just hip hop. Music has stagnated and nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
While those living on the British Isles are keen to point out they are not like the rest of us as they are Irish, Scottish, Cornish etc for the rest of the world we are a very tight knit group of people with key characteristics. We see ourselves as multicultural but not to the rest of the world as to them the Pakistanis living in the UK are still Pakistanis.
The issue with the rise of the mega rich cannot be easily solved. I am potentially in line for the wealth tax so have some understanding of the issue.
I own large amounts of expensive machines. For example I am just buying an ICP EOS for £70k this week. To me these machines are highly valuable but worth nothing to the man on the street. Seizing my assets without my knowledge gets you nowhere.
I pay a lot of taxes (over £200k a year in the UK alone) but have many options to reduce the amount I pay. I spend less than half the year in the UK, my sons live in Berlin and NYC and I have EC residency as well as being entitled to a Green card. While the world is awash with millionaires there are only around 2 million deca dollar millionaires in the world. This is the population of sussex and surrey. We move easily around the world and have contacts everywhere. I constantly hear on TV and Radio the idea that we would find it difficult to move out of the UK tax system and inwardly laugh. I also hear people saying good riddance if we go as if we truly care what they think.
Most rich people I know are decent people but they demand and you can say deserve respect. If you try and attack or bully them they will make your life difficult. The Labour party started with a blank sheet but has so far alienated the rich significantly. It will take a long time to rebuild trust. For now UK citizens will just have to accept that the rich will dictate partly how their lives go from abroad.
Down to 1.6GW gas. -£4.65 per MWh. Fill yer boots, tears for Putin.
Gosh. Wind and Solar meeting between 81 and 84% of demand (including a huge chunk of pumped storage) depending on the source you check.
Is that a record?
Solar on 36% is interesting. I've never seen it higher than about 25% before. Maybe a lot more solar panels have been installed over the last 6 months or so.
Solar on rooves shows as a reduction in demand, not increased solar
That includes an estimate for rooftop production based on the reduced demand.
No-one's ever explained satisfactorily to me why new houses are bing built without solar panels. We've dozens round here with nary a panel to be seen.
And here...on a big south facing hill that catches the sun like anything.
Also why is there not a rule that says all public buildings should have solar panels? Eg council offices, leisure centres, schools, etc.
The cost of getting up on the roof and exposing the trusses is still the main issue, and some council buildings may not have the structural integrity for it anyway. We should certainly make it compulsory for any new public buildings.
I'm not sure about making it compulsory for new private buildings, but there does seem to be some sort of issue with the market in that such an obvious private demand - cheap energy and EV charging - is not being met by developers. I suppose it demonstrates that for buyers the initial outlay remains a huge obstacle, and any way to reduce that is desirable even if the costs over the long term are significantly higher.
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Yes you state it well, I have no-one I could vote for.
On one hand, JWelbz is a priest in the Church of God and forgiving sins is part of their job description. And that includes sins that we, as a society, might not want to forgive.
On the other, that idea is one that needs a fair bit of unpacking in our society, and he didn't do it. And, unlike Rowan, Justin doesn't have the visible unworldly holiness to carry that off. It's a shame, but there we are.
But my main question is- what was he thinking, doing this interview? Nothing good could have come from it.
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?
I find it shocking that you still call it the "Irish Sea", surely you will be supporting Keir Starmer's plan to rename it the Anglo-Welsh Sea?
To be fair, he goes to great lengths to say that forgiveness is really in the gift of the victims.
The abuser being dead, he cannot repent to a human like Welby. So what else is there to do for a Christian than forgive him unconditionally and rely on the judgement of God?
Given Welby’s own lack of action on the mater, perhaps he could try shutting up. And do something like walk a long pilgrimage and consider his own, extensive failings.
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Yes you state it well, I have no-one I could vote for.
There's a lot of that.
I wonder if it has always been so. Perhaps always at a certain age you realise that the upstarts wishing to be politicians are the useless end of society.
On one hand, JWelbz is a priest in the Church of God and forgiving sins is part of their job description. And that includes sins that we, as a society, might not want to forgive.
On the other, that idea is one that needs a fair bit of unpacking in our society, and he didn't do it. And, unlike Rowan, Justin doesn't have the visible unworldly holiness to carry that off. It's a shame, but there we are.
But my main question is- what was he thinking, doing this interview? Nothing good could have come from it.
So much of Trump (and Putin's) effectiveness is that their opponents are always on the backfoot, always reacting to their (often wild) ideas.
It's time to break the loop, and be the one who do the disorienting. The Europeans should get together and announce that the Atlantic is now to be called the Gulf of Greenland, and NATO is to be the Greenland Treaty and Friendship Organization (GTFO). Make the Trump administration react to our stupid trolling, rather than the other way around
So much of Trump (and Putin's effectiveness) is that their opponents are always on the backfoot, always reacting to their (often wild) ideas.
It's time to break the loop, and be the one who do the disorienting. The Europeans should get together and announce that the Atlantic is now to be called the Gulf of Greenland, and NATO is to be the Greenland Treaty and Friendship Organization (GTFO). Make the Trump administration react to our stupid trolling, rather than the other way around
How do you think the President of South Canada will react to that?
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Yes you state it well, I have no-one I could vote for.
Wings are banging on about the need to form TWO new parties. Two because they can’t possibly all agree with each other, even if the only stated policy is independence.
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.
It'll be an SNP/Labour coalition if there isn't a pro-indy majority. With a referendum off the table, there is v little in policy between them. LibDems also likely to be part of"progressive" coalition. There will NOT be a unionist coalition. No way Lab and Con co-habit. Death for both.
For repeated clarity, the Liberal Democrats are not 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.
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
You are extrapolating from 2 imperialist powers and making a general rule. India/Pakistan is a specific case
Interesting threat of secondary tariffs on countries that import Russian oil.
No idea how serious Trump is with it, but I think it's actually quite a good idea if implemented. Most countries would rather give up cheap Russian oil than worsen their trading terms with the US.
Viewcode's threads are always interesting and offer some fresh perspectives.
They do not use references like a scholarly article, and why should they - they're only PB headers. Instead the ideas are introduced as self-evident truth. This is fine, it's a style.
Until we hit something I'm actually relatively familiar with, such as Margaret Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood in any way being the basis for the wet Eurofederalism of Howe and later Blair. Then it comes to a crunching halt.
The wets' ideas (if they can be called that) were very well established long before Thatcher came to power - before even Heath came to power. There is also no sense in which Thatcher's philosophy on nationhood legitimised their push for European statehood with the British public - the wet policy on European statehood has always been furious denial that such a thing exists, whilst working toward Britain's participation in it behind the scenes. It still is.
No, it’s not.
The Liberal Unionist strain within the Tory party valued international cooperation, free trade, fiscal discipline, social liberalism, freedom and a “one nation” mindset.
That does not have anything to do with the EU.
What you are mistaking is the mindset of Macmillian and his generation who were scarred by the first world war and saw the EU as a way to avoid that (and the second) reoccurring
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
That was Chamberlain. He didn’t represent the mainstream of the Liberal Unionists, just himself and his acolytes
Another Old Etonian with a brain the size of a mollusc and an ego the size of a planet.
It's due to his well-meant but ill-thought-through commitment to net zero that my parish church has been without heating from August 2023 until this week - which has led to considerable damage to both the building and the organ.
I can imagine the cold would significantly reduce the effective functioning of the organ.
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Yes you state it well, I have no-one I could vote for.
There's a lot of that.
I wonder if it has always been so. Perhaps always at a certain age you realise that the upstarts wishing to be politicians are the useless end of society.
The problem with the Independence cause is that it is an ideological crusade - and unless people are feeling content with their lot you can’t get enough people to vote for ideology over jobs and services and money.
I witnessed this on the doors last year - the answer given to “I can’t get a doctors appointment” cannot be “independence” and yet this is what the Reverend Wings proposes and the SNP half-heartedly tried to argue with calamitous results.
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
That was Chamberlain. He didn’t represent the mainstream of the Liberal Unionists, just himself and his acolytes
You do know Joseph Chamberlain was elected leader of the Liberal Unionists, ousting Devonshire in what amounted to an intra-party coup over tariffs, don't you?
That doesn't suggest he was that far from the mainstream of them.
So much of Trump (and Putin's) effectiveness is that their opponents are always on the backfoot, always reacting to their (often wild) ideas.
It's time to break the loop, and be the one who do the disorienting. The Europeans should get together and announce that the Atlantic is now to be called the Gulf of Greenland, and NATO is to be the Greenland Treaty and Friendship Organization (GTFO). Make the Trump administration react to our stupid trolling, rather than the other way around
As an aside, it's very important to do the same with Putin's Russia.
There should be a big European conference on the political organization of post War Russia, and the institutions it should have etc. So, instead of everyone reacting to Putin's bullshit about Ukraine and the UN, it's Putin reacting to how Europeans think Russia should be organized.
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Yes you state it well, I have no-one I could vote for.
There's a lot of that.
I wonder if it has always been so. Perhaps always at a certain age you realise that the upstarts wishing to be politicians are the useless end of society.
The problem with the Independence cause is that it is an ideological crusade - and unless people are feeling content with their lot you can’t get enough people to vote for ideology over jobs and services and money.
I witnessed this on the doors last year - the answer given to “I can’t get a doctors appointment” cannot be “independence” and yet this is what the Reverend Wings proposes and the SNP half-heartedly tried to argue with calamitous results.
Think about how much energy Scotland exported to England today. Would pay for a lot of doctor appointments.
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?
I find it shocking that you still call it the "Irish Sea", surely you will be supporting Keir Starmer's plan to rename it the Anglo-Welsh Sea?
So much of Trump (and Putin's effectiveness) is that their opponents are always on the backfoot, always reacting to their (often wild) ideas.
It's time to break the loop, and be the one who do the disorienting. The Europeans should get together and announce that the Atlantic is now to be called the Gulf of Greenland, and NATO is to be the Greenland Treaty and Friendship Organization (GTFO). Make the Trump administration react to our stupid trolling, rather than the other way around
How do you think the President of South Canada will react to that?
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?
I find it shocking that you still call it the "Irish Sea", surely you will be supporting Keir Starmer's plan to rename it the Anglo-Welsh Sea?
Interesting threat of secondary tariffs on countries that import Russian oil.
No idea how serious Trump is with it, but I think it's actually quite a good idea if implemented. Most countries would rather give up cheap Russian oil than worsen their trading terms with the US.
Only needs to work against China and India to be very effective.
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?
I find it shocking that you still call it the "Irish Sea", surely you will be supporting Keir Starmer's plan to rename it the Anglo-Welsh Sea?
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?
I find it shocking that you still call it the "Irish Sea", surely you will be supporting Keir Starmer's plan to rename it the Anglo-Welsh Sea?
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Can’t vote SLD because they sold out causes they unanimously voted for (GR bill, Hate Crime bill) when it became convenient.
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Yes you state it well, I have no-one I could vote for.
There's a lot of that.
I wonder if it has always been so. Perhaps always at a certain age you realise that the upstarts wishing to be politicians are the useless end of society.
The problem with the Independence cause is that it is an ideological crusade - and unless people are feeling content with their lot you can’t get enough people to vote for ideology over jobs and services and money.
I witnessed this on the doors last year - the answer given to “I can’t get a doctors appointment” cannot be “independence” and yet this is what the Reverend Wings proposes and the SNP half-heartedly tried to argue with calamitous results.
Think about how much energy Scotland exported to England today. Would pay for a lot of doctor appointments.
Presumably we did pay for it, and it either paid for a lot of GP appointments or lined the shareholders' pockets
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Yes you state it well, I have no-one I could vote for.
There's a lot of that.
I wonder if it has always been so. Perhaps always at a certain age you realise that the upstarts wishing to be politicians are the useless end of society.
The problem with the Independence cause is that it is an ideological crusade - and unless people are feeling content with their lot you can’t get enough people to vote for ideology over jobs and services and money.
I witnessed this on the doors last year - the answer given to “I can’t get a doctors appointment” cannot be “independence” and yet this is what the Reverend Wings proposes and the SNP half-heartedly tried to argue with calamitous results.
Think about how much energy Scotland exported to England today. Would pay for a lot of doctor appointments.
The Scottish green energy revolution is a bit of a scam though isn't it? Wind farms in inaccessible places with grid bottlenecks designed to farm subsidies and constraint payments - some of which afaicr have made more from switching off than switching on. I wouldn't see the present favourable situation surviving a messy divorce. Especially given that a recent shale gas field discovered in Lincolnshire could meet the entirety of the UK's gas needs for a decade.
It would be fairer to Justin Welby to read the story and condemn him for what he's said, not the misleading headline:
Asked by the BBC if he would forgive Smyth, Welby said: "Yes. I think if he was alive and I saw him, but it's not me he's abused.
"He's abused the victims and survivors. So whether I forgive or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant."
Welby said it was more important for victims to be "cared for... liberated to rebuild their lives" by the Church than to speak about forgiveness.
Pressed on how victims might react, Welby said he would never suggest they should also forgive.
I did read it 👍 also saw it on TV
It’s not even for him to say even though he admits that. So why does he say it, it’s just stupid.
Because it’s a fundamental part of his role
Christianity doesn't seem to have a rule that you can only forgive people who have sinned against you personally, which has always struck me as an error.
It would be fairer to Justin Welby to read the story and condemn him for what he's said, not the misleading headline:
Asked by the BBC if he would forgive Smyth, Welby said: "Yes. I think if he was alive and I saw him, but it's not me he's abused.
"He's abused the victims and survivors. So whether I forgive or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant."
Welby said it was more important for victims to be "cared for... liberated to rebuild their lives" by the Church than to speak about forgiveness.
Pressed on how victims might react, Welby said he would never suggest they should also forgive.
I did read it 👍 also saw it on TV
It’s not even for him to say even though he admits that. So why does he say it, it’s just stupid.
It may be stupid but forgiveness is Christian doctrine, and he's answering the question he was asked, as a minister of the Church should answer the question. Welby is rightly criticised for how he has handled the abuse and other things, but not this answer in my view.
It would be fairer to Justin Welby to read the story and condemn him for what he's said, not the misleading headline:
Asked by the BBC if he would forgive Smyth, Welby said: "Yes. I think if he was alive and I saw him, but it's not me he's abused.
"He's abused the victims and survivors. So whether I forgive or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant."
Welby said it was more important for victims to be "cared for... liberated to rebuild their lives" by the Church than to speak about forgiveness.
Pressed on how victims might react, Welby said he would never suggest they should also forgive.
I did read it 👍 also saw it on TV
It’s not even for him to say even though he admits that. So why does he say it, it’s just stupid.
Because it’s a fundamental part of his role
Christianity doesn't seem to have a rule that you can only forgive people who have sinned against you personally, which has always struck me as an error.
Of course it isn't an error. You can hold a grudge against someone who hasn't sinned against you personally, therefore you can release that grudge against them - forgive them.
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?
I find it shocking that you still call it the "Irish Sea", surely you will be supporting Keir Starmer's plan to rename it the Anglo-Welsh Sea?
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?
I find it shocking that you still call it the "Irish Sea", surely you will be supporting Keir Starmer's plan to rename it the Anglo-Welsh Sea?
It would be fairer to Justin Welby to read the story and condemn him for what he's said, not the misleading headline:
Asked by the BBC if he would forgive Smyth, Welby said: "Yes. I think if he was alive and I saw him, but it's not me he's abused.
"He's abused the victims and survivors. So whether I forgive or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant."
Welby said it was more important for victims to be "cared for... liberated to rebuild their lives" by the Church than to speak about forgiveness.
Pressed on how victims might react, Welby said he would never suggest they should also forgive.
I did read it 👍 also saw it on TV
It’s not even for him to say even though he admits that. So why does he say it, it’s just stupid.
It’s his function as a clergyman to speak a load of rubbish, whether asked or not. It’s all they do, and the reason why sensible people should ignore them.
So much of Trump (and Putin's) effectiveness is that their opponents are always on the backfoot, always reacting to their (often wild) ideas.
It's time to break the loop, and be the one who do the disorienting. The Europeans should get together and announce that the Atlantic is now to be called the Gulf of Greenland, and NATO is to be the Greenland Treaty and Friendship Organization (GTFO). Make the Trump administration react to our stupid trolling, rather than the other way around
As an aside, it's very important to do the same with Putin's Russia.
There should be a big European conference on the political organization of post War Russia, and the institutions it should have etc. So, instead of everyone reacting to Putin's bullshit about Ukraine and the UN, it's Putin reacting to how Europeans think Russia should be organized.
It should really be post-Putin Russia. get everybody talking about it. If the war ends badly, so does he...
It would be fairer to Justin Welby to read the story and condemn him for what he's said, not the misleading headline:
Asked by the BBC if he would forgive Smyth, Welby said: "Yes. I think if he was alive and I saw him, but it's not me he's abused.
"He's abused the victims and survivors. So whether I forgive or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant."
Welby said it was more important for victims to be "cared for... liberated to rebuild their lives" by the Church than to speak about forgiveness.
Pressed on how victims might react, Welby said he would never suggest they should also forgive.
I did read it 👍 also saw it on TV
It’s not even for him to say even though he admits that. So why does he say it, it’s just stupid.
Because it’s a fundamental part of his role
Christianity doesn't seem to have a rule that you can only forgive people who have sinned against you personally, which has always struck me as an error.
Of course it isn't an error. You can hold a grudge against someone who hasn't sinned against you personally, therefore you can release that grudge against them - forgive them.
Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? That bloke who cut me up driving through Bradford last month?
He can't offer anyone else's forgiveness, and isn't doing so on behalf of the Anglican Communion, so I don't see the issue. It's none of your business who he forgives.
So much of Trump (and Putin's) effectiveness is that their opponents are always on the backfoot, always reacting to their (often wild) ideas.
It's time to break the loop, and be the one who do the disorienting. The Europeans should get together and announce that the Atlantic is now to be called the Gulf of Greenland, and NATO is to be the Greenland Treaty and Friendship Organization (GTFO). Make the Trump administration react to our stupid trolling, rather than the other way around
Nonsense.
Send a proclamation to the Rebellious Governor of the 13 Lesser Colonies, that his Gracious Majesty is pleased to rename the Atlantic, The Sea of Canada.
Sam Stein @samstein · 1h Trump didn't just open the door to a 3rd term. He embraced the idea of Vance running for president, winning, and then basically letting Trump be president. And so, now, if Vance does run (even if Trump insists he's done with politics) that has to be a consideration
So much of Trump (and Putin's effectiveness) is that their opponents are always on the backfoot, always reacting to their (often wild) ideas.
It's time to break the loop, and be the one who do the disorienting. The Europeans should get together and announce that the Atlantic is now to be called the Gulf of Greenland, and NATO is to be the Greenland Treaty and Friendship Organization (GTFO). Make the Trump administration react to our stupid trolling, rather than the other way around
How do you think the President of South Canada will react to that?
The Governor General you mean?
Not quite; when what was the USA becomes a state, or perhaps states of Canada, then it will share a governor general with the current Canadian one, Mary Simon. Its head of state of course will be King Charles III; and Trump can stand for governor of one of the new south Canadian states when he will lose to a Hispanic trans disabled female Yale sociology professor and he will give a gracious and modest losing speech.
The mills of history grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small.
Sam Stein @samstein · 1h Trump didn't just open the door to a 3rd term. He embraced the idea of Vance running for president, winning, and then basically letting Trump be president. And so, now, if Vance does run (even if Trump insists he's done with politics) that has to be a consideration
It would be fairer to Justin Welby to read the story and condemn him for what he's said, not the misleading headline:
Asked by the BBC if he would forgive Smyth, Welby said: "Yes. I think if he was alive and I saw him, but it's not me he's abused.
"He's abused the victims and survivors. So whether I forgive or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant."
Welby said it was more important for victims to be "cared for... liberated to rebuild their lives" by the Church than to speak about forgiveness.
Pressed on how victims might react, Welby said he would never suggest they should also forgive.
I did read it 👍 also saw it on TV
It’s not even for him to say even though he admits that. So why does he say it, it’s just stupid.
It’s his function as a clergyman to speak a load of rubbish, whether asked or not. It’s all they do, and the reason why sensible people should ignore them.
If I ever get to heaven, I'll mention that thought to Oscar Romero, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Jerzy Popielszko and Thomas Becket.
Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? That bloke who cut me up driving through Bradford last month?
As long as it’s not the people responsible for the overrun of the weekend closures of the Tyne Tunnel. They can burn in the fiery heart of hell for eternity.
Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? That bloke who cut me up driving through Bradford last month?
He can't offer anyone else's forgiveness, and isn't doing so on behalf of the Anglican Communion, so I don't see the issue. It's none of your business who he forgives.
The Christian approach, which is to desire and hope for the forgiveness of everyone for everything and by everyone is obviously absurd but if there is a better approach to the absurdness of the world I haven't found it yet.
Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? That bloke who cut me up driving through Bradford last month?
You should have gone for someone really controversial, like Thatcher.
A friend of mine (Valleys lass) was playing a game once where we named each other different historical figures and we had to work out who it was.
I hadn't realised just how left wing she was until she was enormously relieved to find she'd been dubbed 'Myra Hindley' rather than 'Margaret Thatcher.'
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.
More disaster for Scotland given the previous record of unionist sfor the preceding 50 years, only their bank books succeeded. Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
I’m sympathetic the point, but have to float the question who you would have people vote for.
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
Yes you state it well, I have no-one I could vote for.
Wings are banging on about the need to form TWO new parties. Two because they can’t possibly all agree with each other, even if the only stated policy is independence.
I have a header to write…
Reminds me of the old joke that went along the lines of "Lock two Scotsmen up in the jail overnight, when you open the door one will be dead and the other declaring victory. Lock one Scotsman up in the jail overnight and when you open the door he will have stabbed himself in the foot and declared victory."
It would be fairer to Justin Welby to read the story and condemn him for what he's said, not the misleading headline:
Asked by the BBC if he would forgive Smyth, Welby said: "Yes. I think if he was alive and I saw him, but it's not me he's abused.
"He's abused the victims and survivors. So whether I forgive or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant."
Welby said it was more important for victims to be "cared for... liberated to rebuild their lives" by the Church than to speak about forgiveness.
Pressed on how victims might react, Welby said he would never suggest they should also forgive.
I did read it 👍 also saw it on TV
It’s not even for him to say even though he admits that. So why does he say it, it’s just stupid.
Because it’s a fundamental part of his role
I thought he’d resigned.
The Church of England is dying in this country. Rightly so.
A Church set up just so the King could get a divorce doesn't have the greatest moral authority...
What do they teach you in these schools these days?
An independent Protestant church was a critical feature in both English and Scottish history. The church was not formed by Henry VIII- indeed England officially went back to being Catholic under Mary I- and the evolution was not even complete under Elizabeth I and arguably not even until the Glorious Revolution. The fact that neither country was Catholic has had a massive impact- the emergence of of a powerful aristocracy as a counterweight to the crown was as much a function of the dissolution of the monasteries as anything else. Arguably the fact that Britain emerged as a liberal and industrial state before everyone else was because of the break with Rome.
Comments
But maybe it's just geography ?
The new railway made a couple of other directions undesirable, and Edgerton is directly off the road to Halifax, the nearest large town, which started to be developed some time before Huddersfield.
And it's not much of a hill - so a fairly easy drive into town, in horse drawn days, again unlike a few other directions.
(As far as I am concerned, SMT stood for shirkers, malingerers and timewasters).
If he wanted peace he could literally have it in 24 hours by withdrawing his forces.
On topic and thanks to @viewcode for a thought provoking piece, the concept of the nation state has always evolved and is still so doing.
Many thought there would come a time when Governments would go out of business and business would go into Governments and global corporations would in effect rule large parts of the planet as their personal fiefdoms.
It hasn't quite worked like that but as @viewcode suggests, there is a cohort of extremely wealthy individuals who are able to be effectively "stateless". Money talks, men walk as someone once said and you will always find people going to where the money is (or where they think the money is). The mega-rich can therefore build their own state-like entourages of property and support networks much as I imagine powerful people throughout the ages were able so to do. These people operate if not above the law then without much regard for it.
We are now both in awe of and terrified by extreme wealth in equal measure. There's the obvious aspiration but in terms of policy making "soaking the rich" is now deemed impossible as "the rich" will simply move elsewhere and if necessary buy a Government which does what they want.
I digress..
There is clearly a "British" identity emerging among those often (but not always) coming here and settling from other parts of the world. and this will become stronger with time, British is not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish (though it may have elements). I find it hard to define but I know it exists.
That's part of the evolution of nation states, the input of cultures and traditions from other parts of the world, elements of which become part of the local culture. Look at food for example - we now have access to cuisines which our parents let alone our grandparents never had. You have a choice - either embrace the change aqnd accept the evolution of national identity or resist it and retreat to the safety of the past.
So much of what is happening now is predicated on a fear of the future, the "comfort zone" of the culture with which we are familiar so we trot out phrases from Python, Fawlty Towers and Blackadder. On my walk this afternoon, two young men had their phone music on loud but what was disappointing was it was just hip hop. Music has stagnated and nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
But, if it's true, isn't it partly that the election fell at in a really inconvenient month for getting a teaching job? I understood departing teachers tend to make their intentions known around Easter, with recruitment April-June. As it happens, the election fell just after the busiest recruitment period by far, and in a really rather dead period. Posts do come up at other times, but not nearly as many.
After much soul searching, weak cups of teas, and vague niceness, I have decided that I don’t forgive Justin Welby.
Also he doesn't appear to have subject skills which are particularly in demand - and gave himself a less than glowing public testimonial:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gullis
I hope he manages to overcome any personal shortcomings, and finds gainful employment in the end, though.
No point in kicking someone when they're down.
Given country is full of stupid cowards you are likely correct though, some day people will get a backbone.
So even though Putin must realise he won't get all, or even most, of Ukraine, he'll be in no hurry to stop fighting, even if he gets most his war aims.
What a clown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj929xd84e3o
The SNP have been entertaining but also worse than useless - pulling the country down on so many metrics where the only positive is that England is worse.
Voting them back in is like voting to get punched in the bollocks. Which leaves the various unionists and federalists- we LDs are not unionist. As with Labour south of the wall you get to the point where the other lot can’t do any worse.
For actual nationalists I do have sympathy. Can’t vote SNP for so many reasons. Can’t vote Alba because the Popular People’s Front lack the candidates or cash to actually front up a viable slate. Which leaves whom?
It's due to his well-meant but ill-thought-through commitment to net zero that my parish church has been without heating from August 2023 until this week - which has led to considerable damage to both the building and the organ.
By the destruction of his hydrocarbons industry.
I'm not sure about making it compulsory for new private buildings, but there does seem to be some sort of issue with the market in that such an obvious private demand - cheap energy and EV charging - is not being met by developers. I suppose it demonstrates that for buyers the initial outlay remains a huge obstacle, and any way to reduce that is desirable even if the costs over the long term are significantly higher.
There will NOT be a unionist coalition. No way Lab and Con co-habit. Death for both.
The abuser being dead, he cannot repent to a human like Welby. So what else is there to do for a Christian than forgive him unconditionally and rely on the judgement of God?
I think your header is quite interesting, not because you get anything right (who does), but because you illustrate the struggle against the stale.
While those living on the British Isles are keen to point out they are not like the rest of us as they are Irish, Scottish, Cornish etc for the rest of the world we are a very tight knit group of people with key characteristics. We see ourselves as multicultural but not to the rest of the world as to them the Pakistanis living in the UK are still Pakistanis.
The issue with the rise of the mega rich cannot be easily solved. I am potentially in line for the wealth tax so have some understanding of the issue.
I own large amounts of expensive machines. For example I am just buying an ICP EOS for £70k this week. To me these machines are highly valuable but worth nothing to the man on the street. Seizing my assets without my knowledge gets you nowhere.
I pay a lot of taxes (over £200k a year in the UK alone) but have many options to reduce the amount I pay. I spend less than half the year in the UK, my sons live in Berlin and NYC and I have EC residency as well as being entitled to a Green card. While the world is awash with millionaires there are only around 2 million deca dollar millionaires in the world. This is the population of sussex and surrey. We move easily around the world and have contacts everywhere. I constantly hear on TV and Radio the idea that we would find it difficult to move out of the UK tax system and inwardly laugh. I also hear people saying good riddance if we go as if we truly care what they think.
Most rich people I know are decent people but they demand and you can say deserve respect. If you try and attack or bully them they will make your life difficult. The Labour party started with a blank sheet but has so far alienated the rich significantly. It will take a long time to rebuild trust. For now UK citizens will just have to accept that the rich will dictate partly how their lives go from abroad.
Hamas begins brutal crackdown on Gaza protests with torture, executions.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/tunbridge-wells/news/solar-panels-on-sainsburys-next-door-will-reduce-our-house-322058/
On one hand, JWelbz is a priest in the Church of God and forgiving sins is part of their job description. And that includes sins that we, as a society, might not want to forgive.
On the other, that idea is one that needs a fair bit of unpacking in our society, and he didn't do it. And, unlike Rowan, Justin doesn't have the visible unworldly holiness to carry that off. It's a shame, but there we are.
But my main question is- what was he thinking, doing this interview? Nothing good could have come from it.
I wonder if it has always been so. Perhaps always at a certain age you realise that the upstarts wishing to be politicians are the useless end of society.
So much of Trump (and Putin's) effectiveness is that their opponents are always on the backfoot, always reacting to their (often wild) ideas.
It's time to break the loop, and be the one who do the disorienting. The Europeans should get together and announce that the Atlantic is now to be called the Gulf of Greenland, and NATO is to be the Greenland Treaty and Friendship Organization (GTFO). Make the Trump administration react to our stupid trolling, rather than the other way around
I have a header to write…
No idea how serious Trump is with it, but I think it's actually quite a good idea if implemented. Most countries would rather give up cheap Russian oil than worsen their trading terms with the US.
https://x.com/business/status/1906378571695694120?s=61
I witnessed this on the doors last year - the answer given to “I can’t get a doctors appointment” cannot be “independence” and yet this is what the Reverend Wings proposes and the SNP half-heartedly tried to argue with calamitous results.
That doesn't suggest he was that far from the mainstream of them.
There should be a big European conference on the political organization of post War Russia, and the institutions it should have etc. So, instead of everyone reacting to Putin's bullshit about Ukraine and the UN, it's Putin reacting to how Europeans think Russia should be organized.
Asked by the BBC if he would forgive Smyth, Welby said: "Yes. I think if he was alive and I saw him, but it's not me he's abused.
"He's abused the victims and survivors. So whether I forgive or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant."
Welby said it was more important for victims to be "cared for... liberated to rebuild their lives" by the Church than to speak about forgiveness.
Pressed on how victims might react, Welby said he would never suggest they should also forgive.
It’s not even for him to say even though he admits that. So why does he say it, it’s just stupid.
De vil ikke bestå
https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2025-02-14/giant-gas-field-discovered-which-could-fuel-uk-for-years
The Emirates Sea
The Church of England is dying in this country. Rightly so.
Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?
That bloke who cut me up driving through Bradford last month?
Welby’s remarks were reasonable.
Send a proclamation to the Rebellious Governor of the 13 Lesser Colonies, that his Gracious Majesty is pleased to rename the Atlantic, The Sea of Canada.
@samstein
·
1h
Trump didn't just open the door to a 3rd term. He embraced the idea of Vance running for president, winning, and then basically letting Trump be president. And so, now, if Vance does run (even if Trump insists he's done with politics) that has to be a consideration
https://x.com/samstein/status/1906401866281349458
The mills of history grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/30/marine-le-pen-alleged-embezzlement-verdict
Jennifer Bendery
@jbendery
Texas measles outbreak hits 400 cases.
Of the 400 cases, 398 were people who were unvaccinated or had an unknown vaccination status.
https://x.com/jbendery/status/1906402108892401716
I hadn't realised just how left wing she was until she was enormously relieved to find she'd been dubbed 'Myra Hindley' rather than 'Margaret Thatcher.'
An independent Protestant church was a critical feature in both English and Scottish history. The church was not formed by Henry VIII- indeed England officially went back to being Catholic under Mary I- and the evolution was not even complete under Elizabeth I and arguably not even until the Glorious Revolution. The fact that neither country was Catholic has had a massive impact- the emergence of of a powerful aristocracy as a counterweight to the crown was as much a function of the dissolution of the monasteries as anything else. Arguably the fact that Britain emerged as a liberal and industrial state before everyone else was because of the break with Rome.
That is no small thing.