Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
I think it’s worse than that
He clearly is bright, albeit in a narrow way
But he’s not bright enough to understand life is more complicated than his perfect model
And he’s arrogant enough to think it doesn’t matter
Now this is interesting. Kirstene Hair, who is the closest thing possible to an apolitical MP, has directly criticised the Prime Minister for his use of language:
Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green) and Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall) have lost the first trigger ballot meetings by landslides. Looks like both will be triggered. Unsurprisingly.
I am constantly surprised that people find MPs having to be reselected a big issue. In the US everyone, including POTUS, can be challenged before the election from within the party. It makes sure that representatives from parties actually stay in touch with the party institution, volunteers and activists that get them elected. If local parties no longer wish to have their MPs as candidates, or feel that having a primary is democratically better than just accepting the existing MP without question, that is their prerogative.
Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green) and Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall) have lost the first trigger ballot meetings by landslides. Looks like both will be triggered. Unsurprisingly.
I am constantly surprised that people find MPs having to be reselected a big issue. In the US everyone, including POTUS, can be challenged before the election from within the party. It makes sure that representatives from parties actually stay in touch with the party institution, volunteers and activists that get them elected. If local parties no longer wish to have their MPs as candidates, or feel that having a primary is democratically better than just accepting the existing MP without question, that is their prerogative.
It is one way to keep complacency and 'job for life' at bay.
Now this is interesting. Kirstene Hair, who is the closest thing possible to an apolitical MP, has directly criticised the Prime Minister for his use of language:
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Nephew of a judge, son-in-law of a baronet, he has the typical arrogance of a member of the establishment elite.
Don’t be pathetic
The Wakefields are among the loveliest most down to earth people you could hope to meet
(Disclosure: I’ve known Jack, Mary’s brother, since I was 3 or 4)
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Nephew of a judge, son-in-law of a baronet, he has the typical arrogance of a member of the establishment elite.
Don’t be pathetic
The Wakefields are among the loveliest most down to earth people you could hope to meet
(Disclosure: I’ve known Jack, Mary’s brother, since I was 3 or 4)
Please tell me that you were being self-aware when you posted that.
'History abounds with strange bedfellows, and Corbyn/Swinson/Sturgeon must be up there among the most exotic. I doubt if it would last very long – long enough to see Brexit settled, and not very much more "
Brexit settled? How exactly is it going to be settled by this group of people.
People on the sovereignty wing aren't going to just shrug and say fair enough if we get revoke versus softest possible brexit referendum.
Brexit isn't going away, "revoke, remain, rebuild" is a fantasy that just leads to a populist "stab in the back" mythology.
Probably the only way to settle Brexit, is to have a no deal and for it to fail.
This is why Brexit is unresolvable in England.
Scotland, Wales and NI have routes out of the dystopian nightmare, but England is stuck in the mire for at least a generation.
David Cameron. Some guy!
I sort of agree. A United Ireland should work easily enough,. The birth pains would be bloody though.
Scotland is tricky especially if it wishes to join the EU, protecting the EU single market will require a meaningful border on the Tweed. The last few years has shown it's not a easy thing to achieve. It's difficult to see how it will work.
Wales is hitched to England forever, no way out of it for them.
Scotland’s border with England is a lot easier to set up than Northern Ireland’s border with Ireland. It’s a lot shorter with far fewer crossings.
It is also much less contentious geographically, apart from Berwick.
To be equivalent to the Irish border, England would have to annex the Scottish Borders and put the border with Indy Scotland at the Antonine wall.
Which is not impossible given all the Scottish Borders seats are Tory held and the Scottish Borders was overwhelmingly No to Scottish independence in 2014
Fascinating insight into Tory thinking. Next step: partition of Scotland.
Evil is the only word for it.
In which case evil is also the word for those seeking to break up the UK
Evil is certainly the word for those seeking to break up the EU, the most successful peace enterprise in world history.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
I think there is a lot of misdirection going on here. the govt are trying to see where the leaks are coming from and trying to seal the holes. It's an old trick.
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Nephew of a judge, son-in-law of a baronet, he has the typical arrogance of a member of the establishment elite.
Don’t be pathetic
The Wakefields are among the loveliest most down to earth people you could hope to meet
(Disclosure: I’ve known Jack, Mary’s brother, since I was 3 or 4)
Please tell me that you were being self-aware when you posted that.
I like to think that "Charles" is actually a satirical construct created by an unemployed Marxist living in a bedsit in Croydon.
'History abounds with strange bedfellows, and Corbyn/Swinson/Sturgeon must be up there among the most exotic. I doubt if it would last very long – long enough to see Brexit settled, and not very much more "
Brexit settled? How exactly is it going to be settled by this group of people.
People on the sovereignty wing aren't going to just shrug and say fair enough if we get revoke versus softest possible brexit referendum.
Brexit isn't going away, "revoke, remain, rebuild" is a fantasy that just leads to a populist "stab in the back" mythology.
Probably the only way to settle Brexit, is to have a no deal and for it to fail.
This is why Brexit is unresolvable in England.
Scotland, Wales and NI have routes out of the dystopian nightmare, but England is stuck in the mire for at least a generation.
David Cameron. Some guy!
I sort of agree. A United Ireland should work easily enough,. The birth pains would be bloody though.
Scotland is tricky especially if it wishes to join the EU, protecting the EU single market will require a meaningful border on the Tweed. The last few years has shown it's not a easy thing to achieve. It's difficult to see how it will work.
Wales is hitched to England forever, no way out of it for them.
In a democracy, there is always a way out. It is called the ballot box.
Yes , and given we have less than a handful of roads, only two main ones , crossing the border even if England played silly beggars it would not be a major undertaking.
He’s clearly right, tho. Remainers perceive him as the politician most likely to deliver Brexit. So they are all trying to bring him down. It’s quite a spectacle.
Maybe it’s because he’s a sex pest.
I don’t remember people coming out of the woodwork to say Theresa May goosed them behind the rood screen.
The problem is it is an allegation - no matter how believable - without supporting evidence and with no way to prove it
I've not noticed any reference to the incredible interference of the EU with British industry announced on BBC this morning. Washing machines and similar devices must be easier to repair. How are British plumbers and washing machine technicians supposed to make a living? What's more spare parts will have to be available for 10 years. What harm will this do to British retailers of such appliances?
Who are these great British manufacturers of washing machines?
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Corbyn in Swinson's pocket maybe not in Sturgeon's who is seen as an anti English Scottish nationalist and every poll anyway has Swinson as Kingmaker not Sturgeon now if the Tories do not win a majority
People down south are very ignorant of anything outside England, hence the stupidity of thinking Swinson is of any importance, the 4th party will be hangers on and an impotent Swinson less than useless.
Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green) and Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall) have lost the first trigger ballot meetings by landslides. Looks like both will be triggered. Unsurprisingly.
I am constantly surprised that people find MPs having to be reselected a big issue. In the US everyone, including POTUS, can be challenged before the election from within the party. It makes sure that representatives from parties actually stay in touch with the party institution, volunteers and activists that get them elected. If local parties no longer wish to have their MPs as candidates, or feel that having a primary is democratically better than just accepting the existing MP without question, that is their prerogative.
Primaries have a much wider electorate. The problem with a narrow party selectorate is they tend to punish MPs for doing exactly what they ought to do... that is, reaching out to the broader community, compromising, and challenging the party (who will often run the Council and so on) where necessary.
In each of the cases where MPs have been subject to reselection challenge lately, has this stemmed from genuine, widely held local feeling that they are poor MPs? No, it's been from a relatively small numbers of members (often quite recent ones who might reasonably be described as infiltrators - from the far left in Labour and UKIP/BXP in the Tories) who feel they are "impure" for seeking to act a little independently to represent the balance of views in the community.
Also query the US model. It has led to some pretty extreme figures even with the wider primary electorate. Alabama isn't the most moderate place in the world, but was Roy Moore representative of the state as a whole or even just of Republicanism as a whole in the state? Was he heck. He ultimately lost out, but is an example of gravitation to the vocal extreme rather than something more representative.
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Cummings is bright, but the error bright people make is to think that makes them superior.
I am increasingly convinced that Leave won despite Cummings rather than because of him. Without him it might well have been 55/45, less toxic and we would have been out by now.
The marketing of the Leave campaign was exceptional. It triggered every prejudice against an establishment with its hands tied. It's 'Border with Turkey' and 'Take Control' were mastrstrokes and left Remain leaden footed.
The key to a successful ad campaign is to identify your target market and target them ruthlessly. After a few weeks of the campaign Laura K went to a bingo hall in Preston and asked an eldery audience who would be voting 'Leave'. All put their hands up. 'Why' she asked? 'Immigration' they answered. Shortly after I heard Nigel Lawson on Question Time say 70,000,000 Turks would be on our border. DC had done his sums and the rest was easy.
Unless you think DC wasn't responsible for the campaign I can't see anything other than that he was responsible for their victory.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
This red-meat-and-bacon-are-ok story is just amazing. The biggest study of its kind ever done. And it chucks 40 years of health advice in the pate maker.
It follows every other crap story we have been told about what is good or not good for us food and drink wise. Every item of food or drink that has been termed detrimental has been found to actually be good and the artificial crap promoted by these morons have indeed turned out to be harmful. I always work on the premise that if they claim it is bad for me then it is a surefire certainty it is actually good, obviously as long as you are not stuffing yourself with particular items. A decent balanced diet and a good modicum of alcohol is what is beneficial.
Now this is interesting. Kirstene Hair, who is the closest thing possible to an apolitical MP, has directly criticised the Prime Minister for his use of language:
He’s clearly right, tho. Remainers perceive him as the politician most likely to deliver Brexit. So they are all trying to bring him down. It’s quite a spectacle.
Maybe it’s because he’s a sex pest.
I don’t remember people coming out of the woodwork to say Theresa May goosed them behind the rood screen.
The problem is it is an allegation - no matter how believable - without supporting evidence and with no way to prove it
That’s not just.
Yes, it is impossible to believe that a man who has routinely betrayed his wives, who has refused to take responsibility when his mistresses have become pregnant, who has twice been sacked for lying and who has described himself as "bursting with spunk" would be capable of groping a young, female employee.
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Nephew of a judge, son-in-law of a baronet, he has the typical arrogance of a member of the establishment elite.
Don’t be pathetic
The Wakefields are among the loveliest most down to earth people you could hope to meet
(Disclosure: I’ve known Jack, Mary’s brother, since I was 3 or 4)
And no friend of Charles's could ever be described as being a member of the establishment elite!!
'History abounds with strange bedfellows, and Corbyn/Swinson/Sturgeon must be up there among the most exotic. I doubt if it would last very long – long enough to see Brexit settled, and not very much more "
Brexit settled? How exactly is it going to be settled by this group of people.
People on the sovereignty wing aren't going to just shrug and say fair enough if we get revoke versus softest possible brexit referendum.
Brexit isn't going away, "revoke, remain, rebuild" is a fantasy that just leads to a populist "stab in the back" mythology.
Probably the only way to settle Brexit, is to have a no deal and for it to fail.
This is why Brexit is unresolvable in England.
Scotland, Wales and NI have routes out of the dystopian nightmare, but England is stuck in the mire for at least a generation.
David Cameron. Some guy!
I sort of agree. A United Ireland should work easily enough,. The birth pains would be bloody though.
Scotland is tricky especially if it wishes to join the EU, protecting the EU single market will require a meaningful border on the Tweed. The last few years has shown it's not a easy thing to achieve. It's difficult to see how it will work.
Wales is hitched to England forever, no way out of it for them.
Scotland’s border with England is a lot easier to set up than Northern Ireland’s border with Ireland. It’s a lot shorter with far fewer crossings.
No recent history of violence is the main difference.
Anglo-Scottish border: 154 km Established: 973 (1,046 years old) Few roads and only a couple of railway lines
British border in Ireland: 499 km Established: 1921 (98 years old) Thousands of roads and tracks
(Of course, smugglers have historically used water routes, which abound in both cases.)
One of the reasons (not the only reason) the Scottish Borders are largely unpopulated is because historically it was a massive No Man’s Land and its inhabitants were regularly put to the torch and sword by both sides.
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Corbyn in Swinson's pocket maybe not in Sturgeon's who is seen as an anti English Scottish nationalist and every poll anyway has Swinson as Kingmaker not Sturgeon now if the Tories do not win a majority
People down south are very ignorant of anything outside England, hence the stupidity of thinking Swinson is of any importance, the 4th party will be hangers on and an impotent Swinson less than useless.
Most people in E&W know perfectly well that Swinson leads the Pipsqueaks.
She is completely unimportant now, and will still be after the next election.
On pb.com, one LibDem calls to another LibDem like Woolly Mammoths trumpeting across the tundra.
It is their bellows about Swinson that are drowning out saner voices.
Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green) and Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall) have lost the first trigger ballot meetings by landslides. Looks like both will be triggered. Unsurprisingly.
I am constantly surprised that people find MPs having to be reselected a big issue. In the US everyone, including POTUS, can be challenged before the election from within the party. It makes sure that representatives from parties actually stay in touch with the party institution, volunteers and activists that get them elected. If local parties no longer wish to have their MPs as candidates, or feel that having a primary is democratically better than just accepting the existing MP without question, that is their prerogative.
And Godsiff is an appalling person who has fostered division with his support for various undesirable causes. His defenestration is long overdue. Maybe the same is true of Sharma but I do not know in his case.
I've not noticed any reference to the incredible interference of the EU with British industry announced on BBC this morning. Washing machines and similar devices must be easier to repair. How are British plumbers and washing machine technicians supposed to make a living? What's more spare parts will have to be available for 10 years. What harm will this do to British retailers of such appliances?
Who are these great British manufacturers of washing machines?
Siemens? Bosch? Miele? Electrolux? Zanussi?
I thought that as I was writing the post. That's why I added the bit about plumbers and repair technicians. From experience they seem to be local.
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
My daughter loves Ian Blackford and would vote SNP of she could. Only problem is she lives in Barnes.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
Spanish policy in 2014 was to have Scotland at the back of the queue for EU membership. My guess is that things will have changed now that the Spain's government has moved left. However, the SNP's support for lawbreaking Catalan separatists means that were PSOE to lose power after November's election things could change once more. Thanks to Brexit, Spain is now a much bigger player in the EU, of course.
Re: downthread on Cummings intellect, it’s almost impossible to get a concession from someone who vehemently opposes his actions and his politics that he’s bright because the conclusion has already been reaching, and it’s actually a shooting exercise. Even if I posted a link to his MENSA certificate showing his IQ score the retort would still be that it’s not evidence, and IQ scores aren’t a measure of real intelligence either.
As it happens his educational record, the fact he took over a year off just to read and absorb hundreds of books, his fluency in maths, Russian, his record in successive campaigns (no to NE assembly, business for Britain, No 2 AV and Vote Leave) plus the depth and lateral thinking of his blogposts are evidence enough for me.
That doesn’t mean he’s not capable of acting extremely unwisely, politically, which can come across as crass stupidity to those more savvy. You can be too bright and too ideological where you assume others must logically reach the same conclusions you have.
Primaries have a much wider electorate. The problem with a narrow party selectorate is they tend to punish MPs for doing exactly what they ought to do... that is, reaching out to the broader community, compromising, and challenging the party (who will often run the Council and so on) where necessary.
In each of the cases where MPs have been subject to reselection challenge lately, has this stemmed from genuine, widely held local feeling that they are poor MPs? No, it's been from a relatively small numbers of members (often quite recent ones who might reasonably be described as infiltrators - from the far left in Labour and UKIP/BXP in the Tories) who feel they are "impure" for seeking to act a little independently to represent the balance of views in the community.
Also query the US model. It has led to some pretty extreme figures even with the wider primary electorate. Alabama isn't the most moderate place in the world, but was Roy Moore representative of the state as a whole or even just of Republicanism as a whole in the state? Was he heck. He ultimately lost out, but is an example of gravitation to the vocal extreme rather than something more representative.
Primaries do not necessarily have a wider selectorate, in most states they need to be members of the party whose primary they are voting in and be residents of that state / house district where the primary election is taking place. Whilst population wise that is probably more people, it is still a self selected group of party people in their constituency.
If parties have policies, platforms and ideologies that members care about and want enacting, and their representatives are not doing that to their satisfaction, why should they not be scrutinised by the people who put in the work to get them elected? Members fund parties, they do the legwork of door knocking and leafleting and so on. Now, you can claim they are entryists or whatever, but if moderates in the party outnumber them then they won't win. If people hand over their party to members more ideologically extreme, that is down to them. People get the parties they deserve, and too many people bought into the "end of history" narrative and stopped being politically active.
I mean, Moore sadly does represent the GOP of the state of Alabama. He was elected as a judge, twice, once after being removed from office for refusing to uphold a ruling that a statue of the 10 commandments could not be on state land. If a party wishes to nominate an extreme candidate, that is down to the party members. It is down to the wider electorate to ignore that if they disagree. That is how parties are supposed to work.
The Tories did indeed gain 16 percentage points in Bolsover, though entirely at the expense of UKIP; Labour’s share was completely unchanged. The Labour vote in the north is famously sticky when it comes to polling day.
It would have been more complicated than that - the Conservatives would have gained from both UKIP and Labour with Labour also gaining from UKIP.
Now if we look at a longer timescale the change in Bolsover between 2005 and 2017 was:
Re: downthread on Cummings intellect, it’s almost impossible to get a concession from someone who vehemently opposes his actions and his politics that he’s bright because the conclusion has already been reaching, and it’s actually a shooting exercise. Even if I posted a link to his MENSA certificate showing his IQ score the retort would still be that it’s not evidence, and IQ scores aren’t a measure of real intelligence either.
As it happens his educational record, the fact he took over a year off just to read and absorb hundreds of books, his fluency in maths, Russian, his record in successive campaigns (no to NE assembly, business for Britain, No 2 AV and Vote Leave) plus the depth and lateral thinking of his blogposts are evidence enough for me.
That doesn’t mean he’s not capable of acting extremely unwisely, politically, which can come across as crass stupidity to those more savvy. You can be too bright and too ideological where you assume others must logically reach the same conclusions you have.
He is clearly immensely bright. But as the last few years have shown us beyond doubt, a lot of bright people are not always very intelligent! Cummings shows particular stupidity in believing he knows more about the law than the country's best lawyers.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Agreed, I think the SNP is quite well viewed in much of English Remainerdom.
The SNP's determination to prevent no deal is impressive, since the collapse of Brexit will seriously undermine the case for Scottish independence. Dragging Scotland into no deal against its will would be the quickest route to an early breakaway, and the fact that the SNP has come out firmly against this, putting the interests of the whole of the UK ahead of their narrow political interest, is obviously very helpful to the remain cause in England.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
'History abounds with strange bedfellows, and Corbyn/Swinson/Sturgeon must be up there among the most exotic. I doubt if it would last very long – long enough to see Brexit settled, and not very much more "
Brexit settled? How exactly is it going to be settled by this group of people.
People on the sovereignty wing aren't going to just shrug and say fair enough if we get revoke versus softest possible brexit referendum.
Brexit isn't going away, "revoke, remain, rebuild" is a fantasy that just leads to a populist "stab in the back" mythology.
Probably the only way to settle Brexit, is to have a no deal and for it to fail.
This is why Brexit is unresolvable in England.
Scotland, Wales and NI have routes out of the dystopian nightmare, but England is stuck in the mire for at least a generation.
David Cameron. Some guy!
I sort of agree. A United Ireland should work easily enough,. The birth pains would be bloody though.
Scotland is tricky especially if it wishes to join the EU, protecting the EU single market will require a meaningful border on the Tweed. The last few years has shown it's not a easy thing to achieve. It's difficult to see how it will work.
Wales is hitched to England forever, no way out of it for them.
Scotland’s border with England is a lot easier to set up than Northern Ireland’s border with Ireland. It’s a lot shorter with far fewer crossings.
No recent history of violence is the main difference.
Anglo-Scottish border: 154 km Established: 973 (1,046 years old) Few roads and only a couple of railway lines
British border in Ireland: 499 km Established: 1921 (98 years old) Thousands of roads and tracks
(Of course, smugglers have historically used water routes, which abound in both cases.)
One of the reasons (not the only reason) the Scottish Borders are largely unpopulated is because historically it was a massive No Man’s Land and its inhabitants were regularly put to the torch and sword by both sides.
Well, there's also the fact that most large settlements in the UK tend to be below 200m altitude and the majority of the Scots-English border is over 200m altitude. The bits below that height -- Gretna, Coldstream, Berwick -- are inhabited.
I think there is a lot of misdirection going on here. the govt are trying to see where the leaks are coming from and trying to seal the holes. It's an old trick.
This "leak" happened in Ireland.
Which means these were real documents the UK Government handed over to the EU.
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Cummings is bright, but the error bright people make is to think that makes them superior.
I am increasingly convinced that Leave won despite Cummings rather than because of him. Without him it might well have been 55/45, less toxic and we would have been out by now.
The marketing of the Leave campaign was exceptional. It triggered every prejudice against an establishment with its hands tied. It's 'Border with Turkey' and 'Take Control' were mastrstrokes and left Remain leaden footed.
The key to a successful ad campaign is to identify your target market and target them ruthlessly. After a few weeks of the campaign Laura K went to a bingo hall in Preston and asked an eldery audience who would be voting 'Leave'. All put their hands up. 'Why' she asked? 'Immigration' they answered. Shortly after I heard Nigel Lawson on Question Time say 70,000,000 Turks would be on our border. DC had done his sums and the rest was easy.
Unless you think DC wasn't responsible for the campaign I can't see anything other than that he was responsible for their victory.
Please do not use DC as an abbreviation when writing about the referendum campaign. It is ambiguous.
I think there is a lot of misdirection going on here. the govt are trying to see where the leaks are coming from and trying to seal the holes. It's an old trick.
This "leak" happened in Ireland.
Which means these were real documents the UK Government handed over to the EU.
The leak was published in Ireland. Not quite the same thing.
I've not noticed any reference to the incredible interference of the EU with British industry announced on BBC this morning. Washing machines and similar devices must be easier to repair. How are British plumbers and washing machine technicians supposed to make a living? What's more spare parts will have to be available for 10 years. What harm will this do to British retailers of such appliances?
Who are these great British manufacturers of washing machines?
Siemens? Bosch? Miele? Electrolux? Zanussi?
I thought that as I was writing the post. That's why I added the bit about plumbers and repair technicians. From experience they seem to be local.
These European washing machine manufacturers producing high quality goods and putting our repair technicians out of a job!
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
I'm interested in reading this at source -- could you please link to something that contains direct quotes saying this?
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
Beat me to it
It would surprise me as being so against EU policy of intervention in members' internal affairs.
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Nephew of a judge, son-in-law of a baronet, he has the typical arrogance of a member of the establishment elite.
Don’t be pathetic
The Wakefields are among the loveliest most down to earth people you could hope to meet
(Disclosure: I’ve known Jack, Mary’s brother, since I was 3 or 4)
And no friend of Charles's could ever be described as being a member of the establishment elite!!
Charles tends to lose rationality when it comes to him and his family (and his family history) as it becomes emotive, and therefore unarguable.
I can only presume he was brought up to genuinely believe all this which accounts for why he has no self-awareness for how it comes across.
That said, Charles is a lovely guy so I’d cut him some slack. The personal doesn’t need to be political.
He’s clearly right, tho. Remainers perceive him as the politician most likely to deliver Brexit. So they are all trying to bring him down. It’s quite a spectacle.
Maybe it’s because he’s a sex pest.
I don’t remember people coming out of the woodwork to say Theresa May goosed them behind the rood screen.
The problem is it is an allegation - no matter how believable - without supporting evidence and with no way to prove it
As it happens his educational record, the fact he took over a year off just to read and absorb hundreds of books, his fluency in maths, Russian, his record in successive campaigns (no to NE assembly, business for Britain, No 2 AV and Vote Leave) plus the depth and lateral thinking of his blogposts are evidence enough for me.
His Russian is fucking appalling. His 'ударение' (syllabic stress) was all over the place and, from the scant available evidence, he has the vocabulary of a 4 year old with a serious head injury.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
I'm interested in reading this at source -- could you please link to something that contains direct quotes saying this?
Having done a quick google, even if that was the case in 2014, now it seems to be the opposite, with the EU saying that an independent Scotland could "walk into" the EU.
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Agreed, I think the SNP is quite well viewed in much of English Remainerdom.
The SNP's determination to prevent no deal is impressive, since the collapse of Brexit will seriously undermine the case for Scottish independence. Dragging Scotland into no deal against its will would be the quickest route to an early breakaway, and the fact that the SNP has come out firmly against this, putting the interests of the whole of the UK ahead of their narrow political interest, is obviously very helpful to the remain cause in England.
I'm not sure rescuing the UK from itself will do harm to the independence cause. Certainly achieving the appearance of being the adults in the room could lead to some previous doubters thinking "yes, we are collectively capable of this". I appreciate that the Littlefinger attitude of "chaos is a ladder" does exist out there, but I don't think it's the way that ordinary voters in that swithering 20% will be swayed.
Re: downthread on Cummings intellect, it’s almost impossible to get a concession from someone who vehemently opposes his actions and his politics that he’s bright because the conclusion has already been reaching, and it’s actually a shooting exercise. Even if I posted a link to his MENSA certificate showing his IQ score the retort would still be that it’s not evidence, and IQ scores aren’t a measure of real intelligence either.
As it happens his educational record, the fact he took over a year off just to read and absorb hundreds of books, his fluency in maths, Russian, his record in successive campaigns (no to NE assembly, business for Britain, No 2 AV and Vote Leave) plus the depth and lateral thinking of his blogposts are evidence enough for me.
His Russian is fucking appalling. His 'ударение' (syllabic stress) was all over the place and, from the scant available evidence, he has the vocabulary of a 4 year old with a serious head injury.
You’re probably a good example of a Left-wing Cummings.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
I'm interested in reading this at source -- could you please link to something that contains direct quotes saying this?
Having done a quick google, even if that was the case in 2014, now it seems to be the opposite, with the EU saying that an independent Scotland could "walk into" the EU.
I'm not sure it was the case in 2014, but thank you for the link. I think it's important to point out that there would still be challenges to Scotland joining, just the acquis aspect would be a breeze.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
Beat me to it
It would surprise me as being so against EU policy of intervention in members' internal affairs.
Er, here you go. There’s loads more. Do some googling you lazy sod.
“An independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, Brussels has insisted.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, insisted the so-called ‘Barroso doctrine’ would take effect if Scotland left the UK.
In 2012, former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated that "a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
I'm interested in reading this at source -- could you please link to something that contains direct quotes saying this?
Having done a quick google, even if that was the case in 2014, now it seems to be the opposite, with the EU saying that an independent Scotland could "walk into" the EU.
This is why it has to be someone who was elected as a Conservative. Might even get a few still-Tories to support a new PM. Not every Conservative MP wants an election.
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Nephew of a judge, son-in-law of a baronet, he has the typical arrogance of a member of the establishment elite.
Don’t be pathetic
The Wakefields are among the loveliest most down to earth people you could hope to meet
(Disclosure: I’ve known Jack, Mary’s brother, since I was 3 or 4)
And no friend of Charles's could ever be described as being a member of the establishment elite!!
Charles tends to lose rationality when it comes to him and his family (and his family history) as it becomes emotive, and therefore unarguable.
I can only presume he was brought up to genuinely believe all this which accounts for why he has no self-awareness for how it comes across.
That said, Charles is a lovely guy so I’d cut him some slack. The personal doesn’t need to be political.
Also worth pointing out that ydoethur also tends to lose rationality when Gove or Cummings are mentioned.
Re: downthread on Cummings intellect, it’s almost impossible to get a concession from someone who vehemently opposes his actions and his politics that he’s bright because the conclusion has already been reaching, and it’s actually a shooting exercise. Even if I posted a link to his MENSA certificate showing his IQ score the retort would still be that it’s not evidence, and IQ scores aren’t a measure of real intelligence either.
As it happens his educational record, the fact he took over a year off just to read and absorb hundreds of books, his fluency in maths, Russian, his record in successive campaigns (no to NE assembly, business for Britain, No 2 AV and Vote Leave) plus the depth and lateral thinking of his blogposts are evidence enough for me.
That doesn’t mean he’s not capable of acting extremely unwisely, politically, which can come across as crass stupidity to those more savvy. You can be too bright and too ideological where you assume others must logically reach the same conclusions you have.
He is clearly immensely bright. But as the last few years have shown us beyond doubt, a lot of bright people are not always very intelligent! Cummings shows particular stupidity in believing he knows more about the law than the country's best lawyers.
Him saying something (well having his mouthpiece PM say it for him) doesnt mean he believes it. He believes it has strategic value to pretend he knows more about the law and to paint the judges as quisling traitors, with him and his poodle as nationalist heroes fighting a struggle for independence.
This is why it has to be someone who was elected as a Conservative. Might even get a few still-Tories to support a new PM. Not every Conservative MP wants an election.
This red-meat-and-bacon-are-ok story is just amazing. The biggest study of its kind ever done. And it chucks 40 years of health advice in the pate maker.
It follows every other crap story we have been told about what is good or not good for us food and drink wise. Every item of food or drink that has been termed detrimental has been found to actually be good and the artificial crap promoted by these morons have indeed turned out to be harmful. I always work on the premise that if they claim it is bad for me then it is a surefire certainty it is actually good, obviously as long as you are not stuffing yourself with particular items. A decent balanced diet and a good modicum of alcohol is what is beneficial.
... which is why Scotland has such good health outcomes?
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
I'm interested in reading this at source -- could you please link to something that contains direct quotes saying this?
Having done a quick google, even if that was the case in 2014, now it seems to be the opposite, with the EU saying that an independent Scotland could "walk into" the EU.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
I'm interested in reading this at source -- could you please link to something that contains direct quotes saying this?
Having done a quick google, even if that was the case in 2014, now it seems to be the opposite, with the EU saying that an independent Scotland could "walk into" the EU.
I'm not sure it was the case in 2014, but thank you for the link. I think it's important to point out that there would still be challenges to Scotland joining, just the acquis aspect would be a breeze.
The acquis stuff would be easy, but in Scotland’s case it’s the currency, bank, debt, borders, and relationship-with-England stuff which would be very tricky. Every part of the Scots accession deal would likely have to be agreed with london, as England would be home to Scotland’s currency, central bank, much of its debt.
This would be annoying for Scots, it is nonetheless true. Also Spain, and others, might have an interest in making Scotland’s accession quite tough, pour decourager les autres
I’ve no doubt a determined Scotland would in time rejoin the eu, but the process would not be this brisk, pain free exercise portrayed by the Nats. Look at Brexit!
Strong showing from the PM on R4 Today to my ears.
Will be fascinating to see whether all this continual focus on Johnson having allegedly been handsy two decades has the effect its proponents hope for. Far more severe and credible allegations didn't stop Trump getting 42% of the female vote.
Mr. Byronic, any non-Scottish MP (post Scottish independence) advocating the Scots using the pound, and having the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish taxpayer standing as lender of last resort (via the Bank of England) for the very large Scottish financial sector would have a damned hard time selling that to the electorate.
Er, here you go. There’s loads more. Do some googling you lazy sod.
“An independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, Brussels has insisted.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, insisted the so-called ‘Barroso doctrine’ would take effect if Scotland left the UK.
In 2012, former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated that "a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
Thank you. But you are doing what I asked you not to - to quote one of Mr Cameron's chums who was saying what Mr C wanted at the time.
The spokesperson is giving us bog standard stuff. You do not take into account Noo's effective point that it would take some time between independence vote and actual independence day and that there would have been negotiations ongoing during that. Much or all of the issues would be covered in the normal preparations for full independence. And as Noo said, much of the acquis is already ticked off. It's certainly also possible that there would be some interim membership - even if only Single Market - and that in the event membership was continuous fdor all practical purposes.
In any case, the matter woud be made very different now by Brexit, and by the very different political atmosphere in Europe as regards doing what a Tory government in London wants them to do.
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Agreed, I think the SNP is quite well viewed in much of English Remainerdom.
The SNP's determination to prevent no deal is impressive, since the collapse of Brexit will seriously undermine the case for Scottish independence. Dragging Scotland into no deal against its will would be the quickest route to an early breakaway, and the fact that the SNP has come out firmly against this, putting the interests of the whole of the UK ahead of their narrow political interest, is obviously very helpful to the remain cause in England.
# I don't think the SNP were ever particularly unpopular with remain inclined voters south of the border. It's leavers who generally seem to particularly dislike them. I pretty sure remember reading a poll a few years back which showed their approval rating amongst leavers was about the same as Putin or Trump was for the general population.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
Beat me to it
It would surprise me as being so against EU policy of intervention in members' internal affairs.
Er, here you go. There’s loads more. Do some googling you lazy sod.
“An independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, Brussels has insisted.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, insisted the so-called ‘Barroso doctrine’ would take effect if Scotland left the UK.
In 2012, former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated that "a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
That rather presupposes that during the divorce process the EU wouldn't be open to starting the process. Given the starting point would be "aquis already applies" it is clearly not true that "[Scotland becomes independent] and would then negotiate membership from scratch" It could have been that membership was negotiated from a standpoint of EU law already being applicable and before independence took place. The Barroso quote is correct in itself, but your use of it begs the question, that is to say it presupposes the conclusion that you are trying to reach.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
I'm interested in reading this at source -- could you please link to something that contains direct quotes saying this?
Having done a quick google, even if that was the case in 2014, now it seems to be the opposite, with the EU saying that an independent Scotland could "walk into" the EU.
I think he was a huge factor in the Brexit win. He was smart enough to distance Vote Leave from Leave EU before it all began and his guerilla campaign was very clever.
He is also clearly very academically bright (see Tim Shipman's first book). The way his 'cleverness' is portrayed in the press as something weird and otherworldly is a sign that people fear it and that he is also probably a bit out there.
Being a super clever academic type doesn't always a great politician make. See Enoch Powell, John Redwood or Ed Balls. That isn't a dig, because I think politics does need super clever academic people, but in the 24-hour news environment it needs people who are emotionally intelligent and thespian too.
I think where Cummings is smart and a bit like Bad Al Campbell is that he realises the wider public are COMPLETELY unaware of (and not interested in) the day-to-day handbags but do twig to the big ticket stuff.
Cummings probably doesn't care too much about the future of the Tory party but he's being paid big bucks to get Boris through a deal and is doing all he can to portray Boris as the Patron Saint of Brexit. Outside of the politico-nerd world I would say he's got lots of traction. Whether that traction has been offset by Boris's apparent unpopularity with women/unpopularity in Scotland remains to be seen at the next GE.
But I would say this: if the fear factor of an opposition politician can be measured by the amount of abuse ones gets, then Boris is definitely feared by Labour. The left are certainly far more fearful of him than they were of Theresa May.
Sunshine helps a lot too. Fantastic fresh fruit and veg. Plenty of good old-fashioned sex. Less obsessed with screen-time. Tight families and communities. Less obesity and inactivity.
Longevity and happiness is not rocket science.
I think I know what 'good' sex is - nothing wrong with MY memory - but I am less sure about what constitutes 'old fashioned'.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
Beat me to it
It would surprise me as being so against EU policy of intervention in members' internal affairs.
Er, here you go. There’s loads more. Do some googling you lazy sod.
“An independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, Brussels has insisted.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, insisted the so-called ‘Barroso doctrine’ would take effect if Scotland left the UK.
In 2012, former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated that "a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
Is this not also in the context of Catalonia, though? They did this to help Spain and UK. Well, now UK is leaving, and the Catalonia issue is less fraught, maybe they're more open to making life easier.
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Corbyn in Swinson's pocket maybe not in Sturgeon's who is seen as an anti English Scottish nationalist and every poll anyway has Swinson as Kingmaker not Sturgeon now if the Tories do not win a majority
People down south are very ignorant of anything outside England, hence the stupidity of thinking Swinson is of any importance, the 4th party will be hangers on and an impotent Swinson less than useless.
If she isn't of any importance why do you keep attacking her?
I don't think Cummings is intelligent. Or, rather, he may be one-dimensionally intelligent but he's incredibly dumb in other types e.g. emotional intelligence and social intelligence e.g. capacity to relate to people. He clearly doesn't apply himself to complex tasks with any kind of multiple intelligence. For example, he's incredibly stupid on parliament and law.
I don't give a fig what debunkers say, there are obviously multiple intelligences. Maths number crunching is one. Literary capability another. Language learning another. Artistic direction. Creativity, especially thinking outside the box.
We are not brains in a vat, to use the phrase applied to Immanuel Kant.
There is nothing stopping us from letting in anyone and their children. Being in the EU does not put any restrictions on our own rules. We are draconian when it comes to immigration, regardless of the EU.
Er, here you go. There’s loads more. Do some googling you lazy sod.
“An independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, Brussels has insisted.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, insisted the so-called ‘Barroso doctrine’ would take effect if Scotland left the UK.
In 2012, former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated that "a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
Thank you. But you are doing what I asked you not to - to quote one of Mr Cameron's chums who was saying what Mr C wanted at the time.
The spokesperson is giving us bog standard stuff. You do not take into account Noo's effective point that it would take some time between independence vote and actual independence day and that there would have been negotiations ongoing during that. Much or all of the issues would be covered in the normal preparations for full independence. And as Noo said, much of the acquis is already ticked off. It's certainly also possible that there would be some interim membership - even if only Single Market - and that in the event membership was continuous fdor all practical purposes.
In any case, the matter woud be made very different now by Brexit, and by the very different political atmosphere in Europe as regards doing what a Tory government in London wants them to do.
I very much doubt it, for the last few hundred years, whether in the EU or not, until the May government I have little doubt an Oxford professor would have been able to get their kids visas pretty much automatically.
What are immigration policy should be is indeed complicated and the distinctions between EU/rest of the world are part of that. It is not necessarily racist or wrong to prefer immigration from our neighbours.
Rest assured that we cannot successfully implement a policy that aims to attract the best and brightest to the country and treat them like this.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
Beat me to it
It would surprise me as being so against EU policy of intervention in members' internal affairs.
Er, here you go. There’s loads more. Do some googling you lazy sod.
“An independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, Brussels has insisted.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, insisted the so-called ‘Barroso doctrine’ would take effect if Scotland left the UK.
In 2012, former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated that "a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
Is this not also in the context of Catalonia, though? They did this to help Spain and UK. Well, now UK is leaving, and the Catalonia issue is less fraught, maybe they're more open to making life easier.
The Spanish Government position in 2014 and now was that a legal indyref was OK - which was/is not, at least in their view, what happened in Barcelona. So Scotland is not the same situation as Catalonia, whatever Mr Cameron got his chums to say personally.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EUis clearly the case and anyone is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
Beat me to it
It would surprise me as being so against EU policy of intervention in members' internal affairs.
Er, here you go. There’s loads more. Do some googling you lazy sod. dence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
That rather presupposes that during the divorce process the EU wouldn't be open to starting the process. Given the starting point would be "aquis already applies" it is clearly not true that "[Scotland becomes independent] and would then negotiate membership from scratch" It could have been that membership was negotiated from a standpoint of EU law already being applicable and before independence took place. The Barroso quote is correct in itself, but your use of it begs the question, that is to say it presupposes the conclusion that you are trying to reach.
Utter bollocks. Use your brain. How could the EU even begin to negotiate with Scotland when Scotland’s relationship with England - including debt, currency, central bank, deficit, border, trade - was still in flux? The EU would refuse to get involved until Scotland was fully indy.
It amazes me how those Remainers who (rightly) pointed out that quitting the EU would be a political and bureaucratic nightmare, simultaneously insist that Scotland quitting the UK AND rejoining the EU would be a stroll in the park.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
Can you document that, please? I can not remember any such statement.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
Beat me to it
It would surprise me as being so against EU policy of intervention in members' internal affairs.
Er, here you go. There’s loads more. Do some googling you lazy sod.
“An independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, Brussels has insisted.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, insisted the so-called ‘Barroso doctrine’ would take effect if Scotland left the UK.
In 2012, former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated that "a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
Is this not also in the context of Catalonia, though? They did this to help Spain and UK. Well, now UK is leaving, and the Catalonia issue is less fraught, maybe they're more open to making life easier.
The Spanish Government position in 2014 and now was that a legal indyref was OK - which was/is not, at least in their view, what happened in Barcelona. So Scotland is not the same situation as Catalonia, whatever Mr Cameron got his chums to say personally.
PS: another complicating factor of course is Brexit and Gib.
Primaries do not necessarily have a wider selectorate, in most states they need to be members of the party whose primary they are voting in and be residents of that state / house district where the primary election is taking place. Whilst population wise that is probably more people, it is still a self selected group of party people in their constituency.
If parties have policies, platforms and ideologies that members care about and want enacting, and their representatives are not doing that to their satisfaction, why should they not be scrutinised by the people who put in the work to get them elected? Members fund parties, they do the legwork of door knocking and leafleting and so on. Now, you can claim they are entryists or whatever, but if moderates in the party outnumber them then they won't win. If people hand over their party to members more ideologically extreme, that is down to them. People get the parties they deserve, and too many people bought into the "end of history" narrative and stopped being politically active.
I mean, Moore sadly does represent the GOP of the state of Alabama. He was elected as a judge, twice, once after being removed from office for refusing to uphold a ruling that a statue of the 10 commandments could not be on state land. If a party wishes to nominate an extreme candidate, that is down to the party members. It is down to the wider electorate to ignore that if they disagree. That is how parties are supposed to work.
Although to be pedantic, Alabama is a state where any registered voter can vote in any party's primary (but you can vote in only 1 party's primary per election cycle). Even states where the primaries are closed, it's restricted to that party's registered voters rather than people who have chosen to sign up and pay a membership fee as in the uk.
Anyway, the issue is best resolved by having proportional representation.
Is this not also in the context of Catalonia, though? They did this to help Spain and UK. Well, now UK is leaving, and the Catalonia issue is less fraught, maybe they're more open to making life easier.
The Catalonia issue is very different. Scottish independence would have been constitutionally valid and with the reluctant blessing of London. Madrid wholly opposes Catalonia even having a vote, and its constitution is pretty tightly against secession. I get the sense that EU attitudes follow the lead of the relevant members, which is why I think they would have been fairly relaxed about Scotland. Simply put, the EU looks after its members' interests.
Morning all. Your daily reminder that Corbyn doesn't have the numbers is early today. He even less has the numbers for 'a few months' of carnage Amusing discussions last night about proposals that arent being made, that's why I guess 'we dont comment on leaks' generally
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Corbyn in Swinson's pocket maybe not in Sturgeon's who is seen as an anti English Scottish nationalist and every poll anyway has Swinson as Kingmaker not Sturgeon now if the Tories do not win a majority
People down south are very ignorant of anything outside England, hence the stupidity of thinking Swinson is of any importance, the 4th party will be hangers on and an impotent Swinson less than useless.
You spend a hell of a lot of time posting your negative views regarding this person of no importance.
The Guardian (well it wouldn't it) has this lower down the story. 'The Wellcome Trust, a health research charity, has evidence of around 100 cases in which academics, especially from African countries, have been refused visas to come to the UK for conferences, often for spurious reasons.'
Does the same apply, I wonder, to 'academics, especially from African countries,' wish to attend conferences elsewhere in Europe?
Given the way the Home Office treats with Windrush people, one cannot be blamed for having suspicions!
All the mood music in the newspapers from the UK government is softening up readers for a deal being proposed that will be rejected by the EU and no plan for this government beyond that point.
A lot of health stories are driven by a poor understanding of maths.
Probably several times a week there will be a story on the BBC about something being at its highest or lowest level for 20 years/5 years/6 months or whatever, as though that in itself means something.
I don't think I have ever heard such stories mention words like variance or standard deviation.
Utter bollocks. Use your brain. How could the EU even begin to negotiate with Scotland when Scotland’s relationship with England - including debt, currency, central bank, deficit, border, trade - was still in flux? The EU would refuse to get involved until Scotland was fully indy.
It amazes me how those Remainers who (rightly) pointed out that quitting the EU would be a political and bureaucratic nightmare, simultaneously insist that Scotland quitting the UK AND rejoining the EU would be a stroll in the park.
You're arguing against straw men. I specifically said it would be challenging -- not a stroll in the park -- for Scotland to rejoin. I am merely saying that your assertion that it would be a case of starting from scratch is wrong and that a break between independence and joining as a member is far from certain.
Utter bollocks. Use your brain. How could the EU even begin to negotiate with Scotland when Scotland’s relationship with England - including debt, currency, central bank, deficit, border, trade - was still in flux? The EU would refuse to get involved until Scotland was fully indy.
It amazes me how those Remainers who (rightly) pointed out that quitting the EU would be a political and bureaucratic nightmare, simultaneously insist that Scotland quitting the UK AND rejoining the EU would be a stroll in the park.
I agree with the general point although you couldn't really conclude the negotiation with the UK until you knew whether or when Scotland would be in the EU, because if it's outside the EU that completely changes the requirements.
Maybe you'd have ended up doing a negotiation with the UK, but conditional on EU entry, then the whole thing gets stalled for 20 years while Spain plays silly buggers with the EU part.
GNU does look tricky. Once we dismiss Corbyn on numbers, even candidates like Beckett would struggle when you have Soames saying he wont vote down 'my government', others of the 21 less pearl clutched than Grieve, Gauke and Greening may feel the same
Comments
He clearly is bright, albeit in a narrow way
But he’s not bright enough to understand life is more complicated than his perfect model
And he’s arrogant enough to think it doesn’t matter
Mind you:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41362703
The Wakefields are among the loveliest most down to earth people you could hope to meet
(Disclosure: I’ve known Jack, Mary’s brother, since I was 3 or 4)
the govt are trying to see where the leaks are coming from and trying to seal the holes.
It's an old trick.
That’s not just.
Siemens?
Bosch?
Miele?
Electrolux?
Zanussi?
In each of the cases where MPs have been subject to reselection challenge lately, has this stemmed from genuine, widely held local feeling that they are poor MPs? No, it's been from a relatively small numbers of members (often quite recent ones who might reasonably be described as infiltrators - from the far left in Labour and UKIP/BXP in the Tories) who feel they are "impure" for seeking to act a little independently to represent the balance of views in the community.
Also query the US model. It has led to some pretty extreme figures even with the wider primary electorate. Alabama isn't the most moderate place in the world, but was Roy Moore representative of the state as a whole or even just of Republicanism as a whole in the state? Was he heck. He ultimately lost out, but is an example of gravitation to the vocal extreme rather than something more representative.
The key to a successful ad campaign is to identify your target market and target them ruthlessly. After a few weeks of the campaign Laura K went to a bingo hall in Preston and asked an eldery audience who would be voting 'Leave'. All put their hands up. 'Why' she asked? 'Immigration' they answered. Shortly after I heard Nigel Lawson on Question Time say 70,000,000 Turks would be on our border. DC had done his sums and the rest was easy.
Unless you think DC wasn't responsible for the campaign I can't see anything other than that he was responsible for their victory.
There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
I always work on the premise that if they claim it is bad for me then it is a surefire certainty it is actually good, obviously as long as you are not stuffing yourself with particular items. A decent balanced diet and a good modicum of alcohol is what is beneficial.
https://twitter.com/bbcnormans/status/1178950358208528385?s=21
She is completely unimportant now, and will still be after the next election.
On pb.com, one LibDem calls to another LibDem like Woolly Mammoths trumpeting across the tundra.
It is their bellows about Swinson that are drowning out saner voices.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/corbyn-must-say-who-he-would-back-to-lead-an-emergency-government-twfrqpcl2
As it happens his educational record, the fact he took over a year off just to read and absorb hundreds of books, his fluency in maths, Russian, his record in successive campaigns (no to NE assembly, business for Britain, No 2 AV and Vote Leave) plus the depth and lateral thinking of his blogposts are evidence enough for me.
That doesn’t mean he’s not capable of acting extremely unwisely, politically, which can come across as crass stupidity to those more savvy. You can be too bright and too ideological where you assume others must logically reach the same conclusions you have.
If parties have policies, platforms and ideologies that members care about and want enacting, and their representatives are not doing that to their satisfaction, why should they not be scrutinised by the people who put in the work to get them elected? Members fund parties, they do the legwork of door knocking and leafleting and so on. Now, you can claim they are entryists or whatever, but if moderates in the party outnumber them then they won't win. If people hand over their party to members more ideologically extreme, that is down to them. People get the parties they deserve, and too many people bought into the "end of history" narrative and stopped being politically active.
I mean, Moore sadly does represent the GOP of the state of Alabama. He was elected as a judge, twice, once after being removed from office for refusing to uphold a ruling that a statue of the 10 commandments could not be on state land. If a party wishes to nominate an extreme candidate, that is down to the party members. It is down to the wider electorate to ignore that if they disagree. That is how parties are supposed to work.
It would have been more complicated than that - the Conservatives would have gained from both UKIP and Labour with Labour also gaining from UKIP.
Now if we look at a longer timescale the change in Bolsover between 2005 and 2017 was:
Con +23.2%
Lab -13.3%
LibD -14.6%
UKIP +4.6%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsover_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Even allowing for other factors such as demographic change there must have been a significant switch from Labour to Conservative in Bolsover.
Of course all constituencies are different and what happens in one might not in others.
Unofficial remarks by Mr Cameron's chums don't count. I'm thinking in terms of formal EU statements at the highest level.
Which means these were real documents the UK Government handed over to the EU.
I can only presume he was brought up to genuinely believe all this which accounts for why he has no self-awareness for how it comes across.
That said, Charles is a lovely guy so I’d cut him some slack. The personal doesn’t need to be political.
It was nevertheless amusing to listen to James Cleverly being interviewed at conference and being pressed on these comments from Matt Hancock:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49873572/johnson-accuser-trustworthy-says-minister-hancock
His verbal twists to avoid adding "...and I find him trustworthy" to "I know the Prime Minister well" were quite something.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/path-open-for-independent-scotland-to-walk-into-eu-membership-1-5004639
I appreciate that the Littlefinger attitude of "chaos is a ladder" does exist out there, but I don't think it's the way that ordinary voters in that swithering 20% will be swayed.
I think it's important to point out that there would still be challenges to Scotland joining, just the acquis aspect would be a breeze.
“An independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, Brussels has insisted.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, insisted the so-called ‘Barroso doctrine’ would take effect if Scotland left the UK.
In 2012, former European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso stated that "a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the treaties would no longer apply on its territory".“
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/independent-scotland-would-need-re-apply-join-eu-european-commission-spokesman
They have been at the Tippex again...
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1178956968821690368
This would be annoying for Scots, it is nonetheless true. Also Spain, and others, might have an interest in making Scotland’s accession quite tough, pour decourager les autres
I’ve no doubt a determined Scotland would in time rejoin the eu, but the process would not be this brisk, pain free exercise portrayed by the Nats. Look at Brexit!
Will be fascinating to see whether all this continual focus on Johnson having allegedly been handsy two decades has the effect its proponents hope for. Far more severe and credible allegations didn't stop Trump getting 42% of the female vote.
A global Britain open to the world, eh?
The spokesperson is giving us bog standard stuff. You do not take into account Noo's effective point that it would take some time between independence vote and actual independence day and that there would have been negotiations ongoing during that. Much or all of the issues would be covered in the normal preparations for full independence. And as Noo said, much of the acquis is already ticked off. It's certainly also possible that there would be some interim membership - even if only Single Market - and that in the event membership was continuous fdor all practical purposes.
In any case, the matter woud be made very different now by Brexit, and by the very different political atmosphere in Europe as regards doing what a Tory government in London wants them to do.
I don't think the SNP were ever particularly unpopular with remain inclined voters south of the border. It's leavers who generally seem to particularly dislike them. I pretty sure remember reading a poll a few years back which showed their approval rating amongst leavers was about the same as Putin or Trump was for the general population.
It could have been that membership was negotiated from a standpoint of EU law already being applicable and before independence took place.
The Barroso quote is correct in itself, but your use of it begs the question, that is to say it presupposes the conclusion that you are trying to reach.
Its not fit for purpose is it.
I think he was a huge factor in the Brexit win. He was smart enough to distance Vote Leave from Leave EU before it all began and his guerilla campaign was very clever.
He is also clearly very academically bright (see Tim Shipman's first book). The way his 'cleverness' is portrayed in the press as something weird and otherworldly is a sign that people fear it and that he is also probably a bit out there.
Being a super clever academic type doesn't always a great politician make. See Enoch Powell, John Redwood or Ed Balls. That isn't a dig, because I think politics does need super clever academic people, but in the 24-hour news environment it needs people who are emotionally intelligent and thespian too.
I think where Cummings is smart and a bit like Bad Al Campbell is that he realises the wider public are COMPLETELY unaware of (and not interested in) the day-to-day handbags but do twig to the big ticket stuff.
Cummings probably doesn't care too much about the future of the Tory party but he's being paid big bucks to get Boris through a deal and is doing all he can to portray Boris as the Patron Saint of Brexit. Outside of the politico-nerd world I would say he's got lots of traction. Whether that traction has been offset by Boris's apparent unpopularity with women/unpopularity in Scotland remains to be seen at the next GE.
But I would say this: if the fear factor of an opposition politician can be measured by the amount of abuse ones gets, then Boris is definitely feared by Labour. The left are certainly far more fearful of him than they were of Theresa May.
However, perhaps best not to pursue.
I don't give a fig what debunkers say, there are obviously multiple intelligences. Maths number crunching is one. Literary capability another. Language learning another. Artistic direction. Creativity, especially thinking outside the box.
We are not brains in a vat, to use the phrase applied to Immanuel Kant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
https://fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-stay-in-eu/
What are immigration policy should be is indeed complicated and the distinctions between EU/rest of the world are part of that. It is not necessarily racist or wrong to prefer immigration from our neighbours.
Rest assured that we cannot successfully implement a policy that aims to attract the best and brightest to the country and treat them like this.
Utter bollocks. Use your brain. How could the EU even begin to negotiate with Scotland when Scotland’s relationship with England - including debt, currency, central bank, deficit, border, trade - was still in flux? The EU would refuse to get involved until Scotland was fully indy.
It amazes me how those Remainers who (rightly) pointed out that quitting the EU would be a political and bureaucratic nightmare, simultaneously insist that Scotland quitting the UK AND rejoining the EU would be a stroll in the park.
Even states where the primaries are closed, it's restricted to that party's registered voters rather than people who have chosen to sign up and pay a membership fee as in the uk.
Anyway, the issue is best resolved by having proportional representation.
Madrid wholly opposes Catalonia even having a vote, and its constitution is pretty tightly against secession. I get the sense that EU attitudes follow the lead of the relevant members, which is why I think they would have been fairly relaxed about Scotland. Simply put, the EU looks after its members' interests.
Amusing discussions last night about proposals that arent being made, that's why I guess 'we dont comment on leaks' generally
'The Wellcome Trust, a health research charity, has evidence of around 100 cases in which academics, especially from African countries, have been refused visas to come to the UK for conferences, often for spurious reasons.'
Does the same apply, I wonder, to 'academics, especially from African countries,' wish to attend conferences elsewhere in Europe?
Given the way the Home Office treats with Windrush people, one cannot be blamed for having suspicions!
I don't think I have ever heard such stories mention words like variance or standard deviation.
I specifically said it would be challenging -- not a stroll in the park -- for Scotland to rejoin. I am merely saying that your assertion that it would be a case of starting from scratch is wrong and that a break between independence and joining as a member is far from certain.
Maybe you'd have ended up doing a negotiation with the UK, but conditional on EU entry, then the whole thing gets stalled for 20 years while Spain plays silly buggers with the EU part.