Amongst the Scottish middle classes, you do occasionally meet someone who admits to having voted Leave. Once you get over your initial surprise, you think, "You do exist!"
There are plenty of middle class independence supporters however. They don't vote conservative of course.
Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.
At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England
And yet, he won in 2017, having come third behind Labour in 2015. When Theresa May was running around saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "no deal is better than a no deal."
According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
Yup the calculus of Brexit and Indy voting blocks in acotlamd is fascinating and I confess I do not understand it.
The SNP shed masses of Brexiters between 2015 and 2017, a over a third of 2015 snp voters were Brexiteers, only a quarter of 2017 snp voters were Brexiters.
I think the unionist vote outweighs the Brexit vote round Aberdeen way so plenty of Remain Lab types will vote for absolute Roaster Ross to keep out the hated SNP.
But, I have no clue.
Lots of thick Labour supporters followed Dugdale's guidance to vote Tory to beat SNP last time. Worked real well for Labour.
In 2007 the SNP did deal with the Tories to get a majority at Holyrood. It led ultimately to their overall majority.
To the extent the SNP would however prefer Corbyn to May I agree with the person upthread who said the two of them swapping seats wouldn't make much difference to the basic arithmetic.
However, there is a caveat to that. The more seats the SNP have, the greater their leverage over any Labour government. If the SNP have 20 seats and Labour are five short of a majority, then obviously the SNP are in a weak bargaining position as Corbyn could turn to the Liberal Democrats or even Plaid on a case by case basis. Moreover, it would be taken as a sign they're in the wane. It might even lead to a leadership challenge, or to the loss of Blackford's seat forcing an election. So they can't really demand anything, or if they do, he can reject it.
If he's 30 short and the SNP have 40 seats, he will be totally reliant on them to stay in power. Indeed, under those circumstances he likely wouldn't even lead the largest party. They would also legitimately argue they had momentum (no pun intended) from an improved performance and a mandate for their policies. So they could extract more money, further powers, electoral reform and possibly Sindy2 with the greatest of ease.
The irony is that in the second case, it might end badly for both of them (look at what happened to the Liberal Democrats) if the SNP become considered 'Labour Lite' in Scotland and Labour's government is seen as anti-English.
So the fewer seats the SNP win, the better for Corbyn. This does however presuppose that even added together the two form a majority.
Rubbish , they never had any deal with the Tories. Also there is no way the SNP will be propping up Labour other than to guarantee an independence referendum. Labour are only just less evil than the Tories in Scotland. You can be certain the majority of seats will be SNP.
I didn't actually say they had 'a deal.' I said they 'dealt with,' which is different. As I recall the Tories backed them on a vote-by-vote basis but informally guaranteed confidence and supply.
I will be very surprised indeed if the majority of seats are not SNP. I was mulling through possible alternative scenarios.
Bottom line is, if they have a chance to put the Tories out and Labour in, Sindy2 or no, I cannot see that it would end well for them in their new Central Belt heartland if they didn't take it. But obviously there are other issues as well, which is why from their point of view by far the best outcome would be a weak Tory or a Labour minority govt. propped up by somebody else so they could snipe from the sidelines at Westminster.
Scotland is interesting because unionist tactical voting cut across the UK-wide dynamic last time. The big question for next time is whether anti-Tory tactical voting, driven in part by Scottish concern about Brexit, returns to being the stronger force.
According to the BBC its based on the average daily death count in the UK since 2005. If they are right, its simply a matter of maths (max daily deaths / average daily deaths). So the data isn't silly, even if making a news story out of it might be. The BBC's explanation was the combination of seasonal cold weather and the elderly and ill hanging on for the holiday period.
It's silly in that it gives the impression that there is something specific about 6 Jan. There isn't, it's just the peak and the two days either side aren't that much different.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Absolutely. The SNP won't deal with the Tories. Labour won't deal with the Tories (what where those nt against Jezbollah.
In 2007 the SNP did deal with the Tories to get a majority at Holyrood. It led ultimately to their overall majority.
To the extent the SNP would however prefer Corbyn to May I agree with the person upthread who said the two of them swapping seats wouldn't make much difference to the basic arithmetic.
However, there is a caveat to that. The more seats the SNP have, the greater their leverage over any Labour government. If the SNP have 20 seats and Labour are five short of a majority, then obviously the SNP are in a weak bargaining position as Corbyn could turn to the Liberal Democrats or If he's 30 short and the SNP have 40 seats, he will be totally reliant on them to stay in power. Indeed, under those circumstances he likely wouldn't even lead the largest party. They would also legitimately argue they had momentum (no pun intended) from an improved performance and a mandate for their policies. So they could extract more money, further powers, electoral reform and possibly Sindy2 with the greatest of ease.
The irony is that in the second case, it might end badly for both of them (look at what happened to the Liberal Democrats) if the SNP become considered 'Labour Lite' in Scotland and Labour's government is seen as anti-English.
So the fewer seats the SNP win, the better for Corbyn. This does however presuppose that even added together the two form a majority.
Rubbish , they never had any deal with the Tories. Also there is no way the SNP will be propping up Labour other than to guarantee an independence referendum. Labour are only just less evil than the Tories in Scotland. You can be certain the majority of seats will be SNP.
Except the only polls putting Yes to indepence ahead in Scotland are in the event of No Deal.
The SNP policy is for EUref2 or BINO SM and Customs Union both of which would negate the need for indyref2 or see a comfortable No win if Corbyn had to agree to stay in power.
Independence for Scotland is more likely with an SNP government at Holyrood and a Tory government taking us to No Deal Brexit than it is with a Corbyn minority government or a Tory government which has passed May's Deal through Parliament
Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.
At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England
And yet, he won in 2017, having come third behind Labour in 2015. When Theresa May was running around saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "no deal is better than a no deal."
According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
Thomson got 42% not 33% in Aberdeen South in 2017
Well, yes, Brexit isn't everything - as @Alistair pointed out previously there is a mix of issues. But I'd be interested to know how many of the 33% who voted for Brexit voted for the SNP, Labour or the Lib Dems.
Rubbish , they never had any deal with the Tories. Also there is no way the SNP will be propping up Labour other than to guarantee an independence referendum. Labour are only just less evil than the Tories in Scotland. You can be certain the majority of seats will be SNP.
I didn't actually say they had 'a deal.' I said they 'dealt with,' which is different. As I recall the Tories backed them on a vote-by-vote basis but informally guaranteed confidence and supply.
I will be very surprised indeed if the majority of seats are not SNP. I was mulling through possible alternative scenarios.
Bottom line is, if they have a chance to put the Tories out and Labour in, Sindy2 or no, I cannot see that it would end well for them in their new Central Belt heartland if they didn't take it. But obviously there are other issues as well, which is why from their point of view by far the best outcome would be a weak Tory or a Labour minority govt. propped up by somebody else so they could snipe from the sidelines at Westminster.
Scotland is interesting because unionist tactical voting cut across the UK-wide dynamic last time. The big question for next time is whether anti-Tory tactical voting, drivein in part by Scottish concern about Brexit, returns to being the stronger force.
Sorry for messing up blockquotes. If El Capitano wishes to gloat at my expense, now would be a good moment!
Amongst the Scottish middle classes, you do occasionally meet someone who admits to having voted Leave. Once you get over your initial surprise, you think, "You do exist!"
There are plenty of middle class independence supporters however. They don't vote conservative of course.
I voted Leave ( I prefer Remain ) in the hope it would help get 2nd referendum on independence
In 2007 the SNP did deal with the Tories to get a majority at Holyrood. It led ultimately to their overall majority.
To the extent the SNP would however prefer Corbyn to May I agree with the person upthread who said the two of them swapping seats wouldn't make much difference to the basic arithmetic.
However, there is a caveat to that. The more seats the SNP have, the greater their leverage over any Labour government. If the SNP have 20 seats and Labour are five short of a majority, then obviously the SNP are in a weak bargaining position as Corbyn could turn to the Liberal Democrats or even Plaid on a case by case basis. Moreover, it would be taken as a sign they're in the wane. It might even lead to a leadership challenge, or to the loss of Blackford's seat forcing an election. So they can't really demand anything, or if they do, he can reject it.
If he's 30 short and the SNP have 40 seats, he will be totally reliant on them to stay in power. Indeed, under those circumstances he likely wouldn't even lead the largest party. They would also legitimately argue they had momentum (no pun intended) from an improved performance and a mandate for their policies. So they could extract more money, further powers, electoral reform and possibly Sindy2 with the greatest of ease.
The irony is that in the second case, it might end badly for both of them (look at what happened to the Liberal Democrats) if the SNP become considered 'Labour Lite' in Scotland and Labour's government is seen as anti-English.
So the fewer seats the SNP win, the better for Corbyn. This does however presuppose that even added together the two form a majority.
I didn't actually say they had 'a deal.' I said they 'dealt with,' which is different. As I recall the Tories backed them on a vote-by-vote basis but informally guaranteed confidence and supply.
Bottom line is, if they have a chance to put the Tories out and Labour in, Sindy2 or no, I cannot see that it would end well for them in their new Central Belt heartland if they didn't take it. But obviously there are other issues as well, which is why from their point of view by far the best outcome would be a weak Tory or a Labour minority govt. propped up by somebody else so they could snipe from the sidelines at Westminster.
ydoethur, there was no deal , they horse traded on the budget but otherwise it was only when it suited Tories to vote with SNP on tax cuts and similar. Absolutely no deal , just Labour pig sick that Tories sometimes voted with SNP. Best outcome is anything but Tory and hopefully led by the inept Corbyn/Leonard, with SNP holding the power, in my opinion at least. PS: Minority governments are forced to deal with all sorts to get their policies through
For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.
So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.
To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
You actually have to Leave under a no deal Brexit to find out whether your scare mongering would actually be correct. As you have no evidence or reasonable basis for assuming it would,let alone for assuming any increase would be due to Brexit, your argument is, as I said earlier pointless.
All you are doing by running this argument is showing how indifferent and uncaring you are to avoidable deaths that occur now and those who are unemployed now.
The Health Secretary thinks it's possible. So there's a piece of evidence for you to chew on:
Mr. eek, unsurprising. Osborne et al's overblown prognostications of doom caused probably fatal harm to the Remain campaign, and to subsequent warnings.
Which is a major problem. Some probably are exaggerated or invented but any and all claims are dismissed out of hand even if obviously true. So it's always called a poor tactic but it cannot totally stop since if it is true, or even possible, it would be hugely reckless to not provide warning.
We're screwed this year. No deal brexit and Corbyn government here we come.
ydoethur, there was no deal , they horse traded on the budget but otherwise it was only when it suited Tories to vote with SNP on tax cuts and similar. Absolutely no deal , just Labour pig sick that Tories sometimes voted with SNP. Best outcome is anything but Tory and hopefully led by the inept Corbyn/Leonard, with SNP holding the power, in my opinion at least. PS: Minority governments are forced to deal with all sorts to get their policies through
So I was right then, they dealt with the Tories?
As for your PS, agreed, just ask Theresa May. She has to deal with a bunch of extremist nutters clinging to a long-discredited nationalist ideology who want to take Britain back to about the 1940s.
And also, even if Corbyn did prove amenable she'd still have to square the Moggster.
For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.
So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.
To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
You actually have to Leave under a no deal Brexit to find out whether your scare mongering would actually be correct. As you have no evidence or reasonable basis for assuming it would,let alone for assuming any increase would be due to Brexit, your argument is, as I said earlier pointless.
All you are doing by running this argument is showing how indifferent and uncaring you are to avoidable deaths that occur now and those who are unemployed now.
The Health Secretary thinks it's possible. So there's a piece of evidence for you to chew on:
Well, whoopee doo. That’s not evidence at all. Its just mere speculation which is not specific at all.
Why do you care so little about avoidable deaths that occur now when we are in the EU and care so little about the 1 m who are currently unemployed.
And of course inflicting damage on the economy is an excellent way to demonstrate your solicitude for them.
#Brexitlogic.
That’s a crass argument too. The damage to the economy which will happen because we have negligently failed to prepare for no deal, is likely to affect them least, even if the magnitude of that damage could be accurately gauged at this juncture or it’s duration accurately predicted. Neither of those is the case.
It has to be said that most of the folk I speak to in the North East are wishing "a plague on both your houses" for both the SNP and the Tories. Certainly the local Conservative association seems a bit rattled- I think some of their private polling is much worse than they feared. As far as the North East of Scotland is concerned, I think we could see some surprising volatility, so would be rather cautious about where I placed my bets.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.
So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.
To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
What is an 'avoidable death', exactly? After all, death is ultimately unavoidable for all of us.
That's not necessarily an exact statement. When The "second coming " happens and no one knows when that will be, . It is unlikely that everyone will be dead at that moment.
For Brexit psychosis, can I recommend you breathe into a paper bag. The theory is that it increases the carbon dioxide content of the blood. Not sure I buy that, but it can't do a lot of harm.
So would you see no-deal Brexit as not worth the candle if it led to avoidable deaths or increased unemployment?
The UK suffers from avoidable deaths now. The info is available on the ONS if you are actually interested and not just scare mongering. The highest incidence in the U.K. is actually in Remain supporting Scotland. There are also over 1 m unemployed now despite the fact that we are in the EU.
To pretend that avoidable deaths and unemployment don’t occur now is asinine.
So you're happy to add to the total if necessary in order to conclude a no-deal Brexit? Any upper limit on those avoidable deaths before you decide that no-deal Brexit isn't worth the candle?
What reduction in unemployment and avoidable deaths would Brexit need to achieve for you to consider it a success?
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.
At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England
And yet, he won in 2017, having come third behind Labour in 2015. When Theresa May was running around saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "no deal is better than a no deal."
According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
Yup the calculus of Brexit and Indy voting blocks in acotlamd is fascinating and I confess I do not understand it.
The SNP shed masses of Brexiters between 2015 and 2017, a over a third of 2015 snp voters were Brexiteers, only a quarter of 2017 snp voters were Brexiters.
I think the unionist vote outweighs the Brexit vote round Aberdeen way so plenty of Remain Lab types will vote for absolute Roaster Ross to keep out the hated SNP.
But, I have no clue.
Lots of thick Labour supporters followed Dugdale's guidance to vote Tory to beat SNP last time. Worked real well for Labour.
So long as 25-30% of Scottish voters both support Brexit and oppose independence, the Tories will have their support.
Both parts of that statement are correct. A No Deal Brexit would be disruptive, and the warnings are exaggerated.
This country is really fucked.
Both main parties are now vehicles for extremist, destructive ideology.
I'd say the period 1968-84 was a good deal more politically turbulent, but we came through it.
We generally had majority govts back then. Usually only one of the main parties was in turmoil, now both. The calibre of politician was far higher.
So whilst the economic and social pressures were greater, when crises occurred there was a way of dealing with it. Today the crises are self inflicted and we have no leadership and no way through.
Both parts of that statement are correct. A No Deal Brexit would be disruptive, and the warnings are exaggerated.
This country is really fucked.
Both main parties are now vehicles for extremist, destructive ideology.
I'd say the period 1968-84 was a good deal more politically turbulent, but we came through it.
We generally had majority govts back then. Usually only one of the main parties was in turmoil, now both. The calibre of politician was far higher.
So whilst the economic and social pressures were greater, when crises occurred there was a way of dealing with it. Today the crises are self inflicted and we have no leadership and no way through.
The calibre of politician was higher than today, but until the end of the Miners' Strike (and I'm sure you'd disagree with me about that) they were unable to cope with the crises.
Both parts of that statement are correct. A No Deal Brexit would be disruptive, and the warnings are exaggerated.
This country is really fucked.
Both main parties are now vehicles for extremist, destructive ideology.
I'd say the period 1968-84 was a good deal more politically turbulent, but we came through it.
Nope.
Despite considerable economic challenges, the post-war consensus was maintained until 1979.
After 79, Thatcher disrupted the consensus, but to 84 she led a party dedicated to wealth creation and trade integration. And Foot, while being left wing, was not as left wing as Corbyn, was a patriot, not an anti-Semite, and never achieved significant support in the country for his economic policies anyway.
Amongst the Scottish middle classes, you do occasionally meet someone who admits to having voted Leave. Once you get over your initial surprise, you think, "You do exist!"
There are plenty of middle class independence supporters however. They don't vote conservative of course.
I voted Leave ( I prefer Remain ) in the hope it would help get 2nd referendum on independence
Malc
Do you believe the stories of doom and destruction if we leave the EU?
If so, do you think it would be different for Scotland leaving the EU?
On topic, deselection should be a last resort for an exasperated local membership only. It sets a dangerous precedent, because ultimately we want the voters to make the decision.
On the Scottish Tories, it is clearly time to detach from the national party and run as a stand-alone group. They would have considerable leverage if they did so. When is Ruth back again?
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
I hope your admirable desire for political variety was as strong during the long years of Labour hegemony in Scotland.
Both parts of that statement are correct. A No Deal Brexit would be disruptive, and the warnings are exaggerated.
This country is really fucked.
Both main parties are now vehicles for extremist, destructive ideology.
I'd say the period 1968-84 was a good deal more politically turbulent, but we came through it.
We generally had majority govts back then. Usually only one of the main parties was in turmoil, now both. The calibre of politician was far higher.
So whilst the economic and social pressures were greater, when crises occurred there was a way of dealing with it. Today the crises are self inflicted and we have no leadership and no way through.
The calibre of politician was higher than today, but until the end of the Miners' Strike (and I'm sure you'd disagree with me about that) they were unable to cope with the crises.
I think we have to discriminate between external economic and social pressures in the 70s/80s and the self-inflicted internal problems caused by political failures that we see today.
The earlier problems were far more difficult. Today is a true political crisis; not only can politics not solve problems, it is the source of the problems.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
I hope your admirable desire for political variety was as strong during the long years of Labour hegemony in Scotland.
I was, I hate save seats and fiefdoms wherever they are. It corrupts politics and serves us poorly. Labour was weaker for it.
I hope what happened to Labour in Scotland happens to the Tories in the South East.
Both parts of that statement are correct. A No Deal Brexit would be disruptive, and the warnings are exaggerated.
This country is really fucked.
Both main parties are now vehicles for extremist, destructive ideology.
I'd say the period 1968-84 was a good deal more politically turbulent, but we came through it.
Yes, joining the EEC greatly stabilised the country
I am gradually working my way through Robert Saunders excellent book on the 1975 referendum. Britain was a different country then. Worth reading for Remainers and Leavers alike. Remain ran a much better and more positive campaign then. Project Fear is only marginally effective.
There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.
When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option. It’s marvellous to think these swivel-eyed loons will choose our next PM. No wonder Hunt, Javid, Williamson and co are making such fools of themselves. They know their constituency well.
Both parts of that statement are correct. A No Deal Brexit would be disruptive, and the warnings are exaggerated.
This country is really fucked.
Both main parties are now vehicles for extremist, destructive ideology.
I'd say the period 1968-84 was a good deal more politically turbulent, but we came through it.
Yes, joining the EEC greatly stabilised the country
I am gradually working my way through Robert Saunders excellent book on the 1975 referendum. Britain was a different country then. Worth reading for Remainers and Leavers alike. Remain ran a much better and more positive campaign then. Project Fear is only marginally effective.
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Actually this was a major theme of my studies at university. The obfuscatory and divisive role of media was bad in the mid 90s and is now exponentially worse.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
Mr. Jonathan, wasn't much of the 70s malaise due to the unions?
Lots of interacting reasons. Unions were part of it, but things like the oil shock and subsequent inflation created the underlying external economic pressure.
Mr. Jonathan, wasn't much of the 70s malaise due to the unions?
Mad Unions, the Barber Boom and Bust, two oil shocks, political terrorism, the Cold War.
Being overtaken by both France & Italy in GDP.......(for those about to crow "we'll fall behind France this year", yes. And are forecast to overtake them again in 2022).
I would trust the National's reporting of internal Tory matters as much as I'd trust the Mirror's. It's very rare for a sitting Con MP to be deselected (not unknown but still rare), and it's even rarer for it to happen in a first term. I'm sure there will be some disquiet among members where an MP's views don't mesh that closely with local public opinion, or local party support for the party in question (which isn't the same thing), but I expect the reports here are overblown. Either way, the MP's opinions are likely to be considerably outweighed in importance by what the Con govt does at a national level.
Morning all and I see the usual guff is being written by PBers about Scotland. The SNP's media wing i.e. The National is trying to cause mischief. Probably because they know Ruth will be returning to her desk soon and Wee Nippie Sweetie will be put back in her box more often as a result.
Ross has always been an ERG type of brexiteer. Everyone in the Scots Tory Party knows it. His main flaw in my opinion is his adoration for Alexander Johnson, our buffoon of a former FS. Not a single Tory chum of mine has suggested Ross is going to be de-selected. The thing most likely to bring him into heel is the threat of being locked in a room with Ruth!
As for Scotland and Scottish politics, the SNP knows its long time future rests in its ability to continue to block out Scottish Labour by offering left of centre voters in Scotland a more credible alternative to the Scots Tories. A major risk to the SNP in the short term comes from the centre-right voters who have loaned their vote to the SNP in the hope of getting Independence but if they realise IndyRef2 will be a generation away i.e. some time after 2025 then many of them will probably return to the Scots Tory fold. We will then see a more traditional split in Scottish seats i.e. pre-1979 but replacing Scottish Labour with the SNP on a permanent basis. One thing is for certain, with Richard Lochhead as its leader, the only way for SLAB is down and being challenged by the LibDems or even the Greens for 3 party status in Scotland.
No matter what she says to the contrary, Nicola Sturgeon knows only too well the only chance she has of leading the SNP into a winning situation on IndyRef 2 is if we have a "No-Deal" Brexit which proves to be as disastrous as the Remoaning doom merchants are peddling. If it is only marginally irritating and no worse than the effect of half an inch of snow falling on the south of England i.e. temporary chaos then it will be a leader from the next generation who may win IndyRef2,
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Actually this was a major theme of my studies at university. The obfuscatory and divisive role of media was bad in the mid 90s and is now exponentially worse.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
Dunno what the solution is.
How many people use social media? And how many people pay all that much attention to political debate?
My biggest bugbear is that media obsesses about special interest groups. When interest rates went up to 0.75% in August, the BBC had someone on the news who's mortgage was going to be a bit more expensive. We rarely hear about how keeping interest rates low has been terrible for anyone saving money and has contributed to house prices ballooning in London and the South East.
Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.
I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.
If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.
What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.
Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.
Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.
Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.
Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.
It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
The Vienna convention does not apply to treaties between multinational organisations and nation states. And France - for example - is not a signatory to the Vienna convention anyway.
It has always been possible to leave the EU, as Greenland proved in the 1980s. It is always possible for a country - or a part of a country - to secede from another.
But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.
That was not the view of the CJEU in the recent Article 50 case. Indeed the Vienna Convention played a significant role in their argument.
I would trust the National's reporting of internal Tory matters as much as I'd trust the Mirror's. It's very rare for a sitting Con MP to be deselected (not unknown but still rare), and it's even rarer for it to happen in a first term. I'm sure there will be some disquiet among members where an MP's views don't mesh that closely with local public opinion, or local party support for the party in question (which isn't the same thing), but I expect the reports here are overblown. Either way, the MP's opinions are likely to be considerably outweighed in importance by what the Con govt does at a national level.
Indeed, David. My recollection of the events of November 1990 was a number of local Conservative Associations were angry when they discovered their MP had publicly committed for Heseltine over Thatcher and there were actual threats of deselection but I don't recall any going through.
The most serious was Cyril Townsend in Bexleyheath and I recall some LD activists were looking forward to the thought of a by-election with Townsend running as an Independent against a Conservative candidate.
On topic, deselection should be a last resort for an exasperated local membership only. It sets a dangerous precedent, because ultimately we want the voters to make the decision.
On the Scottish Tories, it is clearly time to detach from the national party and run as a stand-alone group. They would have considerable leverage if they did so. When is Ruth back again?
The great irony is that Ruth won the Scottish Tory leadership because Murdo Fraser wanted to break the Scottish Tories away from London and operate more on a CDU/CSU model. That was why I supported him. I have thought for 30+ years that a CDU/CSU type arrangement between the Scots Tories and English Tories is correct. After all it worked perfectly well until the 1970s when the departure of the Ulster Unionists from the family group led to a London panic and more control being taken over the previously semi-independent Scottish party.
There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.
When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option. It’s marvellous to think these swivel-eyed loons will choose our next PM. No wonder Hunt, Javid, Williamson and co are making such fools of themselves. They know their constituency well.
I look forward to those who distrust The National's view on internal Tory sub branch machinations being equally sceptical of Herald/Scotsman/Telegraph/Mail/Express/Mail/Guardian/Times/Record hot takes on 'ESSENPEE SPLITZ'.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
What is the point of a Labour vote in Scotland these days? I can maybe see it for the national assembly there, but for a Westminster election why would you bother when the current Labour leadership ensures that the party cannot win?
Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.
It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
The Vienna convention does not apply to treaties between multinational organisations and nation states. And France - for example - is not a signatory to the Vienna convention anyway.
It has always been possible to leave the EU, as Greenland proved in the 1980s. It is always possible for a country - or a part of a country - to secede from another.
But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.
That was not the view of the CJEU in the recent Article 50 case. Indeed the Vienna Convention played a significant role in their argument.
But how much was that because the Vienna Convention is the de facto international standard, even when it's not binding on the parties in question?
But you're right - just because there was, prior to Lisbon, no formal mechanism for leaving doesn't mean it couldn't be done. The obvious mechanism would be just another treaty between the various members, essentially a mirror-image of accession.
That was not the view of the CJEU in the recent Article 50 case. Indeed the Vienna Convention played a significant role in their argument.
They aspire to the EU being a nation state and so would obviously aspire to the trappings and rights. But the basic fact is that the EU are not a signatory to the Convention nor can they be unless they become a recognised State.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
What is the point of a Labour vote in Scotland these days? I can maybe see it for the national assembly there, but for a Westminster election why would you bother when the current Labour leadership ensures that the party cannot win?
You disagree with nationalism, but agree with democratic socialism?
Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.
I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.
If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.
What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.
Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.
Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.
Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.
Slightly unfair to blame Cameron and Osborne there.
It was stupid for Cameron to give a hostage to fortune seemingly guaranteeing a vote on Lisbon when he was in opposition, without a rider that the pledge would lapse if the Treaty was fully ratified first. However, given that it was ratified before the 2010GE, there's not really much he could have then done beyond what he did. To have had a purely symbollic referendum on a treaty already in force would have been as daft as putting Cromwell on trial after he was dead, and then lopping his head off.
However, your main point is right: if the boil had been lanced back in 2005/6, we'd still be members of the EU now and who knows: perhaps the EU might have had to rethink either its grand strategy or at least its need to connect with the public.
Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.
I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.
If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.
What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.
Do the Scots want indy? Polls clearly show a very large minority (in some cases a majority) still do. Even more so in the event of No Deal.
Yet the same polls show Scots don't want a referendum any time soon. Like me, they don't want to go through the endless, dreadful bitterness, division (and possible economic chaos). And for them, of course, it would be the THIRD wrenching change; plus the economic chaos of Sindy is bound to be even worse than Brexit, given Scotland's deficit and the shared currency.
Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.
Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.
It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
The Vienna convention does not apply to treaties between multinational organisations and nation states. And France - for example - is not a signatory to the Vienna convention anyway.
It has always been possible to leave the EU, as Greenland proved in the 1980s. It is always possible for a country - or a part of a country - to secede from another.
But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.
Don't confuse the issue for SeanT. It's about who to blame, preferably with spittle-flecked screeches of "traitor" and "quisling scum". It can't be him or any side he supports - they did nothing wrong, they were made to do it, and the traitor quisling scum had it coming, anyway.
Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.
It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
The Vienna convention does not apply to treaties between multinational organisations and nation states. And France - for example - is not a signatory to the Vienna convention anyway.
It has always been possible to leave the EU, as Greenland proved in the 1980s. It is always possible for a country - or a part of a country - to secede from another.
But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.
That was not the view of the CJEU in the recent Article 50 case. Indeed the Vienna Convention played a significant role in their argument.
But how much was that because the Vienna Convention is the de facto international standard, even when it's not binding on the parties in question?
But you're right - just because there was, prior to Lisbon, no formal mechanism for leaving doesn't mean it couldn't be done. The obvious mechanism would be just another treaty between the various members, essentially a mirror-image of accession.
The irony is that such a treaty would have had to have been unanimous. Article 50 certainly tipped the playing field towards the EU in the negotiations but I think that there is an argument it made leaving easier rather than harder.
They are mostly pensioners thinking they have no skin in the game.
As the baby boomers retire, our politics is being deprived of being grounded in the experiences of a majority living their lives with current experience of workplaces and sending their children to school, etc.
They got the triple lock the wrong way around. Maximum pension rise should be 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is smallest.
If they pegged it at always half-way between the rate of inflation and average earnings growth, then in most times of increasing prosperity, pensioners would have a rising standard of living, anyway, and share in the overall increase of average earnings growth. When times were harder, they'd share in the downturn to a degree, but have it damped. It would avoid the per capita pensions bill from increasing as a share of public spending (however, the demographics issue of increasing numbers of pensions would still remain).
Brexit is clearly now a clusterfucking horror-show, even if you're a Leaver like me. I never ever want to go through this experience again, whatever happens, It is divisive, embittering and sometimes actively tragic.
I wholly and entirely blame this on the vile, treasonable europhile elite (on left and right) for forcing us to sign Lisbon and thereby locking us into the prison shackles of A50: even worse they did this by first promising then denying us a vote.
If they'd kept their word, we'd have voted Lisbon down, Article 50 would not be a thing, and Brexit would not exist in the dictionary. But Brown and Blair and Heseltine and Clarke and Cameron and Osborne and Clegg and Cable and the rest of them they did what they, as they are stupid lying c*nts - and thus it's all too late, it is history now.
What does this mean for Scottish independence? Paradoxically, as I have said for some time, I think it make Sindy, simultaneously, emotionally more desirable, but politically more difficult.
Brexit has become a Kafkaesque narrative with quite surreal plot-twists.
Until Lisbon introduced A50 there was no mechanism in the treaties for leaving, and as the treaties are between the member states, the Vienna Convention prohibition on unilateral withdrawal would have applied.
It's the degree of economic integration that makes Brexit a practical clusterfuck, not the treaties.
The Vienna convention does not apply to treaties between multinational organisations and nation states. And France - for example - is not a signatory to the Vienna convention anyway.
It has always been possible to leave the EU, as Greenland proved in the 1980s. It is always possible for a country - or a part of a country - to secede from another.
But your basic premise is correct: the problem is not Article 50 per se, but simply that unwinding 45 years of integration to a bespoke settlement is not a simple task.
Don't confuse the issue for SeanT. It's about who to blame, preferably with spittle-flecked screeches of "traitor" and "quisling scum". It can't be him or any side he supports - they did nothing wrong, they were made to do it, and the traitor quisling scum had it coming, anyway.
I actually agree with SeanT in essence. We ought to have had a referendum on Maastricht *and* on Dublin.
Of course, that’s in the past. We are where we are. It was right to have a referendum, however it was negligently architected by Cameron who was too complacent and too thick to learn anything from the Scottish Indy ref.
Patriots now seek yet a further referendum to unravel what SeanT rightly calls a “clusterfucking horror show”.
That was not the view of the CJEU in the recent Article 50 case. Indeed the Vienna Convention played a significant role in their argument.
They aspire to the EU being a nation state and so would obviously aspire to the trappings and rights. But the basic fact is that the EU are not a signatory to the Convention nor can they be unless they become a recognised State.
Indeed, including the application of a convention which does not apply to them. I was merely pointing out the Robert, who is by now no doubt tucked up in bed, that it was not correct to say that the Vienna Convention had no application.
The reality is that the CJEU is a political court seeking political solutions. They are not at all secretive about this. In fact they are explicit. In the Art 50 decision the key question for them was what was the result that made it least likely that a MS would end up leaving the Union depriving their citizens of all the wonders of EU citizenship. They worked backwards from there using whatever came to hand to meet the objective.
As they almost said in Star Trek, " Its law Jim, but not as we know it.".
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Actually this was a major theme of my studies at university. The obfuscatory and divisive role of media was bad in the mid 90s and is now exponentially worse.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
Dunno what the solution is.
How many people use social media? And how many people pay all that much attention to political debate?
My biggest bugbear is that media obsesses about special interest groups. When interest rates went up to 0.75% in August, the BBC had someone on the news who's mortgage was going to be a bit more expensive. We rarely hear about how keeping interest rates low has been terrible for anyone saving money and has contributed to house prices ballooning in London and the South East.
Around a third of people use social media as their primary news source. However the influence of social media is higher again, since it increasingly drives the non-social media news agenda.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
We will only be confident when we are free and not serfs.
On topic, deselection should be a last resort for an exasperated local membership only. It sets a dangerous precedent, because ultimately we want the voters to make the decision.
On the Scottish Tories, it is clearly time to detach from the national party and run as a stand-alone group. They would have considerable leverage if they did so. When is Ruth back again?
The great irony is that Ruth won the Scottish Tory leadership because Murdo Fraser wanted to break the Scottish Tories away from London and operate more on a CDU/CSU model. That was why I supported him. I have thought for 30+ years that a CDU/CSU type arrangement between the Scots Tories and English Tories is correct. After all it worked perfectly well until the 1970s when the departure of the Ulster Unionists from the family group led to a London panic and more control being taken over the previously semi-independent Scottish party.
The logic of that position standing the extent of devolution and the need to appeal to a different audience has proven irresistible, even if Ruth opposed it at the time. At the last election Ruth didn't exactly encourage May to have one of her "factory visits" with a carefully selected audience north of the border. It was not helpful.
Its an interesting question of whether such a CSU type Scottish Tory party would be pro or anti Brexit. It would certainly be a lot closer than it appears to be in England.
Morning all and I see the usual guff is being written by PBers about Scotland. The SNP's media wing i.e. The National is trying to cause mischief. Probably because they know Ruth will be returning to her desk soon and Wee Nippie Sweetie will be put back in her box more often as a result.
Ross has always been an ERG type of brexiteer. Everyone in the Scots Tory Party knows it. His main flaw in my opinion is his adoration for Alexander Johnson, our buffoon of a former FS. Not a single Tory chum of mine has suggested Ross is going to be de-selected. The thing most likely to bring him into heel is the threat of being locked in a room with Ruth!
As for Scotland and Scottish politics, the SNP knows its long time future rests in its ability to continue to block out Scottish Labour by offering left of centre voters in Scotland a more credible alternative to the Scots Tories. A major risk to the SNP in the short term comes from the centre-right voters who have loaned their vote to the SNP in the hope of getting Independence but if they realise IndyRef2 will be a generation away i.e. some time after 2025 then many of them will probably return to the Scots Tory fold. We will then see a more traditional split in Scottish seats i.e. pre-1979 but replacing Scottish Labour with the SNP on a permanent basis. One thing is for certain, with Richard Lochhead as its leader, the only way for SLAB is down and being challenged by the LibDems or even the Greens for 3 party status in Scotland.
No matter what she says to the contrary, Nicola Sturgeon knows only too well the only chance she has of leading the SNP into a winning situation on IndyRef 2 is if we have a "No-Deal" Brexit which proves to be as disastrous as the Remoaning doom merchants are peddling. If it is only marginally irritating and no worse than the effect of half an inch of snow falling on the south of England i.e. temporary chaos then it will be a leader from the next generation who may win IndyRef2,
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Actually this was a major theme of my studies at university. The obfuscatory and divisive role of media was bad in the mid 90s and is now exponentially worse.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
Dunno what the solution is.
You mean BBC struggles with its Lord haw Haw position that was much easier in the golden days before the internet
ydoethur, there was no deal , they horse traded on the budget but otherwise it was only when it suited Tories to vote with SNP on tax cuts and similar. Absolutely no deal , just Labour pig sick that Tories sometimes voted with SNP. Best outcome is anything but Tory and hopefully led by the inept Corbyn/Leonard, with SNP holding the power, in my opinion at least. PS: Minority governments are forced to deal with all sorts to get their policies through
So I was right then, they dealt with the Tories?
As for your PS, agreed, just ask Theresa May. She has to deal with a bunch of extremist nutters clinging to a long-discredited nationalist ideology who want to take Britain back to about the 1940s.
And also, even if Corbyn did prove amenable she'd still have to square the Moggster.
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Actually this was a major theme of my studies at university. The obfuscatory and divisive role of media was bad in the mid 90s and is now exponentially worse.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
Dunno what the solution is.
You mean BBC struggles with its Lord haw Haw position that was much easier in the golden days before the internet
I don't know why the BBC struggles with impartiality as a concept so hard. It really isn't difficult to grasp the idea that the not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the midpoint between a fact and a lie is not a valid compromise.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
We will only be confident when we are free and not serfs.
The Scots have never been and never will be serfs.
Maybe you mean Smurfs? That blue face paint must be hard to wash off.
Hi Malcolm I've missed you too. I see you are still posting the equivalent of the mindset of a Tartan Citizen Smith. You must have wet your breeks when we Eck got kicked out last year!
Morning all and I see the usual guff is being written by PBers about Scotland. The SNP's media wing i.e. The National is trying to cause mischief. Probably because they know Ruth will be returning to her desk soon and Wee Nippie Sweetie will be put back in her box more often as a result.
Ross has always been an ERG type of brexiteer. Everyone in the Scots Tory Party knows it. His main flaw in my opinion is his adoration for Alexander Johnson, our buffoon of a former FS. Not a single Tory chum of mine has suggested Ross is going to be de-selected. The thing most likely to bring him into heel is the threat of being locked in a room with Ruth!
As for Scotland and Scottish politics, the SNP knows its long time future rests in its ability to continue to block out Scottish Labour by offering left of centre voters in Scotland a more credible alternative to the Scots Tories. A major risk to the SNP in the short term comes from the centre-right voters who have loaned their vote to the SNP in the hope of getting Independence but if they realise IndyRef2 will be a generation away i.e. some time after 2025 then many of them will probably return to the Scots Tory fold. We will then see a more traditional split in Scottish seats i.e. pre-1979 but replacing Scottish Labour with the SNP on a permanent basis. One thing is for certain, with Richard Lochhead as its leader, the only way for SLAB is down and being challenged by the LibDems or even the Greens for 3 party status in Scotland.
No matter what she says to the contrary, Nicola Sturgeon knows only too well the only chance she has of leading the SNP into a winning situation on IndyRef 2 is if we have a "No-Deal" Brexit which proves to be as disastrous as the Remoaning doom merchants are peddling. If it is only marginally irritating and no worse than the effect of half an inch of snow falling on the south of England i.e. temporary chaos then it will be a leader from the next generation who may win IndyRef2,
LOL, FOX news is here
Rural Scotland is largely back in Tory hands (don't fancy Pete Wishart's chances next time out) but the vast majority of Scots live in cities and I don't really see the Tories being more than a marginal player there. In Clydeside the SNP will continue to fight it out with Labour for the majority of Scottish seats and with, for now at least, the SNP very much having the upper hand.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
We will only be confident when we are free and not serfs.
The Scots have never been and never will be serfs.
Maybe you mean Smurfs? That blue face paint must be hard to wash off.
You know feudal land ownership in Scotland ended in 2004 right?
I like our Malc. He's always here to remind us that no matter how nutty the ERG or Maomentum get, the SNP's cybernutters will always go one step further.
There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.
When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option. It’s marvellous to think these swivel-eyed loons will choose our next PM. No wonder Hunt, Javid, Williamson and co are making such fools of themselves. They know their constituency well.
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Actually this was a major theme of my studies at university. The obfuscatory and divisive role of media was bad in the mid 90s and is now exponentially worse.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
Dunno what the solution is.
You mean BBC struggles with its Lord haw Haw position that was much easier in the golden days before the internet
I don't know why the BBC struggles with impartiality as a concept so hard. It really isn't difficult to grasp the idea that the not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the midpoint between a fact and a lie is not a valid compromise.
False balance is actively harmful to the truth.
You exposed your respect for the truth with your frenetic and ignorant "tory donor" rant the other day.
There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.
When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option. It’s marvellous to think these swivel-eyed loons will choose our next PM. No wonder Hunt, Javid, Williamson and co are making such fools of themselves. They know their constituency well.
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Actually this was a major theme of my studies at university. The obfuscatory and divisive role of media was bad in the mid 90s and is now exponentially worse.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
Dunno what the solution is.
You mean BBC struggles with its Lord haw Haw position that was much easier in the golden days before the internet
I don't know why the BBC struggles with impartiality as a concept so hard. It really isn't difficult to grasp the idea that the not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the midpoint between a fact and a lie is not a valid compromise.
False balance is actively harmful to the truth.
That's true in principle, but harder to apply in practice. Beliefs that were once unquestioned orthodoxy can become outlandish and vice versa.
Given Ross Thomson represents Aberdeen which voted 61% Remain his backing for No Deal is unlikely to be very popular in the area and party members clearly seem to recognise that.
At the moment if Labour does get in it is likely to be with SNP MPs votes while the Tories win a majority in England
And yet, he won in 2017, having come third behind Labour in 2015. When Theresa May was running around saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "no deal is better than a no deal."
According to Wikipedia, Aberdeen South actually voted 67.7% for Remain. But if you're the only one for the 33%, then that puts you in a decent position.
Yup the calculus of Brexit and Indy voting blocks in acotlamd is fascinating and I confess I do not understand it.
The SNP shed masses of Brexiters between 2015 and 2017, a over a third of 2015 snp voters were Brexiteers, only a quarter of 2017 snp voters were Brexiters.
I think the unionist vote outweighs the Brexit vote round Aberdeen way so plenty of Remain Lab types will vote for absolute Roaster Ross to keep out the hated SNP.
But, I have no clue.
Lots of thick Labour supporters followed Dugdale's guidance to vote Tory to beat SNP last time. Worked real well for Labour.
So long as 25-30% of Scottish voters both support Brexit and oppose independence, the Tories will have their support.
Bingo. It's a hard floor as well. No where else for them to go.
There is no degree of damage that wouldn’t make Brexit worth it for these Europhobes.
When you’re wealthy, old, have paid off your mortgage and dislike foreigners a No Deal Brexit that inflicts extreme hardship on millions of less fortunate souls is clearly an attractive option. It’s marvellous to think these swivel-eyed loons will choose our next PM. No wonder Hunt, Javid, Williamson and co are making such fools of themselves. They know their constituency well.
I voted Leave ( I prefer Remain ) in the hope it would help get 2nd referendum on independence
Hats off. Makes sense. If you don't like the pond throw a rock in it. And it might work.
I am English but I am going to risk a comment on Scottish Independence. I'm feeling robust today.
Although most supporters of Sindy are Remainers, there is a similarity between Sindy and Brexit in one important sense, being that both of them are largely driven not by dry & dusty calculations about money, but by feelings and attitudes, towards identity, sovereignty, place in the world. It is not so much "how will we get on?" more "who do we think we are?".
A true believer in Brexit will (if they're honest) support the cause even if they suspect that it will, at least for quite some time, lead to lower economic growth, and the same applies to an ardent Sindy supporter.
It's heart over head and I intend this as neither insult nor compliment.
What it does mean is that the message is powerful. There is a romance to it that provides an innate advantage. Heart over head tends to trump the reverse, not just in politics, in pretty much everything. We are not machines.
Even Simon Cowell. I used to watch X Factor (although not these days obviously), and something used to happen with amusing regularity. During the judging, when deciding which of 2 acts would progress, Simon (or one of the others on the panel) would speak words along the lines of, "This is such a tough one. I hate this. My head is telling me one thing, it has to be Moppet, and my heart is saying Thunderbirds Are Go!".
End of suspense, because then every time, every single time without exception, the act going through would be Thunderbirds Are Go! (or whoever).
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Listening to a radio podcast about the recruitment and duties of au pairs earlier this morning while at the gym....... got to take my mind off the stress somehow........ I was struck by the thought that, since few if any au pairs earn anywhere near £30k pa, what is going to happen to there recruitment after Brexit?
That was not the view of the CJEU in the recent Article 50 case. Indeed the Vienna Convention played a significant role in their argument.
They aspire to the EU being a nation state and so would obviously aspire to the trappings and rights. But the basic fact is that the EU are not a signatory to the Convention nor can they be unless they become a recognised State.
As they almost said in Star Trek, " Its law Jim, but not as we know it.".
In the case of A50, the ECJ created new jurisprudence because it had too. A50 was totally vague, but a ruling was requested, so creating new jurisprudence was unavoidable.
The lesson here is: if you don't want new jurisprudence to be created by judges, make sure your laws and treaties are specific enough so they don't have to.
Also can I just point out the nonsense of referring to a court as a "political" court. All courts are political, they're one of the three arms of the state. English common law, for example, gives judges broad scope to create binding precedents.
Huge tracts of the UK constitutional settlement has been created through jurisprudence, not through acts of parliament or executive actions.
Mr. Walker, the media deserves much blame for this.
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
Actually this was a major theme of my studies at university. The obfuscatory and divisive role of media was bad in the mid 90s and is now exponentially worse.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
They were actually better than the usual scam emails (*), and I actually went onto the TV licencing website to see when my licence ended. If I wasn't so cautious I might have clicked on the link.
(*) In that the first one I received looked official, and didn't have any obvious speeling mistales.
Both parts of that statement are correct. A No Deal Brexit would be disruptive, and the warnings are exaggerated.
This country is really fucked.
Both main parties are now vehicles for extremist, destructive ideology.
I'd say the period 1968-84 was a good deal more politically turbulent, but we came through it.
We generally had majority govts back then. Usually only one of the main parties was in turmoil, now both. The calibre of politician was far higher.
So whilst the economic and social pressures were greater, when crises occurred there was a way of dealing with it. Today the crises are self inflicted and we have no leadership and no way through.
Also the major challenges that face the UK (climate change, energy security, mass migration, technology, multinational corporate power) can only really be addressed on a supra-national basis. A notion from which both major parties are in headlong retreat. As Gardenwalker pithily observes: it's fucked.
Comments
There are plenty of middle class independence supporters however. They don't vote conservative of course.
I will be very surprised indeed if the majority of seats are not SNP. I was mulling through possible alternative scenarios.
Bottom line is, if they have a chance to put the Tories out and Labour in, Sindy2 or no, I cannot see that it would end well for them in their new Central Belt heartland if they didn't take it. But obviously there are other issues as well, which is why from their point of view by far the best outcome would be a weak Tory or a Labour minority govt. propped up by somebody else so they could snipe from the sidelines at Westminster.
Scotland is interesting because unionist tactical voting cut across the UK-wide dynamic last time. The big question for next time is whether anti-Tory tactical voting, driven in part by Scottish concern about Brexit, returns to being the stronger force.
The SNP policy is for EUref2 or BINO SM and Customs Union both of which would negate the need for indyref2 or see a comfortable No win if Corbyn had to agree to stay in power.
Independence for Scotland is more likely with an SNP government at Holyrood and a Tory government taking us to No Deal Brexit than it is with a Corbyn minority government or a Tory government which has passed May's Deal through Parliament
Best outcome is anything but Tory and hopefully led by the inept Corbyn/Leonard, with SNP holding the power, in my opinion at least.
PS: Minority governments are forced to deal with all sorts to get their policies through
#Brexitlogic.
We're screwed this year. No deal brexit and Corbyn government here we come.
As for your PS, agreed, just ask Theresa May. She has to deal with a bunch of extremist nutters clinging to a long-discredited nationalist ideology who want to take Britain back to about the 1940s.
And also, even if Corbyn did prove amenable she'd still have to square the Moggster.
Both main parties are now vehicles for extremist, destructive ideology.
So whilst the economic and social pressures were greater, when crises occurred there was a way of dealing with it. Today the crises are self inflicted and we have no leadership and no way through.
Despite considerable economic challenges, the post-war consensus was maintained until 1979.
After 79, Thatcher disrupted the consensus, but to 84 she led a party dedicated to wealth creation and trade integration. And Foot, while being left wing, was not as left wing as Corbyn, was a patriot, not an anti-Semite, and never achieved significant support in the country for his economic policies anyway.
Do you believe the stories of doom and destruction if we leave the EU?
If so, do you think it would be different for Scotland leaving the EU?
Promises to be quite a ride.
On the Scottish Tories, it is clearly time to detach from the national party and run as a stand-alone group. They would have considerable leverage if they did so. When is Ruth back again?
Said it before, but if policies were put under the microscope that politicians and their personal lives are subjected to, and the media scrutinised legislation rather than scalp-hunting or portraying any tiny difference of opinion as a split, we'd be better governed.
Not only would it enhance public awareness of policies, good and bad, it'd alter the current situation which must put off a lot of potential MPs for fear of the media firestorm that can descend at any time.
The earlier problems were far more difficult. Today is a true political crisis; not only can politics not solve problems, it is the source of the problems.
I hope what happened to Labour in Scotland happens to the Tories in the South East.
I am gradually working my way through Robert Saunders excellent book on the 1975 referendum. Britain was a different country then. Worth reading for Remainers and Leavers alike. Remain ran a much better and more positive campaign then. Project Fear is only marginally effective.
https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1080483297686421504?s=19
But it is not. It is the EU - and it is the EU we rejected.
I wrote my thesis on the theory that internet discourse would polarise political debate, and found evidence to suggest it did - and this was *before* social media.
The genie is out of the bottle. The internet has destroyed both the economics and the hierarchy of news production. Fake news, and fake views run rampant. The BBC struggles to play the impartial role it once did, or seems to believe it is best done by giving equal time to varying false claims instead of calling them out for what they are.
Dunno what the solution is.
Ross has always been an ERG type of brexiteer. Everyone in the Scots Tory Party knows it. His main flaw in my opinion is his adoration for Alexander Johnson, our buffoon of a former FS. Not a single Tory chum of mine has suggested Ross is going to be de-selected. The thing most likely to bring him into heel is the threat of being locked in a room with Ruth!
As for Scotland and Scottish politics, the SNP knows its long time future rests in its ability to continue to block out Scottish Labour by offering left of centre voters in Scotland a more credible alternative to the Scots Tories. A major risk to the SNP in the short term comes from the centre-right voters who have loaned their vote to the SNP in the hope of getting Independence but if they realise IndyRef2 will be a generation away i.e. some time after 2025 then many of them will probably return to the Scots Tory fold. We will then see a more traditional split in Scottish seats i.e. pre-1979 but replacing Scottish Labour with the SNP on a permanent basis. One thing is for certain, with Richard Lochhead as its leader, the only way for SLAB is down and being challenged by the LibDems or even the Greens for 3 party status in Scotland.
No matter what she says to the contrary, Nicola Sturgeon knows only too well the only chance she has of leading the SNP into a winning situation on IndyRef 2 is if we have a "No-Deal" Brexit which proves to be as disastrous as the Remoaning doom merchants are peddling. If it is only marginally irritating and no worse than the effect of half an inch of snow falling on the south of England i.e. temporary chaos then it will be a leader from the next generation who may win IndyRef2,
My biggest bugbear is that media obsesses about special interest groups. When interest rates went up to 0.75% in August, the BBC had someone on the news who's mortgage was going to be a bit more expensive. We rarely hear about how keeping interest rates low has been terrible for anyone saving money and has contributed to house prices ballooning in London and the South East.
The most serious was Cyril Townsend in Bexleyheath and I recall some LD activists were looking forward to the thought of a by-election with Townsend running as an Independent against a Conservative candidate.
Edited to add this:
https://www.bowgroup.org/news/bow-group-finds-average-age-conservative-party-member-72
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1080952474205372416
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGmh0VsMFmQ&feature=youtu.be
Global brands, manufacturing for excellence, all roads led to London...
He doesn't quite advocate abolishing corporation tax and setting up as a global tax haven but give it a couple of weeks...
But you're right - just because there was, prior to Lisbon, no formal mechanism for leaving doesn't mean it couldn't be done. The obvious mechanism would be just another treaty between the various members, essentially a mirror-image of accession.
It was stupid for Cameron to give a hostage to fortune seemingly guaranteeing a vote on Lisbon when he was in opposition, without a rider that the pledge would lapse if the Treaty was fully ratified first. However, given that it was ratified before the 2010GE, there's not really much he could have then done beyond what he did. To have had a purely symbollic referendum on a treaty already in force would have been as daft as putting Cromwell on trial after he was dead, and then lopping his head off.
However, your main point is right: if the boil had been lanced back in 2005/6, we'd still be members of the EU now and who knows: perhaps the EU might have had to rethink either its grand strategy or at least its need to connect with the public.
It's about who to blame, preferably with spittle-flecked screeches of "traitor" and "quisling scum".
It can't be him or any side he supports - they did nothing wrong, they were made to do it, and the traitor quisling scum had it coming, anyway.
We ought to have had a referendum on Maastricht *and* on Dublin.
Of course, that’s in the past. We are where we are. It was right to have a referendum, however it was negligently architected by Cameron who was too complacent and too thick to learn anything from the Scottish Indy ref.
Patriots now seek yet a further referendum to unravel what SeanT rightly calls a “clusterfucking horror show”.
The reality is that the CJEU is a political court seeking political solutions. They are not at all secretive about this. In fact they are explicit. In the Art 50 decision the key question for them was what was the result that made it least likely that a MS would end up leaving the Union depriving their citizens of all the wonders of EU citizenship. They worked backwards from there using whatever came to hand to meet the objective.
As they almost said in Star Trek, " Its law Jim, but not as we know it.".
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/09/a-clear-history-of-glass/
Trump’s tweeting is the primary example of this.
Roaster Ross is the first of many, be afraid be very afraid.
After promising the voters nowt but sunlit uplands and then delivering no deal the voters will want to extract their pound of fresh for being misled.
I wonder if Roaster Ross is one of those thick as mince Leavers like David Davis who thinks we still get a transition with No Deal?
https://twitter.com/TheGolem_/status/1080886732701253633
Its an interesting question of whether such a CSU type Scottish Tory party would be pro or anti Brexit. It would certainly be a lot closer than it appears to be in England.
False balance is actively harmful to the truth.
Maybe you mean Smurfs? That blue face paint must be hard to wash off.
LOL, FOX news is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)_Act_2000
https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/qmul/media/publications/Grassroots,-Britain's-Party-Members.pdf
And 100% of them are weirdoes.
I suspect it's rather that only 1 in 20 party members is in the 18-24 year old bracket.
The electorate are the victims here, they aren’t as wealthy as JRM or John Redwood who can organise their affairs to mitigate against No Deal.
I am English but I am going to risk a comment on Scottish Independence. I'm feeling robust today.
Although most supporters of Sindy are Remainers, there is a similarity between Sindy and Brexit in one important sense, being that both of them are largely driven not by dry & dusty calculations about money, but by feelings and attitudes, towards identity, sovereignty, place in the world. It is not so much "how will we get on?" more "who do we think we are?".
A true believer in Brexit will (if they're honest) support the cause even if they suspect that it will, at least for quite some time, lead to lower economic growth, and the same applies to an ardent Sindy supporter.
It's heart over head and I intend this as neither insult nor compliment.
What it does mean is that the message is powerful. There is a romance to it that provides an innate advantage. Heart over head tends to trump the reverse, not just in politics, in pretty much everything. We are not machines.
Even Simon Cowell. I used to watch X Factor (although not these days obviously), and something used to happen with amusing regularity. During the judging, when deciding which of 2 acts would progress, Simon (or one of the others on the panel) would speak words along the lines of, "This is such a tough one. I hate this. My head is telling me one thing, it has to be Moppet, and my heart is saying Thunderbirds Are Go!".
End of suspense, because then every time, every single time without exception, the act going through would be Thunderbirds Are Go! (or whoever).
Tory ladies having to do their own housework?
The lesson here is: if you don't want new jurisprudence to be created by judges, make sure your laws and treaties are specific enough so they don't have to.
Also can I just point out the nonsense of referring to a court as a "political" court. All courts are political, they're one of the three arms of the state. English common law, for example, gives judges broad scope to create binding precedents.
Huge tracts of the UK constitutional settlement has been created through jurisprudence, not through acts of parliament or executive actions.
I got two of these supposed TV licencing emails:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46745298
They were actually better than the usual scam emails (*), and I actually went onto the TV licencing website to see when my licence ended. If I wasn't so cautious I might have clicked on the link.
(*) In that the first one I received looked official, and didn't have any obvious speeling mistales.
You'd have got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky voters.