Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
It is pretty stupid and very weak to be taking on American gestures that have nothing to do with or have any place in the UK. Pathetic and says or does nothing to help fight racism, pure virtue signalling.. Cretinous fools cannot even think up a suitable UK position.
Great news. With nothing at all coming from coal. The government has done a fantastic job at switching our energy from coal to renewables in the past decade.
Not that you'd know it listening to the opposition or the media.
Spain is on track to become a coal-free country in record time. All of its remaining coal-fired thermal power plants will start shutting down on Tuesday, a year-and-a-half after the closure of the coal mines,
No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.
The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
You are still wrong
If the Government wants to release Sarin gas, the job of the civil service is to say no.
No ifs. No buts.
Leaving the UN would not make it legal, or indeed sane.
Get a grip.
You "get a grip".
The original quote was: Gus O'Donnell, former cab sec, to @MattChorley: the job is quite often to say, "No, prime minister, that's not right; you can't do that"
Do you think the government is "often" proposing to release Sarin gas?
What exactly does he imagine goes down at Number 10 every Tuesday?
Boris: That ghastly Nicola has pre-empted my press conferences for the last time! Fire up the Trident - target is Bute House!
Gus: No, Prime Minister, that's not right. You can't do that.
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
It is pretty stupid and very weak to be taking on American gestures that have nothing to do with or have any place in the UK. Pathetic and says or does nothing to help fight racism, pure virtue signalling.. Cretinous fools cannot even think up a suitable UK position.
Yes, if the day comes where police officers kill unarmed suspects by kneeling on their necks for 12 minutes then I could understand politicians here showing solidarity with victims and demanding change. It's very clearly not the case here and Starmer made a mistake by bending the knee. It showed he's more interested in a cheap shallow "victory" than proposing solutions for police reforms.
America badly needs the equivalent of the BPC. Looking at the "details" for some of these state polls just an exercise in frustration. Sometimes it's literally just the headline figure. If you are lucky you get a few power point slides with a scant few more details.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
Always endless!y fascinating to hear how someone without a vote would vote. Of course on the most recent polling, 40%+ of Scottish Labour voters would vote yes.
I used to live in Scotland and vote
I used to get off with beautiful 20 year old women, not any more.
Swiss Tony lives.
For me a Labour government is like making love to a beautiful woman. Something to ...
There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.
And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description.
I find Sir Kneel quite dull and overly earnest but has shown a very good grip of where the levers of power are in the party and how to get hold of them. Hopefully the Corbyn nightmare is coming to an end and Labour will be a civilised party again.
But would you ever vote for them? If not then may I suggest you are only looking for insurance that should labour win it won’t do you too much harm.
No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.
Assuming it was only illegal domestically.
There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.
The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.
It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.
I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.
He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.
The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.
That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
Always endless!y fascinating to hear how someone without a vote would vote. Of course on the most recent polling, 40%+ of Scottish Labour voters would vote yes.
I used to live in Scotland and vote
I used to get off with beautiful 20 year old women, not any more.
I still do. Of course she is not 20 anymore. But neither am I.
I believe get off night is the Scottish equivalent of date night?
'Get yer coat doll, ye've pulled.'
I'm sure your and Mrs L's eyes didn't first meet across that particular room, but Fat Sam's was the Dundee hormonal hotspot when I cared about such things; (mostly) happy days..
I find Sir Kneel quite dull and overly earnest but has shown a very good grip of where the levers of power are in the party and how to get hold of them. Hopefully the Corbyn nightmare is coming to an end and Labour will be a civilised party again.
But would you ever vote for them? If not then may I suggest you are only looking for insurance that should labour win it won’t do you too much harm.
I might be persuaded to vote tactically for Labour to keep the SNP out if I thought that they had a good chance of winning in my seat and under the current leadership. But there is something in what you say.
A checkpoint on the Coldstream bridge, where police will ask those seeking to enter Scotland "Where are you from?" In Nicola's dreams!
There's a reason why the two border areas (Dumfries and Galloway, and Scottish Borders) got higher No votes in the indyref than anywhere else apart from Orkney.
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
You don't have to associate yourself with violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism to fight racism. Still, that's the way he chose to advertise it
You really have become utterly unhinged on this one. Even the most rabid Tories cannot seriously think that Starmer associates himself with "violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism". Starmer has condemned all violence, and has already done plenty to demonstrate that he has no time for far left Marxists or anti-semitism.
You are losing credibility with your frequent posts of Starmer taking the knee and your bizarre interpretation of it.
Just leave the moronic, nutty Tories to it. It's a complete waste of time and effort arguing with some people.
I don't believe isam's ever identified himself as a Tory. He's for years been a UKIP/Farage fan though now that UKIP have folded I don't know if he has a natural home.
Previously member of the Labour party.
I want ever a member of Labour, I just used to vote for them
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Fancy a bet that they have given away square root of nothing and UK have given everything but the kitchen sink.
SKS probably doing his level best not to stick his hand into the meat grinder that is TERF / trans politics, but he’s probably going to have to work out a way to either thread that needle or pick a side (which will have to be the trans side, there’s no way the Labour party will wear anything else) without frightening the horses.
Societal change is not always easy & I understand the visceral response that some women have to the idea of trans-women, but TERF types are busy repeating the same tired old arguments that were used against gay people in the 70s: When you find yourself sharing political space with US Dominionist Christians it might be time to take a long hard look at yourself and ask "are we the baddies?".
If you’re using the actions of one or two sociopaths as a stick to beat an entire vulnerable community, just as the actions of paedophiles were used in the past as an excuse to repress gay people, then your arguments are deeply suspect. They ought to be able to stand up on their own, without needing the shock value of the actions of individuals that could have been prevented in far less interventionist ways.
Fundamentally it comes done to conflicting rights. Women’s refuges are about protecting people and making them *feel* safe. If they are accessible to trans people in the early stages of the process (not sure of the right terminology but no offence intended) and who still physically resemble men then that could undermine the process.
Women's shelters have the absolute and total right to refuse trans-women entry. No-one is proposing any changes to legislation that would alter that.
Any women's shelter or rape crisis centre that accepts trans women has freely chosen to do so and has set their own limits on what they find acceptable.
There are anti-trans activists who repeat the claim that shelters will be forced to accept trans-women but this is not true. It is exactly the same tactic as used by anti-gay marriage proponents who kept claiming that churches would be forced to marry gay couples.
Fair enough. It’s not a debate I’ve paid any attention to whatsoever (beyond converting one of the gents at my office to a unisex facility). That’s the only claim I’m aware of but I’ve not checked at all whether it’s accurate or fair.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
Always endless!y fascinating to hear how someone without a vote would vote. Of course on the most recent polling, 40%+ of Scottish Labour voters would vote yes.
I used to live in Scotland and vote
I used to get off with beautiful 20 year old women, not any more.
Swiss Tony lives.
For me a Labour government is like making love to a beautiful woman. Something to ...
America badly needs the equivalent of the BPC. Looking at the "details" for some of these state polls just an exercise in frustration. Sometimes it's literally just the headline figure. If you are lucky you get a few power point slides with a scant few more details.
Individual polls are mince, but they're likely to be mince in various directions so the average should work. Trump won't win WI, nor will he get beaten by 17 points.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
Always endless!y fascinating to hear how someone without a vote would vote. Of course on the most recent polling, 40%+ of Scottish Labour voters would vote yes.
I used to live in Scotland and vote
I used to get off with beautiful 20 year old women, not any more.
I still do. Of course she is not 20 anymore. But neither am I.
I believe get off night is the Scottish equivalent of date night?
'Get yer coat doll, ye've pulled.'
I'm sure your and Mrs L's eyes didn't first meet across that particular room, but Fat Sam's was the Dundee hormonal hotspot when I cared about such things; (mostly) happy days..
It was the Barracuda in my day, well before Fat Sams. But our kids used to go there a lot and Mrs L was there at a 21st last year. But she was always way more of a party animal than me.
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Err, the posturing is irrelevant its the quantum of the "concessions" which do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
No, the link says the EU has conceded on LPF provisions. Which means a looser agreement with the potential for retaliatory tariffs but that's what we've been calling for.
The UK was the one demanding it. It was Frost himself who first suggested that if zero tariffs were what was getting in the way of the EU backing down on the LPF then the UK would be prepared to have tariffs.
Barnier wasn't interested in that but fast forward a month or two later and now Frost's solution is winning the day. The "concession" is to follow through with what we suggested months ago. Long may we continue to concede if that's how negotiations are going!
Can you read? Admitedly its a tiny NIB but the LPF's will be enforced and you can tell that because it says that the ECJ will not be policing them. Therefore someone or something else will, almost certainly the UK government actually with EU oversight which the EU already does for standards monitoing in other trade agreements.
What has the EU actually conceded here? A different body to oversee the LPFs - big win!
All it took was a weekend and possibility of retaliatory tarrifs is accepted.
If these reports are true the EU has conceded we will not be tied into dynamic alignment of EU LPF rules.
As for what Frost said last week, never believe anything until its been officially denied. Of course if both sides never made compromises then a deal would be impossible.
Yes, we've lost by having the EU giving us exactly what we were asking for.
We have LPF rules as the article notes. Someone apart from the ECJ will oversee them. Perhaps they could call it the "EJC" to confuse the Leavers and allow them to think they have scored a great victory.
There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.
And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description.
This - and other posts arising from the same tweet - completely miss the point that the virus is much more under control in Scotland than in England, on current stats. Think about the implications of that, and of wrecking the progress so far made.
Hmmm, a black detail on a silver car would have been better. That's going to be really difficult for other drivers and TV directors to see against a dark coloured track.
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
You don't have to associate yourself with violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism to fight racism. Still, that's the way he chose to advertise it
It is better than not fighting racism at all. Which would be the preference of most of the people who are upset by the Starmer photo or trying to use it against him.
I wouldn't say that was true at all
I base it on the content and tone of comments made whenever racism is the topic. And I am eerily perceptive, let's remember. But of course it is not 100% provable - so in that sense you are on safe ground with your straight bat response.
Looks like Leicester is going to be the pilot site for the 'tactical lockdown' plans, it's unlikely that the industry in the town isn't to some extent responsible for the spike in cases there.
Nah, just 2 more weeks for pubs, restaurants and hairdressers to stay closed. Not sure what the limits geographically are, and it was a charactestically crap bit of communication from the government.
Numbers of inpatients stable over June, so not a second wave so much as a long fat tail.
Perhaps Soulsby should show some leadership and put forward his own plans ?
Well, first he needs some information.
It was announced by Hancock in the press conference that Leicester had a hotspot, and it was only on Thursday, a week later, that postcode level information was passed to the Director of Public Health in Leicester. In that communication it did mention that one of the reasons for the apparent hotspot was increased testing, particularly as there was no increase in hospital admissions. It also is not apparent what powers the Mayor has to order lockdown, or enforce it, and can only do so within the City boundaries, which would leave suburbs like Oadby, Wigston, Blaby, Birstall etc open.
Peter Soulsby is a sound bloke who cares deeply about the city. I trust his judgement more than the halfwit in Westminster.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
David, I have to agree with much of what you say , however the boil needs lancing before we can proceed. Independence and then we can elect the government we want. As long as we are ruled from England and only given pocket money the SNP will be in power. We need to throw off the yoke and start afresh.
Looks like Leicester is going to be the pilot site for the 'tactical lockdown' plans, it's unlikely that the industry in the town isn't to some extent responsible for the spike in cases there.
Nah, just 2 more weeks for pubs, restaurants and hairdressers to stay closed. Not sure what the limits geographically are, and it was a charactestically crap bit of communication from the government.
Numbers of inpatients stable over June, so not a second wave so much as a long fat tail.
Perhaps Soulsby should show some leadership and put forward his own plans ?
Well, first he needs some information.
It was announced by Hancock in the press conference that Leicester had a hotspot, and it was only on Thursday that postcode level information was passed to the Director of Public Health in Leicester. In that communication it did mention that one of the reasons for the apparent hotspot was increased testing, particularly as there was no increase in hospital admissions. It also is not apparent what powers the Mayor has to order lockdown, or enforce it, and can only do so within the City boundaries, which would leave suburbs like Oadby, Wigston, Blaby, Birstall etc open.
Peter Soulsby is a sound bloke who cares deeply about the city. I trust his judgement more than the halfwit in Westminster.
Some stduff on the Graun CV feed - apparently Sir P didn't even get sone key data till 1 am today.
" On the Today programme this morning Sir Peter Soulsby, the mayor of Leicester, revealed that the government wants to delay the easing of lockdown in city for a further two weeks to deal with the coronavirus outbreak there. But he said it had been “intensely frustrating” getting information out of central government. He said: 'It was only last Thursday that we finally got some of the data we need but we’re still not getting all of it and it was only at 1.04am that the recommendations for Leicester arrived in my inbox.
What they’re suggesting is not a return to lockdown, it seems that what they’re suggesting is that we continue the present level of restriction for a further two weeks beyond July 4.
I’ve looked at this report and frankly it’s obviously been cobbled together very hastily. It’s superficial and its description of Leicester is inaccurate and certainly it does not provide us with the information we need if we are to remain restricted for two weeks longer than the rest of the country.'"
No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.
Assuming it was only illegal domestically.
There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.
The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
So you are saying that the answer:
"You can't do this because it would contravene both UK and international law?"
is an example of civil service overreach, which needs to be replaced with
"If you want to do this, the UK will first need to leave the UN, and then you will need to introduce an Act of Parliament to make it legal", followed by an explanation of the consequences of leaving the UN.
That would lead to some tortuously long meetings....
Hmmm, a black detail on a silver car would have been better. That's going to be really difficult for other drivers and TV directors to see against a dark coloured track.
SKS probably doing his level best not to stick his hand into the meat grinder that is TERF / trans politics, but he’s probably going to have to work out a way to either thread that needle or pick a side (which will have to be the trans side, there’s no way the Labour party will wear anything else) without frightening the horses.
Societal change is not always easy & I understand the visceral response that some women have to the idea of trans-women, but TERF types are busy repeating the same tired old arguments that were used against gay people in the 70s: When you find yourself sharing political space with US Dominionist Christians it might be time to take a long hard look at yourself and ask "are we the baddies?".
If you’re using the actions of one or two sociopaths as a stick to beat an entire vulnerable community, just as the actions of paedophiles were used in the past as an excuse to repress gay people, then your arguments are deeply suspect. They ought to be able to stand up on their own, without needing the shock value of the actions of individuals that could have been prevented in far less interventionist ways.
Fundamentally it comes done to conflicting rights. Women’s refuges are about protecting people and making them *feel* safe. If they are accessible to trans people in the early stages of the process (not sure of the right terminology but no offence intended) and who still physically resemble men then that could undermine the process.
In many ways it’s a similar debate to abortion: do the rights of the woman to choose outweigh the right of the foetus to life.
Where you have conflicting rights there needs to be a dividing line. It is dispiriting that so many activists (on both sides) seem unable to recognise the perspectives of others and demand that they get 100% of what they want vs finding some acceptable middle ground.
Charles this is a very un-self aware post from you. You and your party has spent the last 4 years proclaiming that compromise is undemocratic and that only a 100% victory is good enough. You now try and take the moral high ground by saying that both sides of the trans debate wont find acceptable middle ground?
Come on...
I’m not a Tory, I’m a Liberal Unionist.
I would be quite happy with compromise but the ultras on both sides (and the unhelpful approach of the EU) have made that impossible
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
It is pretty stupid and very weak to be taking on American gestures that have nothing to do with or have any place in the UK. Pathetic and says or does nothing to help fight racism, pure virtue signalling.. Cretinous fools cannot even think up a suitable UK position.
Yes, if the day comes where police officers kill unarmed suspects by kneeling on their necks for 12 minutes then I could understand politicians here showing solidarity with victims and demanding change. It's very clearly not the case here and Starmer made a mistake by bending the knee. It showed he's more interested in a cheap shallow "victory" than proposing solutions for police reforms.
It is typical of politician's here, they will pay any lip service to try and curry favour but do not want the hassle of really looking at the issue. I am pretty sure we will see lots of nodding and tut tutting for a while and they will put racism on the back burner as they always do, maybe wheel it out a bit when they need some votes.
Hmmm, a black detail on a silver car would have been better. That's going to be really difficult for other drivers and TV directors to see against a dark coloured track.
Ah, he's having to explain why he's adopting the pose of the people who want to defund the police
Do the BBC read this site? I thought I was supposed to be the only person who had noticed
You might have some sort of point but for the fact that hundreds of others have done the same, including policemen. I can see why you and BluestBlue are desperate to keep it alive but if Starmer carries on as he is you are not going to bet any mileage out of it.
I understand that your hero Farage has been criticised by the Board of British Deputies as enabling anti-semitism. Any comment on that?
Hmmm, a black detail on a silver car would have been better. That's going to be really difficult for other drivers and TV directors to see against a dark coloured track.
No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.
Assuming it was only illegal domestically.
There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.
The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.
It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.
I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.
He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.
The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.
That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
Philip may wish to become familiar with the Civil Service code of conduct (written by the government, not the CS), which is available here:
There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.
And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description.
This - and other posts arising from the same tweet - completely miss the point that the virus is much more under control in Scotland than in England, on current stats. Think about the implications of that, and of wrecking the progress so far made.
Carnyx , lives are expendable to Tories if money is involved, they worship Mammon first and always. Hopefully Sturgeon stays resolute and tells Bozo where to go, the fat clown did not even do her the courtesy of getting one of his lapdogs to call her and tell her of his great plans.
SKS probably doing his level best not to stick his hand into the meat grinder that is TERF / trans politics, but he’s probably going to have to work out a way to either thread that needle or pick a side (which will have to be the trans side, there’s no way the Labour party will wear anything else) without frightening the horses.
Societal change is not always easy & I understand the visceral response that some women have to the idea of trans-women, but TERF types are busy repeating the same tired old arguments that were used against gay people in the 70s: When you find yourself sharing political space with US Dominionist Christians it might be time to take a long hard look at yourself and ask "are we the baddies?".
If you’re using the actions of one or two sociopaths as a stick to beat an entire vulnerable community, just as the actions of paedophiles were used in the past as an excuse to repress gay people, then your arguments are deeply suspect. They ought to be able to stand up on their own, without needing the shock value of the actions of individuals that could have been prevented in far less interventionist ways.
Fundamentally it comes done to conflicting rights. Women’s refuges are about protecting people and making them *feel* safe. If they are accessible to trans people in the early stages of the process (not sure of the right terminology but no offence intended) and who still physically resemble men then that could undermine the process.
Women's shelters have the absolute and total right to refuse trans-women entry. No-one is proposing any changes to legislation that would alter that.
Any women's shelter or rape crisis centre that accepts trans women has freely chosen to do so and has set their own limits on what they find acceptable.
There are anti-trans activists who repeat the claim that shelters will be forced to accept trans-women but this is not true. It is exactly the same tactic as used by anti-gay marriage proponents who kept claiming that churches would be forced to marry gay couples.
Fair enough. It’s not a debate I’ve paid any attention to whatsoever (beyond converting one of the gents at my office to a unisex facility). That’s the only claim I’m aware of but I’ve not checked at all whether it’s accurate or fair.
A checkpoint on the Coldstream bridge, where police will ask those seeking to enter Scotland "Where are you from?" In Nicola's dreams!
There's a reason why the two border areas (Dumfries and Galloway, and Scottish Borders) got higher No votes in the indyref than anywhere else apart from Orkney.
I am sure the police will be more than capable of handling it sunshine. Also the reason they got higher No votes in those areas is linked to the constant exposure to sheep.
There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.
And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description.
This - and other posts arising from the same tweet - completely miss the point that the virus is much more under control in Scotland than in England, on current stats. Think about the implications of that, and of wrecking the progress so far made.
Carnyx , lives are expendable to Tories if money is involved, they worship Mammon first and always. Hopefully Sturgeon stays resolute and tells Bozo where to go, the fat clown did not even do her the courtesy of getting one of his lapdogs to call her and tell her of his great plans.
That comment about Mammon is completely unfair and outrageous!
I'll have you know some of us Tories have a distinct preference for Baal or Moloch, and some of the under-70 hipsters have even moved on to Asmodeus or Astaroth...
SKS probably doing his level best not to stick his hand into the meat grinder that is TERF / trans politics, but he’s probably going to have to work out a way to either thread that needle or pick a side (which will have to be the trans side, there’s no way the Labour party will wear anything else) without frightening the horses.
Societal change is not always easy & I understand the visceral response that some women have to the idea of trans-women, but TERF types are busy repeating the same tired old arguments that were used against gay people in the 70s: When you find yourself sharing political space with US Dominionist Christians it might be time to take a long hard look at yourself and ask "are we the baddies?".
If you’re using the actions of one or two sociopaths as a stick to beat an entire vulnerable community, just as the actions of paedophiles were used in the past as an excuse to repress gay people, then your arguments are deeply suspect. They ought to be able to stand up on their own, without needing the shock value of the actions of individuals that could have been prevented in far less interventionist ways.
Fundamentally it comes done to conflicting rights. Women’s refuges are about protecting people and making them *feel* safe. If they are accessible to trans people in the early stages of the process (not sure of the right terminology but no offence intended) and who still physically resemble men then that could undermine the process.
In many ways it’s a similar debate to abortion: do the rights of the woman to choose outweigh the right of the foetus to life.
Where you have conflicting rights there needs to be a dividing line. It is dispiriting that so many activists (on both sides) seem unable to recognise the perspectives of others and demand that they get 100% of what they want vs finding some acceptable middle ground.
Charles this is a very un-self aware post from you. You and your party has spent the last 4 years proclaiming that compromise is undemocratic and that only a 100% victory is good enough. You now try and take the moral high ground by saying that both sides of the trans debate wont find acceptable middle ground?
Come on...
I’m not a Tory, I’m a Liberal Unionist.
I would be quite happy with compromise but the ultras on both sides (and the unhelpful approach of the EU) have made that impossible
There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.
And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description.
This - and other posts arising from the same tweet - completely miss the point that the virus is much more under control in Scotland than in England, on current stats. Think about the implications of that, and of wrecking the progress so far made.
Carnyx , lives are expendable to Tories if money is involved, they worship Mammon first and always. Hopefully Sturgeon stays resolute and tells Bozo where to go, the fat clown did not even do her the courtesy of getting one of his lapdogs to call her and tell her of his great plans.
That comment about Mammon is completely unfair and outrageous!
I'll have you know some of us Tories have a distinct preference for Baal or Moloch, and some of the under-70 hipsters have even moved on to Asmodeus or Astaroth...
F1: interesting comment I just saw on Twitter reminded me that Mercedes has had cooling problems in Austria.
Hmm.
Edited extra bit: checked the weather. Looks warm but not boiling. Hmm.
They did spend a lot of time over the winter looking at the cooling issues, so it’s not thought to be an issue this year. I’m assuming that all the big brains thought through this when deciding to paint the car black.
There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.
And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description.
This - and other posts arising from the same tweet - completely miss the point that the virus is much more under control in Scotland than in England, on current stats. Think about the implications of that, and of wrecking the progress so far made.
Carnyx , lives are expendable to Tories if money is involved, they worship Mammon first and always. Hopefully Sturgeon stays resolute and tells Bozo where to go, the fat clown did not even do her the courtesy of getting one of his lapdogs to call her and tell her of his great plans.
That comment about Mammon is completely unfair and outrageous!
I'll have you know some of us Tories have a distinct preference for Baal or Moloch, and some of the under-70 hipsters have even moved on to Asmodeus or Astaroth...
Too many big words there for me, though I recognise the first one
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
Always endless!y fascinating to hear how someone without a vote would vote. Of course on the most recent polling, 40%+ of Scottish Labour voters would vote yes.
I used to live in Scotland and vote
I used to get off with beautiful 20 year old women, not any more.
I still do. Of course she is not 20 anymore. But neither am I.
I believe get off night is the Scottish equivalent of date night?
'Get yer coat doll, ye've pulled.'
I'm sure your and Mrs L's eyes didn't first meet across that particular room, but Fat Sam's was the Dundee hormonal hotspot when I cared about such things; (mostly) happy days..
Oh man, some great nights at Fatties. The indie night (Thursdays?) They used to always end the night with I am the Resurrection. Happy days indeed.
A checkpoint on the Coldstream bridge, where police will ask those seeking to enter Scotland "Where are you from?" In Nicola's dreams!
There's a reason why the two border areas (Dumfries and Galloway, and Scottish Borders) got higher No votes in the indyref than anywhere else apart from Orkney.
Is it because they are rural, farming based socially conservative areas with (in the case of Dumfries and Galloway) a long history of voting Tory?
Unless you think their proximity to the border also explains why they had the lowest Devolution Referendum Yes vote as well.
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Err, the posturing is irrelevant its the quantum of the "concessions" which do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
No, the link says the EU has conceded on LPF provisions. Which means a looser agreement with the potential for retaliatory tariffs but that's what we've been calling for.
The UK was the one demanding it. It was Frost himself who first suggested that if zero tariffs were what was getting in the way of the EU backing down on the LPF then the UK would be prepared to have tariffs.
Barnier wasn't interested in that but fast forward a month or two later and now Frost's solution is winning the day. The "concession" is to follow through with what we suggested months ago. Long may we continue to concede if that's how negotiations are going!
Can you read? Admitedly its a tiny NIB but the LPF's will be enforced and you can tell that because it says that the ECJ will not be policing them. Therefore someone or something else will, almost certainly the UK government actually with EU oversight which the EU already does for standards monitoing in other trade agreements.
What has the EU actually conceded here? A different body to oversee the LPFs - big win!
All it took was a weekend and possibility of retaliatory tarrifs is accepted.
If these reports are true the EU has conceded we will not be tied into dynamic alignment of EU LPF rules.
As for what Frost said last week, never believe anything until its been officially denied. Of course if both sides never made compromises then a deal would be impossible.
Yes, we've lost by having the EU giving us exactly what we were asking for.
That's junk and you know it.
When did anyone say the UK would accept LPF agreements? It just has and it has just accepted that if it diverges from them it will pay tarrifs to the EU for the privilege
That is the exact opposite of what David "ace negotiator" Frost said he would accept only last Thursday.
The EU concession - it won't be the ECJ policing the arrangement whereby the UK accepts everything it said it wouldn't.
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Err, the posturing is irrelevant its the quantum of the "concessions" which do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
No, the link says the EU has conceded on LPF provisions. Which means a looser agreement with the potential for retaliatory tariffs but that's what we've been calling for.
The UK was the one demanding it. It was Frost himself who first suggested that if zero tariffs were what was getting in the way of the EU backing down on the LPF then the UK would be prepared to have tariffs.
Barnier wasn't interested in that but fast forward a month or two later and now Frost's solution is winning the day. The "concession" is to follow through with what we suggested months ago. Long may we continue to concede if that's how negotiations are going!
Can you read? Admitedly its a tiny NIB but the LPF's will be enforced and you can tell that because it says that the ECJ will not be policing them. Therefore someone or something else will, almost certainly the UK government actually with EU oversight which the EU already does for standards monitoing in other trade agreements.
What has the EU actually conceded here? A different body to oversee the LPFs - big win!
All it took was a weekend and possibility of retaliatory tarrifs is accepted.
If these reports are true the EU has conceded we will not be tied into dynamic alignment of EU LPF rules.
As for what Frost said last week, never believe anything until its been officially denied. Of course if both sides never made compromises then a deal would be impossible.
Yes, we've lost by having the EU giving us exactly what we were asking for.
That's junk and you know it.
When did anyone say the UK would accept LPF agreements? It just has and it has just accepted that if it diverges from them it will pay tarrifs to the EU for the privilege
That is the exact opposite of what David "ace negotiator" Frost said he would accept only last Thursday.
The EU concession - it won't be the ECJ policing the arrangement whereby the UK accepts everything it said it wouldn't.
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
To be fair, all free trade agreements contain some degree of level playing field provisions. If we're not going to have them at all, we're only going to be signing trade deals with countries with lower environmental and other standards than us.
One of the major reasons why the US "renegotiated" NAFTA was they felt the LPF provisions were insufficiently stringent.
Comments
Point out problems, point out where the law needs changing, point out consequences. That is the job of the Civil Service. Not to say no.
Boris: That ghastly Nicola has pre-empted my press conferences for the last time! Fire up the Trident - target is Bute House!
Gus: No, Prime Minister, that's not right. You can't do that.
Boris: Are you sure?
Gus: Yes.
Boris: Oh, all right then. Same time next week?
I pity your children
"The stove is hot, there may be problems if you touch it, there may be consequences, but I can't say no, don't touch it..."
No there's so many punchlines I can't pick one.
And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description.
The government is not made of children, its made of adults. Whatever you may childishly imply otherwise from scraping Twitter.
It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.
I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.
He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.
The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.
That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
'Get yer coat doll, ye've pulled.'
I'm sure your and Mrs L's eyes didn't first meet across that particular room, but Fat Sam's was the Dundee hormonal hotspot when I cared about such things; (mostly) happy days..
There's a reason why the two border areas (Dumfries and Galloway, and Scottish Borders) got higher No votes in the indyref than anywhere else apart from Orkney.
In that sense, absolutely
The Equality Act 2010 set out protection for single sex spaces. This link sets that out fairly clearly:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/
I understand JK Rowling's fears, be on this point, she's essentially wrong.
On her arguments concerning female to male transgender kids, she simply has no idea what she's talking about.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/53218197
Supposed to be fictional, anyway.
It was announced by Hancock in the press conference that Leicester had a hotspot, and it was only on Thursday, a week later, that postcode level information was passed to the Director of Public Health in Leicester. In that communication it did mention that one of the reasons for the apparent hotspot was increased testing, particularly as there was no increase in hospital admissions. It also is not apparent what powers the Mayor has to order lockdown, or enforce it, and can only do so within the City boundaries, which would leave suburbs like Oadby, Wigston, Blaby, Birstall etc open.
Peter Soulsby is a sound bloke who cares deeply about the city. I trust his judgement more than the halfwit in Westminster.
" On the Today programme this morning Sir Peter Soulsby, the mayor of Leicester, revealed that the government wants to delay the easing of lockdown in city for a further two weeks to deal with the coronavirus outbreak there. But he said it had been “intensely frustrating” getting information out of central government. He said: 'It was only last Thursday that we finally got some of the data we need but we’re still not getting all of it and it was only at 1.04am that the recommendations for Leicester arrived in my inbox.
What they’re suggesting is not a return to lockdown, it seems that what they’re suggesting is that we continue the present level of restriction for a further two weeks beyond July 4.
I’ve looked at this report and frankly it’s obviously been cobbled together very hastily. It’s superficial and its description of Leicester is inaccurate and certainly it does not provide us with the information we need if we are to remain restricted for two weeks longer than the rest of the country.'"
"You can't do this because it would contravene both UK and international law?"
is an example of civil service overreach, which needs to be replaced with
"If you want to do this, the UK will first need to leave the UN, and then you will need to introduce an Act of Parliament to make it legal", followed by an explanation of the consequences of leaving the UN.
That would lead to some tortuously long meetings....
John Player Lotus waves at you from the 70s.
And Renault from the present day...
https://wtf1.com/post/renault-has-teased-an-all-black-livery-which-suspiciously-hides-the-front-of-the-car/
I would be quite happy with compromise but the ultras on both sides (and the unhelpful approach of the EU) have made that impossible
https://performancecomms.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/lotus-jps.jpg
I understand that your hero Farage has been criticised by the Board of British Deputies as enabling anti-semitism. Any comment on that?
https://www.ayrtonsenna.com.br/en/lewis-hamilton-vai-usar-capacete-pintado-por-brasileiro-em-homenagem-ayrton-senna-na-temporada-2017-da-f-1/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code
This provides amply evidence that Cyclefree's interpretation is, of course, spot on.
Hmm.
Edited extra bit: checked the weather. Looks warm but not boiling. Hmm.
I'll have you know some of us Tories have a distinct preference for Baal or Moloch, and some of the under-70 hipsters have even moved on to Asmodeus or Astaroth...
Unless you think their proximity to the border also explains why they had the lowest Devolution Referendum Yes vote as well.
Navarro also claims there might be "economic winter of discontent" if Dems win
When did anyone say the UK would accept LPF agreements? It just has and it has just accepted that if it diverges from them it will pay tarrifs to the EU for the privilege
That is the exact opposite of what David "ace negotiator" Frost said he would accept only last Thursday.
The EU concession - it won't be the ECJ policing the arrangement whereby the UK accepts everything it said it wouldn't.
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
One of the major reasons why the US "renegotiated" NAFTA was they felt the LPF provisions were insufficiently stringent.