No I imagine a result that would have required a supra majority or a unanimous verdict from the 4 countries that form the Uk. That might have been a little more intelligent to prevent the total fuck up that has formed the last three and a half years.Do you imagine that somehow the terms of the referendum could have been such as to exempt various parts of the country from its result?
Because they were told we would never leave the uk against the will of the Scottish people. Fact. You can call us gullible for falling for that and I couldn’t argue with you.And they expressed those self-determination wishes, and they voted by a majority to remain part of the UK.
There is a reasonable argument that the SNP MPs should not vote on matters that are exclusive to English interests.You have a devolved parliament ffs. I pay more tax up here as decided by the Scottish government than I would in England. That's power.
English mp's had no say on that as they didn't on free prescriptions in Scotland yet the SNP had a say in Westminster for millions of English constituents.
In what way are Scots, Welsh and NI citizens subservient to the English?
No I imagine a result that would have required a supra majority or a unanimous verdict from the 4 countries that form the Uk. That might have been a little more intelligent to prevent the total fuck up that has formed the last three and a half years.
Which is where this discussion started.
Oh and you didn’t answer my question. I wonder why?
Very interesting read in the Spectator this morning and it appears to have number 10' genius political strategist finger prints all over it according to ex tory cabinet member Amber Rudd
‘The negotiations will probably end this week. Varadkar doesn’t want to negotiate. Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold and in the last week the official channels and the backchannels have also gone cold. Varadkar has also gone back on his commitments — he said if we moved on manufactured goods then he would also move but instead he just attacked us publicly. It’s clear he wants to gamble on a second referendum and that he’s encouraging Barnier to stick to the line that the UK cannot leave the EU without leaving Northern Ireland behind.
There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate. Those who think Merkel will help us are deluded. As things stand, Dublin will do nothing, hoping we offer more, then at the end of this week they may say ‘OK, let’s do a Northern Ireland only backstop with a time limit’, which is what various players have been hinting at, then we’ll say No, and that will probably be the end.
Varadkar thinks that either there will be a referendum or we win a majority but we will just put this offer back on the table so he thinks he can’t lose by refusing to compromise now. Given his assumptions, Varadkar’s behaviour is arguably rational but his assumptions are, I think, false. Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here.
If this deal dies in the next few days, then it won’t be revived. To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’. They thought that if May went then Brexit would get softer. It seems few have learned from this mistake. They think we’re bluffing and there’s nothing we can do about that, not least given the way May and Hammond constantly talked tough then folded.
So, if talks go nowhere this week, the next phase will require us to set out our view on the Surrender Act. The Act imposes narrow duties. Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about. Different lawyers see the “frustration principle” very differently especially on a case like this where there is no precedent for primary legislation directing how the PM conducts international discussions.
We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.
We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless. They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen. We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal.
‘When they say ‘so what is the point of delay?’, we will say “This is not our delay, the government is not asking for a delay — Parliament is sending you a letter and Parliament is asking for a delay but official government policy remains that delay is an atrocious idea that everyone should dismiss. Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave. Those who supported delay will face the inevitable consequences of being seen to interfere in domestic politics in a deeply unpopular way by colluding with a Parliament that is as popular as the clap.
Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded. So the main effect of it will probably be to help us win an election by uniting the leave vote and then a no deal Brexit. History is full of such ironies and tragedies
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/how-number-10-view-the-state-of-the-negotiations/
Whether or not this is deliberate posturing or a sign of just how desperate they are to force through a No Deal on 31st October or directly after an election (assuming that they win one, its not a good read.
They did - and they didAnd the number of Scottish mps in Parliament (which governs the U.K.) is subservient to the number of English mps. Fact. That is the end of the matter until Scotland determines through a democratic vote wether it wishes to remain in the U.K.
The SNP know full well that Brexit means they are finished, sentiment doesn't come into it - the Scots are a rational and economically literate people. The UK leaving the EU makes perfect sense but regrettably they and their surrogates in Parliament won't let us out.
What question? I'll just add, in response to your suggested alternative terms for the referendum, that the UK is a member of the EU as a single state. Also, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is the only supermajority required in the British Constitution and no referendum has ever been conducted in the UK on those terms, including the Scottish referendum. The idea that a higher threshold would have been supported by the SNP for that exercise is quite frankly absurd.No I imagine a result that would have required a supra majority or a unanimous verdict from the 4 countries that form the Uk. That might have been a little more intelligent to prevent the total fuck up that has formed the last three and a half years. Which is where this discussion started. Oh and you didn’t answer my question. I wonder why?
No you misunderstand. The English did not want a union with Scotland. The powers in Scotland voluntarily chose to align with England otherwise their entire nation would be crushed by their debt. You're making out like England subjugated the Scots. We wanted nothing to do with them, we were doing fine on our own. It was Scotland who approached England, not the other way around.Allow me not to touch the elephant in the room to then point to something i find more telling: Scottish parliament was taken out of the equasion for 290 years, and then came back about 20 years ago (relativly "young") purely on the basis of being able to achieve that via referendum. In principl that by itself is some sort of large goverment reform that redefine's youre political system. You gave me the legal reason upon which the UK could have build an argument to deny that to the Scots but in practice it's not how it works, right?
The correct answer is true.With respect and I know you are not a nationalist do you think the SNP would accept similar on any indy ref?
The answer is no.
I take it you dropped history before GCSE.No you misunderstand. The English did not want a union with Scotland. The powers in Scotland voluntarily chose to align with England otherwise their entire nation would be crushed by their debt. You're making out like England subjugated the Scots. We wanted nothing to do with them, we were doing fine on our own. It was Scotland who approached England, not the other way around.
Since then Scotland and England have built a union called "Great Britain". Scots ceased to be Scots and the English ceased to be English, we were all now "British" citizens. This was not popular on either side of the border. To the English it was seen as a nation of people who fought against them many times in history, for their independence, only to come crawling back, and the Scottish sentiment was equally as reviled, as they had fought for their independence and won, but were now desperate for the English to help them thansk to the actions of the nobles.
Scotland AND England ceased to be "nations" or "countries", in the sovereign sense. They were combined at the Parliamentary level and both sides had to like it or lump it. I keep getting the distinct impression you feel that the English forced Scotland into the union, and nothing could be further than the truth. The fact is, throughout history, both Scotland and England have enjoyed their union, it has been immensely prosperous for each other, and neither side, aside from some cultural differences, wishes to rock the boat, but in no way shape or form are Scotland being forced to do whatever England demands.
Respectfully and understandably, I do not think that you are thinking things through very well on this aspect of Brexit/the UK unionNot if Brexit hurts Scotland a lot i immagine? Yesterday ive seen a very worried British parliament over being slapped large tarrifs by the USA trough the WTO on such things (among others) like single malt Scotch. So let me get this strait, this iconic Scottish dring is going to likely loose a lot of it's market share in the USA and other traders outside the EU, and if the UK exits the EU withought a good trade deal they are going to loose lots of marketshare in the EU too. One would have reason to think that Scotland could be particulary hurt?
Disquiet in cabinet over these No 10 briefings to the press. NI Secretary weighing in...
‘I am clear that any threat on withdrawing security cooperation with Ireland is unacceptable. This is not in the interest of NI or the Union’ @JulianSmithUK
Cake? No thanks. If you want to discuss, fine. If you want to make snide comments then I’m not interested in responding to you.They did - and they did
Did you want some cake to eat?
That is true and those that think that Brexit will lead to an almost certain outcome of Scotland leaving the UK are simply not in touch with reality and/or are posting without any consideration of the facts or detail.You dismiss the strength of Unionism up here.
The SNP make the same mistake. Sure people will vote SNP for Holyrood and Westminster but there is no appetite for independence on the whole and over 1 million Scots voting for brexit shows that.
That is true and those that think that Brexit will lead to an almost certain outcome of Scotland leaving the UK are simply not in touch with reality and/or are posting without any consideration of the facts or detail.
I can understand FlemishDuck holding that view - but UK citizens should not be so unaware.
I seriously doubt that BoJo can hold his government together through this - he looks to be setting up a No Deal as the only option strategy. There are people in the cabinet who would have been comfortable with no deal as a bargaining ploy but to end up in a position where it is the only acceptable outcome will not be supportable for many.
They may just sit there and lump it for a while but when it comes to the crunch they will resign. I suspect many tory MPs are having to think long and hard about what the manifesto will say at the next GE and whether or not they can stand on that basis. Even if they stand on I still think BoJo will have discipline problem with a majority. MPs know what this is and will oppose it - even Tories. It's car crash politics.
There is a reasonable argument that the SNP MPs should not vote on matters that are exclusive to English interests.
Scotland AND England ceased to be "nations" or "countries", in the sovereign sense.
They were combined at the Parliamentary level and both sides had to like it or lump it.The fact is, throughout history, both Scotland and England have enjoyed their union, it has been immensely prosperous for each other, and neither side, aside from some cultural differences, wishes to rock the boat, but in no way shape or form are Scotland being forced to do whatever England demands
Nah, in fact i asked questions to be reminded by Brits how the arragement came to be and accepted youre overview of it. It's just that the existance of the scottish parliament and such acts like a referendum for independance changed the past arrangement significantly imho.I keep getting the distinct impression you feel that the English forced Scotland into the union, and nothing could be further than the truth.