Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[najaB]

Lots of countries have Navies, but its the Royal Navy that patrols the seas to keep our enemies at bay.

The Royal Navy is in such a poor state that earlier this year not a single destroyer was able to put to sea.

 

[XAM2175]

Wouldn't have the gravitas of Britain though.

Where are the not-Scotland parts of the UK in this vision of yours?

 

[Cloud Strife]

I'd be fascinated to know why, in your view as a non-resident of Scotland, why Scottish Labour's view on independence, shared as it is by the majority of residents, means they have nothing to offer.

The simple answer: they are struggling to differentiate themselves from the Tories. They made the fatal mistake of aligning themselves too closely with the Tories during the referendum, and in the eyes of the electorate, there's not much difference between the two parties. It's changing a little bit under Sarwar, but the problem still remains: Scottish Labour are really just a different colour of the same party.

So while they share the same view as a plurality (not a majority!) of Scottish voters, they don't have a clear separate vision for Scotland's constitutional relationship with the rUK. They do support further devolution, but this message isn't being heard on the doorsteps.

For the sake of this thread's topic, Sunak's position on the constitutional question is perhaps less clear than that of most high-level Conservatives. He's obviously said no, as party policy demands, but he's not really said much beyond that, and neither does he have very strong unionist credentials. In fact I seem to remember that a few years ago he had to deny reports that he'd privately advocated for English independence from the UK.

Thinking aloud: if the Tories face ruin at the next election, then Sunak proposing English independence could be a huge gamechanger in any election. Framed correctly ('freed from rUK obligations'), it could resonate in Red Wall seats, while simultaneously proving popular with voters down south who perceive the devolved administrations as taking English money.

I've always thought that the Tories should strongly consider it. The Scottish Tories are going nowhere, the Welsh Tories have no realistic chance of ever forming a government there, so: what is to lose? Certainly a Labour victory (with or without the support of the SNP) will result in further devolution anyway, so realistically, what would Sunak have to lose by proposing English independence?

 

[Falcon1200]

Britain has never been at war with the Soviet Union, whereas both nations were at war with Hitler's Germany.

Slight factual correction; Britain was at war with Germany from September 1939, whereas the USSR was not until invaded in June 1941, and had in fact signed a non-aggression pact with Germany and itself invaded Poland.

 

[yorksrob]

The Royal Navy is in such a poor state that earlier this year not a single destroyer was able to put to sea.

Tory austerity has not been the typical state for the Nation's defences.

Where are the not-Scotland parts of the UK in this vision of yours?

Within the United Kingdom, which is the reality as it stands. It's the separatists who have the "visions".

 

[takno]

The simple answer: they are struggling to differentiate themselves from the Tories. They made the fatal mistake of aligning themselves too closely with the Tories during the referendum, and in the eyes of the electorate, there's not much difference between the two parties. It's changing a little bit under Sarwar, but the problem still remains: Scottish Labour are really just a different colour of the same party.

So while they share the same view as a plurality (not a majority!) of Scottish voters, they don't have a clear separate vision for Scotland's constitutional relationship with the rUK. They do support further devolution, but this message isn't being heard on the doorsteps.



Thinking aloud: if the Tories face ruin at the next election, then Sunak proposing English independence could be a huge gamechanger in any election. Framed correctly ('freed from rUK obligations'), it could resonate in Red Wall seats, while simultaneously proving popular with voters down south who perceive the devolved administrations as taking English money.

I've always thought that the Tories should strongly consider it. The Scottish Tories are going nowhere, the Welsh Tories have no realistic chance of ever forming a government there, so: what is to lose? Certainly a Labour victory (with or without the support of the SNP) will result in further devolution anyway, so realistically, what would Sunak have to lose by proposing English independence?

Labour have a perfectly sound view of the constitutional setup they want, it just looks a bit too much like the current setup for your tastes. Again, it's a very non resident view of things to think that this is the only important policy.

The SNP and now their stablemates in the whatever-Patrick-says party have been doing a terrible job of running Scotland for a long time now. The whole "Westminster did it and ran away" line is wearing a bit thin, and having policies to deal with some of the mess they are thoughtlessly foisting on us is a bigger priority for most Scots.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And what leads you to conclude that an independent Scotland wouldn't remain allied with most or all of the countries that the UK is allied with?

I'm reasonably sure an independent Scotland would remain allied with those countries - generally NATO/Western democracies.

But the problem is, if you have two different Governments, they are inevitably going to disagree and want to take different approaches on some things related to defence, and that itself will inevitably often weaken any common defence. Compare for example, how the US is able to provide large scale unified support to Ukraine (despite Ukraine being thousands of miles away on a different continent as far as the US is concerned) with the way EU countries have generally argued amongst themselves, and ended up providing a reasonable amount of support, but often more limited - partly because it's lots of smaller countries who have different opinions. And similarly EU sanctions against Russia have often ended up lowered to accommodate those countries least enthusiastic about sanctions.

Another issue that I don't think anyone has considered is the possibility that, if Scotland - which comprises a massive 32% of the UK by land area, even though it on has a relatively small proportion of the UK's population - breaks away, you could start to see some international grumbling about whether the rest of the UK is still big enough/has enough continuity with the former UK to warrant a UN security council seat. I'm pretty sure Russia and quite possibly China would be very quick to make capital out of that. I don't think there's any legal way for the UK to lose the seat, but it could cause significant moral loss of authority and therefore influence in the UN.

 

[nw1]

As for Labour politicians not having nicknames how about Teflon Tony for Blair (or Bliar as some would have it), Two Jags ( later Two Shags) for John Prescott, Robin Cock for Robin Cook, Harriet Harperson for H. Harman by those disliking her feminism, etc. The reason there aren't so many now is that, other than Starmer, Rayner and Reeves, the party is generally invisible to the British public. I remember reading that Gwyneth Dunwoody MP was privately referred to as 'Stalin in Knickers' by some other Labour MPs!

Given that Braverman has an apparent dislike of social liberalism, how about, ironically, calling her Suella Braverperson?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2022 ==

The simple answer: they are struggling to differentiate themselves from the Tories. They made the fatal mistake of aligning themselves too closely with the Tories during the referendum, and in the eyes of the electorate, there's not much difference between the two parties. It's changing a little bit under Sarwar, but the problem still remains: Scottish Labour are really just a different colour of the same party.

So while they share the same view as a plurality (not a majority!) of Scottish voters, they don't have a clear separate vision for Scotland's constitutional relationship with the rUK. They do support further devolution, but this message isn't being heard on the doorsteps.



Thinking aloud: if the Tories face ruin at the next election, then Sunak proposing English independence could be a huge gamechanger in any election. Framed correctly ('freed from rUK obligations'), it could resonate in Red Wall seats, while simultaneously proving popular with voters down south who perceive the devolved administrations as taking English money.

I've always thought that the Tories should strongly consider it. The Scottish Tories are going nowhere, the Welsh Tories have no realistic chance of ever forming a government there, so: what is to lose? Certainly a Labour victory (with or without the support of the SNP) will result in further devolution anyway, so realistically, what would Sunak have to lose by proposing English independence?

Speaking as someone who is English and a southern voter, I would find the concept of "English independence" nonsense, and quite frankly more than a little bit disturbing. England is a dominant nation, in the same way as the USA and Germany, for example - not a small nation being picked-on by its larger neighbour. It has no need to be independent from anyone or anything, and anyone advocating "English independence" just seems to have the same victim complex that certain people in Russia do; feeling they are being picked on when they are not.

Generally, I think nationalism is only valid when a country is being (to a greater or lesser extent) picked-on by its neighbour. Thus, Ukrainian nationalism is obviously OK. Lithuanian, Latvian or Estonian nationalism is OK. But Scottish nationalism arguably is, too - even though obviously their situation is not in a million years as bad as that of Ukraine. But English (or for that matter, US or German) nationalism seems much more suspect.

Quite apart from the fact that England without the moderating influence of the rUK would probably become a Tory one-party state. While I would support Scottish independence if that is what a clear majority wanted, the concept of a breakaway English nationalist state is something that I'd consider a bit disturbing, to say the least and if Sunak did it, he would, in my opinion, easily trounce Truss, Boris or Thatcher as the worst PM since the war.

 

[edwin_m]

I can fully understand why many Scots would prefer the gamble of independence rather than remaining in the mess that is the UK over the last few years, particularly when some Tories have been going out of their way to antagonise Scotland as part of the "culture wars" to keep their base on side. I hope Sunak will dial this down, as it does nobody any good other than short-term gain for the Tories, but while Braverman remains in the cabinet it has to be questionable whether much will change.

But an independent Scotland would cause real strategic worries for the UK and NATO. One of the UK's main roles in NATO is to guard against Russian intrusions via the Arctic, and the air and sea bases in Scotland are critical for monitoring their movements into the Atlantic or North Sea. It seems to me entirely possible that Scotland would want to become a non-aligned nation like Ireland, which is incompatible with hosting bases for a foreign power. If you believe in the UK deterrent it's also worth noting that if denied use of Faslane, it would have to move to a third country until the residual UK could establish a suitable base within its territory.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Labour have a perfectly sound view of the constitutional setup they want, it just looks a bit too much like the current setup for your tastes. Again, it's a very non resident view of things to think that this is the only important policy.

They may have a sound view (and as a gradualist, I'm quite happy with that view), but on the doorsteps, the opinion is that there's not much separating them from the Scottish Tories. One is red, one is blue, but as we saw in Aberdeen, they can happily go into coalition to keep a nationalist party out.

I can fully understand why many Scots would prefer the gamble of independence rather than remaining in the mess that is the UK over the last few years, particularly when some Tories have been going out of their way to antagonise Scotland as part of the "culture wars" to keep their base on side. I hope Sunak will dial this down, as it does nobody any good other than short-term gain for the Tories, but while Braverman remains in the cabinet it has to be questionable whether much will change.

Indeed, the mess that the Tories have made is a strong argument for independence. The attacks on Scotland have only resulted in a substantial vote for the SNP, and it's quite telling that the 'attack' mentality was punished at the last elections. The previous Scottish Tory mentality of being willing to work with the SNP paid off handsomely with Ruth Davidson, but unfortunately, Johnson ruined it. It's not a secret that Davidson absolutely loathes the Johnsonite wing of the party as a result.

I would find the concept of "English independence" nonsense.

This is interesting for me: don't you feel that England has a separate identity to the rUK? I've always thought that a federal rUK made up of Scotland, Wales and NI could work well, with England as an independent neighbour that the rUK would have friendly relations with, similar to Ireland and the UK today. Culturally, I don't feel much in common with England, it's a foreign land to my eyes. It's very much OT, but this advert sums it up perfectly to me:

(video: Tennent's Lager advert from 1990, showing a typical London businessman packing it in and returning home to Scotland for a pint with his friends after experiencing the worst of London life)

Quite apart from the fact that England without the moderating influence of the rUK would probably become a Tory one-party state.

This is why I could see Sunak going for it. The prize (single party Tory rule for a generation or more) would surely be worth considering, even if the price was leaving the UK?

Having said that, I'm a strong supporter of an English Parliament being established and the House of Lords becoming a federal upper chamber. The current settlement is never going to work in the long run, especially as Scottish law and now Welsh law is now diverging rather rapidly from English law.

 

[najaB]

But an independent Scotland would cause real strategic worries for the UK and NATO. One of the UK's main roles in NATO is to guard against Russian intrusions via the Arctic, and the air and sea bases in Scotland are critical for monitoring their movements into the Atlantic or North Sea. It seems to me entirely possible that Scotland would want to become a non-aligned nation like Ireland, which is incompatible with hosting bases for a foreign power.

The SNP changed their official policy a few years back and dropped opposition to NATO membership.

If you believe in the UK deterrent it's also worth noting that if denied use of Faslane, it would have to move to a third country until the residual UK could establish a suitable base within its territory.

While the SNP is opposed to nuclear weapons, popular opinion isn't strong enough to warrant unilaterally kicking 'the English' out of Faslane. I fully expect that it will be an issue during any independence negotiations, and the Scottish Government would do well to push for financially lucrative lease terms.

 

[nw1]

They may have a sound view (and as a gradualist, I'm quite happy with that view), but on the doorsteps, the opinion is that there's not much separating them from the Scottish Tories. One is red, one is blue, but as we saw in Aberdeen, they can happily go into coalition to keep a nationalist party out.



Indeed, the mess that the Tories have made is a strong argument for independence. The attacks on Scotland have only resulted in a substantial vote for the SNP, and it's quite telling that the 'attack' mentality was punished at the last elections. The previous Scottish Tory mentality of being willing to work with the SNP paid off handsomely with Ruth Davidson, but unfortunately, Johnson ruined it. It's not a secret that Davidson absolutely loathes the Johnsonite wing of the party as a result.




This is interesting for me: don't you feel that England has a separate identity to the rUK? I've always thought that a federal rUK made up of Scotland, Wales and NI could work well, with England as an independent neighbour that the rUK would have friendly relations with, similar to Ireland and the UK today. Culturally, I don't feel much in common with England, it's a foreign land to my eyes. It's very much OT, but this advert sums it up perfectly to me:

I think it's definitely true that England is more stereotypically "British" than the rUK, and the rUK do have their own separate identities.

But more to the point, I generally find suggestions of "independence" of dominant states a bit disturbing. Dominant states are not bullied or picked on, even though they sometimes think they are, and the whole "victim complex" of English nationalists thinking the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish are picking on them smacks of the same nonsense that was behind Brexit.

We've swung significantly to the right already after Brexit. It will only get worse if, having rejected the rest of Europe, we decide to reject Wales, Scotland and NI too.

This is why I could see Sunak going for it. The prize (single party Tory rule for a generation or more) would surely be worth considering, even if the price was leaving the UK?

Except the anger it would cause would be immense. I suspect we would see protests (from English people not wanting right-wing de-facto single-party rule) dwarfing anything we've seen in modern times and I suspect we would see a huge brain-drain from England as social liberals would not wish to be subjected to this nightmare scenario.

Critically, many English people would emigrate to Scotland, Ireland (both parts), Wales and, if the bureaucracy allows them, further afield. In fact, I suspect that rUK and Ireland would economically flourish while England would lose its influence. In such a scenario I can actually see rUK re-joining the EU, which would still further isolate an "independent England".

So overall I really can't see it happening unless the Tories are so obsessed by power that they are prepared to see England going to the dogs.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The SNP changed their official policy a few years back and dropped opposition to NATO membership.

It's still a very divisive issue, but I'd expect a referendum on the matter which would be won by the 'yes' side. I'm very much for NATO membership as an SNP supporter, but I'm not happy with nuclear weapons based in Scotland.

I fully expect that it will be an issue during any independence negotiations, and the Scottish Government would do well to push for financially lucrative lease terms.

Probably a 'medium-term' lease so that the replacement for the new Trident system. There would be no reason to agree anything else, as it would also give Scotland time to develop naval defences while deciding on NATO membership.

 

[edwin_m]

The SNP changed their official policy a few years back and dropped opposition to NATO membership.

While the SNP is opposed to nuclear weapons, popular opinion isn't strong enough to warrant unilaterally kicking 'the English' out of Faslane. I fully expect that it will be an issue during any independence negotiations, and the Scottish Government would do well to push for financially lucrative lease terms.

That may be their current policy, but as we've seen public opinion is volatile and a non-NATO Scotland is still a credible outcome.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that there's a little bit of racism in that ad, showing the black guy on the Tube platform as being a bad thing and everyone else white.

Of course, London is totally different to any of the rest of the UK. You could easily remake that ad with a Manc going back for a Boddies or whatever. Or even someone as close as rural Sussex and their local brew. Some of the "Greenall Whitley Land" ads had similar tone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2022 ==

That may be their current policy, but as we've seen public opinion is volatile and a non-NATO Scotland is still a credible outcome.

I'd have agreed until Russia started kicking off. Now I would be amazed if Scotland basically went defenceless.

 

[najaB]

That may be their current policy, but as we've seen public opinion is volatile and a non-NATO Scotland is still a credible outcome.

All outcomes are possible, but there is no public desire for Scotland to be outside NATO and I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[yorksrob]

Well if Scotland wants to go independent, it will have to go independent.

I'll probably get over it once its happened.

 

[nw1]

Offering a job to Braverman in return for her support may well have secured Sunak the job by transferring right wing MPs votes from Johnson or Mordaunt. Had either of them got to 100 MPs and triggered a vote of party members, they would have almost certainly been PM by today. If you think Sunak is bad, be careful what you wish for...

Except if Johnson had won, I suspect we'd have had Starmer as PM by the end of the year.

I'd agree (from a non-Tory POV) Mordaunt would have been the worst outcome, as I think she would, of the three, have been the most likely to make the Tories the largest party after the next election. (In fact, I honestly thought she would win, because the Tories would sense she is a potential "winner").

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2022 ==

One disappointing thing for supporters of Scottish independence (like myself) is that Sunak is unlikely to alienate Scottish voters. The Tories are toxic, but I would be very, very surprised if Sunak does anything to offend voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Implement austerity? Wouldn't be Scotland, Wales or NI specific - but I suspect that parts of those nations (along with less well-off parts of England) would be more impacted than, say, affluent parts of Southern England or the Manchester commuter belt.

 

[edwin_m]

Except if Johnson had won, I suspect we'd have had Starmer as PM by the end of the year.

I doubt it. Johnson would have dug in his heels and the Tory MPs would have seen the prospect of electoral suicide if they rebelled now, against the small chance of a better outcome if they held on as long as possible. Although there would have been an interesting outcome if the enquiry had led to Johnson being recalled.

 

[Busaholic]

All outcomes are possible, but there is no public desire for Scotland to be outside NATO and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Do you have any idea how many Scottish jobs are dependent, directly and non-directly, on the Faslane base? I'd be interested to know, because I'm sure it would be a factor. Alec Salmond's willingness to treat Russia, its leader and its state-controlled media at its own face value has been replaced by a much more realistic approach from Nicola Sturgeon, for which many thanks.

 

[najaB]

Do you have any idea how many Scottish jobs are dependent, directly and non-directly, on the Faslane base?

ISTR the figure of 15,000 being bandied about previously. I'll have a hunt and see if I can find a recent source.

 

[AlterEgo]

We're weaker as separatist countries.

England probably will be, Scotland - we will see how it turns out, in the event.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I'd agree (from a non-Tory POV) Mordaunt would have been the worst outcome, as I think she would, of the three, have been the most likely to make the Tories the largest party after the next election. (In fact, I honestly thought she would win, because the Tories would sense she is a potential "winner").

I have the feeling that she had to be 'seen to be in it', but with no real attempt at actually winning. I'd be shocked if she didn't agree beforehand with Sunak that she wouldn't attempt to actually win.

For me, she's still odds-on the next Tory leader. They don't have anyone better, unless Sunak somehow does the impossible.

Implement austerity? Wouldn't be Scotland, Wales or NI specific - but I suspect that parts of those nations (along with less well-off parts of England) would be more impacted than, say, affluent parts of Southern England or the Manchester commuter belt.

That is a point: the Scottish Tories still haven't recovered from the effects of the Poll Tax. However, I suspect the Tories might well agree to further fiscal devolution so that they can avoid the blame, especially now that the Johnsonite wing of the party is no longer in power.

 

[brad465]

The Mail on Sunday via Dan Hodges have, to put it mildly, dropped a bombshell:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1586387389358178306

Liz Truss’s personal mobile was hacked by agents suspected of working for Vladimir Putin

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1586387648608112642

Security sources have told the Mail On Sunday a year’s worth of private messages were downloaded. They included top Secret conversations with foreign governments about the war in Ukraine, and politically sensitive messages she exchanged with former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1586387898395668481

Allies of Liz Truss said that she was so worried news of the hack could derail her chance of claiming the premiership she ‘had trouble sleeping’, until Boris Johnson imposed a news blackout.

In short, we've just seen why Government Ministers are not permitted to exchange top secret Government Business via personal devices; while Truss is no longer PM, this will be highly damaging.

 

[najaB]

The Mail on Sunday via Dan Hodges have, to put it mildly, dropped a bombshell...

Liz Truss’s personal mobile was hacked by agents suspected of working for Vladimir Putin

Please, please, please for the love of all that is Holy, tell me this isn't true!

 

[brad465]

Please, please, please for the love of all that is Holy, tell me this isn't true!

Unfortunately it probably is, particularly as The Mail is a paper normally associated with providing Tory support. This also suggests everything Braverman has been embroiled in recently could be part of a wider Government culture.

 

[najaB]

This also suggests everything Braverman has been embroiled in recently could be part of a wider Government culture.

Every time that I think my opinion of this government has got as low as is possible they respond with "Hold my beer and watch me dig..."

 

[AlterEgo]

Another new low for our government. What else can you say?

 

[yorksrob]

England probably will be, Scotland - we will see how it turns out, in the event.

Well indeed.

I'm resigned to it now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2022 ==

The Mail on Sunday via Dan Hodges have, to put it mildly, dropped a bombshell:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1586387389358178306

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1586387648608112642

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1586387898395668481

In short, we've just seen why Government Ministers are not permitted to exchange top secret Government Business via personal devices; while Truss is no longer PM, this will be highly damaging.

Oh dear.

There will be a general election eventually and this circus will be gone.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Please, please, please for the love of all that is Holy, tell me this isn't true!

My word.

This isn't a bombshell, this is a nuclear bomb straight to the heart of the government.

Does Sunak have the strength to clear out the Johnsonite faction now? This should be the final straw as far as they're concerned. He doesn't need ministerial talent, but he desperately needs to find and recruit an expert on security to take ministerial-level responsibility.