A year since the election, we have two new GB voting intention polls (from YouGov and Survation) and a new Scottish poll (also from YouGov) today.

Looking at the YouGov/Times GB poll first, voting intentions are CON 44%(+2), LAB 37%(-2), LDEM 8%(-1). The seven point Conservative lead is the largest since the election but normal caveats apply – it is only one poll. Over the last two months YouGov have been showing a steady Conservative lead of around 4 or 5 points, so normal sample variation alone is enough to explain the occassional 7 point lead. Watch the trend, rather than getting excited over individual polls. Full tabs are here.

Survation‘s topline figures are CON 41%(nc), LAB 40%(nc), LDEM 9%(+1). Changes are since mid May. Like YouGov, Survation have shown a steady position for the last couple of months, but there’s an obvious contrast in terms of what that position is – YouGov have a steady small Tory lead, Survation are showing the parties steadily neck-and-neck. As I’ve said before, there’s not an obvious methodological reason for this (while Survation have a very distinct sampling approach to their phone polls, this is an online poll and their online polls use broadly similar methods to YouGov, ICM and other companies, so there’s no obvious reason for differing results). Full tabs for the Survation poll are here.

Meanwhile YouGov’s Scottish voting intentions are

Westminster: CON 27%(+4), LAB 23%(-5), LDEM 7%(+1), SNP 40%(+4)
Holyrood constituency: CON 27%(+1), LAB 22%(-1), LDEM 6%(-1), SNP 41%(+3)
Holyrood regional: CON 26%(+1), LAB 21%(-1), LDEM 7%(nc), SNP 32%(nc).

Changes here are since the previous Scottish YouGov poll, way back in January. There is very little movement in Holyrood support, but in Scotland the Conservatives have moved back into second place. Full tabs for the Scottish poll are here.

759 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Survation voting intentions”

1 10 11 12 13 14 16
  1. Trevor Warne,
    “The EC want a BINO outcome and believe NI border issue is how they will force that upon UK.”

    Ah Trevor, Cassandra without the backing of any gods.
    The EC have always explained what is on offer and invited the Uk to choose which option they want. If it turns out the pain from losing all the benefits of membership is unbearable, then surely we should realise we made a terrible mistake and stay. Its us who have said we are leaving.

    “As it stands most folks and possibly MPs still think cake is available”

    MPS have almost universally told voters that cake is available, so unsurprising if voters believe it. However, few MPs actually believe there is any cake at all. This is a huge betrayal of voters.

    Trevor Warne,
    “Recent evidence for ‘Revoke = Cake’”

    The only court able to rule on this is the EU court, which has authority on EU law. Show me its judgement about this?

    “. In the case of the NAFTA agreement, this loss of sovereignty has been dramatic, and the legal mechanisms imposed on the people of an entire continent makes the ECJ look like a bastion of national democracy. ”

    And Brexiteers want to leave the Eu in favour of something like Nafta?

    ” Even more amusing are those like Danny, who responded to you here by weighing the possibility of a reduction in the threat of nuclear war against a reduction in “international free trade”-an entity which doesn’t exist.”

    The two issues are not related, except that the man with most power to cause changes is Donald trump. I could quite see him dissolve WTO and other international trade agreements. And he would do so because it is in the interest of the US to do so, and he would therefore be popular for it. All international deals are agreed to because they generate benefits, and they are usually made by unequal partners who therefore gain unequal advantage. Free trade no longer makes the US the automatic winner, so it is no longer in its interests to maintain it.

  2. Colin,
    “My understanding is that KIm made the first move”

    it is always possible that having reviewed his country and economy he might have decided that while nuclear weapons are all very warming, they are probably also ruinously expensive. So it might be a case of bargaining them away before he would have been forced to abandon them anyway.

  3. DANNY

    I was looking at WEF’s Global Enabling Trade Report rankings.

    Trudeau’s little foot stamping episode at the G7 is amusing when you look at Canada’s place in those rankings.

    In 2010 they were 8th with a score of 5.29 ( Singapore 1st with 6.06 )

    In 2016 they were 24th with 5.2 ( Singapore 1st with 6.0)

    this was 2 places behind USA ( and 16 places behind UK)

    As you say all TA’s address competing interests of the parties-sometimes reasonably in a balanced way-sometimes unreasonably & unbalanced.

    And circumstances change over time.

  4. @ LEFTIELIBERAL – Thank you for the correction. Just to confirm the following can’t ‘normally’ vote

    Speaker – Bercow (CON)
    Deputies – Laing (CON), Hoyle (LAB)
    2nd Deputy – Winterton (LAB)

    Pubicwhip site separate out Bercow as Speaker but leave the other three in for some reason.

    Do you know when they might vote (ie how the ‘Denison Rule’ (or similar conventions) might play out if things get very tight (as the well might))?

    The Denison Rule is only a ‘convention’ and appears to only apply to the Speaker but as you rightly point out, both LAB and CON are notionally two down in votes and it was wrong for me copy over PublicWhip info without checking. I appreciate the correction and any further input you have.

  5. DANNY

    Who knows what Kim’s thinking is. We cannot know what internal stresses he faces amongst the elite cadre at home.

    But if you believe him-he is going to change & leave the past behind.

    Lets hope he means it & Trump is right to believe him.

    My only gripe with that is that I doubt the inmates of his concentration camps will be thrilled about it.

  6. Starmer, Clarke and others pointing out the significance on the NI vote (or nod through as it effectively was) yesterday – see also my 9:49am.

    Does anyone know what adjustment/if any was made to the amendment?

    I think Starmer, Clarke, etc. exaggerating the importance but also surprised no pundit picked it.

    I am happy to repost the info on the potential Brexiteer backstop for NI (specific WTO articles that can be used to avoid chaos in no-deal, or slow implementation during/after transition). May is still ‘playing nice’ and I respect the Brexiteer card hasn’t been played yet but just to say this issue has been thought through, at length, by those with a Plan C! Its far from ideal but certainly not chaos either.

  7. “My understanding is that KIm made the first move on meeting Trump-via the delegation he sent to the Winter Olympics.”

    Yes, that was a surprise – but I think he felt that he had demonstrated enough threat that he could bring the USA into serious negotiations. Any other interpretation just has him as a bit random, which I don’t think he is..

  8. Colin
    [email protected]” there does not seem to be much objective reason to single them out in a region of far-from-perfect regimes…”

    Regimes which Iran seems to support. So “singling them out” might actually be addressing a root cause:-”

    Well, Iran supports the US-installed regime in Iraq, and Iranian militias were in the forefront of the fight against IS there. That recognition by Obama was one of the reasons for the nuclear deal which our government still supports strongly…

    You can certainly predict which countries and groups Iran and Saudi Arabia will support on religious grounds, but not on how democratic or aggressive or anti-western they are

  9. I am surprised none of the SNP posters have been on here complaining of how aggressive and rude was Sarah Montague on the World at One when interviewing Ian Blackford.

    She was constantly interrupting, talking over the top, and showing no feeling for the interviewee, just like she behaved when on Today with any left-winger or SNP spokesperson.

    Her grasp of UK politics was shown to be hopeless by her asking IB to explain why the Welsh government have accepted the present procedure. Does she not realise that the devolution arrangement for Wales is much more limited than that for Scotland.

    Sarah needs to realise that it is not her role as an interviewer to argue the Far-right Tory case – she has to be neutral. And when the Tory government is ignoring the UK constitution, she is not meant to approve that but ought to be exploring a solution.

  10. FWIW Even the normally EUphile OECD are out bashing Germany’s twin surplus fetish.

    OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria told reporters in Berlin:

    ““Your current account got fat because you won productivity and competitiveness compared to the others in Europe. Now, does that give rise to protectionists? Of course!”

    “So basically, you could spend more, yes! You could import more, yes!”


  11. @Colin

    “I haven’t heard the “internal NK voices” which persuade you that this is so.”

    There was a very interesting interview, I think on yesterday’s BBC TV news bulletin, with a former North Korean citizen, now living in England; presumably in asylum, although that wasn’t made clear. She knew the North Korean regime well and had been a devoted follower of both of Kim Jong un’s predecessors, Kim II Sung and Kim Jong-il, before seeing the light. She still had relatives in the country. Her view was that the current regime would never relinquish their nuclear capability because it was built into the DNA of the Kim dynasty and the nation they had created. They’d moved heaven and earth, as well as impoverishing their country in the process, to acquire the weaponry and what they felt was both a guarantee of their survival and a crucial bargaining counter in diplomatic/war games to come.

    This is the problem with nuclear proliferation; far too many genies who stubbornly refuse to get back into the bottle. North Korea won’t dis-invent their nuclear weaponry in the same way that I doubt any other current nuclear power will. Nobody is going to blink in this one, although I do welcome the current cooling down in rhetoric.

    The game is how to keep North Korea in check. Trump has limited leverage in that. President Xi of China is the key.

  12. ANDREW 111

    @”Yes, that was a surprise ”

    But not to those who subscribe to the Nixon In China Theory of International “Diplomacy.”

    ..and don’t forget Kissinger/Pompeo .

  13. @Colin & Andrew111
    I cannot help thinking that the whole thing has more to do with China and North Korea, than the US and North Korea. Trumps good move was convincing China that Kim had to calm down in a very big way.

  14. @Colin & Andrew 111
    I think the Chinese have altered Kim’s activities fearing the consequences of his previous “agro”.

  15. CB11

    I can understand the viewpoint of any defector from NK.

    But I wouldn’t forecast anything or bet against anything.
    I don’t have the expertise, and Kim is such an unknown quantity.

    Trump mentioned that he was 28 when he took effective control of his country.
    The younger generation may surprise us-who knows.

    Anyway, I’ve decided to be hopeful on this one-there is so much else to be cynical about.


  16. US-N Korea. Some Optimism; More pessimism; Much Scepticism

    Unlike the regulars on here I don’t claim to be an instant “expert” on every subject that is in the news. Here are the views of four “experts” provided by the BBC on USA-NK discussions.Whatever their biases these people at least have spent more than 5 minutes studying the subject.

    1. ‘Starting gun for a marathon process’
    Sokeel Park, director of research and strategy, Liberty in North Korea
    A massively hyped, unprecedented summit that produced a very light, boilerplate agreement. The terms really could have been copy and pasted from other agreements with North Korea. So an unimpressive start, but this was always only going to be the starting gun for a marathon process that we will have to wait a year or two to judge.

    2. ‘Trump won a lone, technical concession’
    Ankit Panda, adjunct senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists and a senior editor at the Diplomat

    The joint declaration makes two separate references to “complete denuclearisation”. That is a loaded phrase and not exactly what it seems. But the last thing “complete denuclearisation” means is that North Korea will unilaterally disarm itself – or completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantle its nuclear weapons.
    The latter phrase, often abbreviated to “CVID”, was nowhere to be found in the declaration and that’s far from a surprise. In the lead-up to the summit, North Korea made clear that Kim Jong-un was not coming to Singapore to turn over the keys to his nuclear programme. “Complete denuclearisation” – a formulation that first appeared in the 27 April Panmunjom declaration between the two Koreas – is ambiguous, open-ended and, in its most generous interpretation, refers to global nuclear disarmament.

    3. ‘Triumph of faith over reality’
    John Nilsson-Wright, North-east Asia expert, Chatham House and senior lecturer, University of Cambridge

    For the two leaders, the feeling must surely be that the summit has met all their expectations and can count as a success. But we should be careful to distinguish between the visuals and the ambitious expectations on the one hand and the need to deliver real, measurable and unambiguous progress on the other. This feels more like the triumph of faith over reality with a heavy dose of spin and salesmanship thrown in to bolster Donald Trump’s standing with his base at home.

    4. ‘A vague document but Kim might have made unwritten promises’
    Andrea Berger, senior research associate, James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies
    Kim Jong-un departed Singapore without putting his signature next to any more detailed or ambitious nuclear-related provisions. The language in the Singapore declaration mirrors previous agreements, and is in places even more vague. In that sense, the joint document is a present that has been elaborately wrapped and re-gifted. But it may be the thought that counts.

  17. test

  18. May I apologise at the outset for the length of this post. I would crave your indulgence and ask you to read to the end as the coherence of my thoughts will not become clear otherwise.
    In June 2016 a majority of those who voted in the UK, on the binary choice that the UK should leave or remain in the EU, voted to leave. However, whilst that majority was significant in absolute numbers it was also, in relative terms, slim. This has meant that there are large numbers of voters who voted against leaving and therefore are likely to feel that their views are not being represented at all. This can give rise to the situation that political philosophers have referred to as the “[email protected] of the majority”.
    [email protected] of the majority is an inherent weakness of democracy. This is because a majority of an electorate can place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” argued that This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a [email protected] or desp0t, argued that this results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a desp0t.
    In drawing up the American constitution The Electoral College mechanism in the indirect presidential election system, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure to prevent the election of a dangerous [email protected] and also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy. The perception of tyranny can occur when rationality is abandoned: see Tocqueville referring to a decision “which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence”.
    In my judgment the general politically disinterested population think of the Conservatives as Leave and the Labour Party as what might be described as “remainish”. The polls, which show a roughly equal Conservative/Labour split but with a small conservative lead, appear to me to show that there is on that basis a similar leave/remain split in the population as at the time of the referendum (as I understand the numbers questions directly on leave/remain positions bears this out although there has been slow trend movement towards remain).
    I believe that there will be a no deal Brexit. This is because of the following: there is no compromise which will satisfy the Conservative Leavers, the Conservative Remainers and the DUP over the Irish Border issue. Even if some significant compromise was achieved it is unlikely to be acceptable to the EU given its interpretation of the December 2017 agreement on the border issues. The government, even yesterday, has shown no hunger to confront the issues of the differences between various Conservative factions, “can kicking” having become a spectator sport. If there can be no internal compromise which would leave to agreement there can be no withdrawal agreement.
    The withdrawal agreement must be agreed by October 2018 to give sufficient time for the agreement to be ratified by the Parliaments (and devolved institutions if required by a constitution) of 27 nations. If it is not ratified by the end of March 2019, Article 50 means that we will no longer be a member of the EU. There is no legal certainty that Article 50 can be withdrawn or extended, and that certainty can only be clarified by the ECJ. Any withdrawal or request for an extension must take place before the two year limit has expired, there can be no retrospective decision because the effect of Article 50 is to end membership and EU or EEA non-members cannot bring actions before the ECJ (I suppose there is room for a brave lawyer to argue that the UK remains a member because of some peculiarity of UK constitutional matters, but the chances are vanishingly small). I cannot envisage this Government either attempting to withdraw Article 50 or bringing an action before the ECJ to clarify whether an extension is permitted and, therefore I cannot envisage Article 50 ceasing to operate, ergo the UK will not be a member of the EU at the end of March 2019.
    If we are not a member of the EU we will have not trade agreements whatsoever. Not only will we have no trade agreements with the EU but also no agreements with the 67 nations which have trade agreements with the EU. Even WTO standard conditions present some difficulties as we will not, automatically, be entitled to membership (I have heard rumours that Argentina in particular will be seeking certain conditions in order to accept our membership). There can be no guarantee that trade agreements will instantly be put into place. Someone on here recently said that nothing will stop air transport because of the economic costs. The problem with that as an argument is that if flights continue those flights would be unlawful, this impacts on, for example, insurance contracts on the aircraft. I have no doubt that short term temporary agreements would be put in place swiftly but there must be some level of disruption.
    Historically civil war has occurred over constitutional issues which raises for me the following concern. If, as I believe the case to be, there is a no deal Brexit the outcome will depend on who is correct about the impact on the UK economy. If the outcome is “catastrophic” (as per Dominic Grieve) then the conditions will exist for civil unrest and perhaps worse. That risk is increased it seems to me when a large minority of the country consider that there has been a “[email protected] of the majority”. I hope I am wrong, but when I watched the House of Commons debate yesterday I came to the conclusion that the cohesiveness of the Conservative Party came well above the interests of the nation in the approach taken by the government and that as long as that continues to be the case a brexit which recognises and allows for the split in opinion in the country will not be achieved.

  19. “Anyway, I’ve decided to be hopeful on this one-there is so much else to be cynical about.”


    Yes, what a turn around, imagine being optimistic about the Republican! We might be optimistic about the cricket though, with Aus all out for 214. Still, the way Scotland trounced us the other day one cannot count too many chickens.

  20. @TW

    It is difficult to be sure about whether any of the other three (if not in the Speaker’s Chair) would vote. My suspicion is that an MP only goes into a Deputy Speaker position if they don’t want (or don’t expect) ministerial office or to Chair one of the major committees. Thinking about those who were Speaker before Bercow, they were constituency MPs with no particular aspirations. So if Bercow were to stand down soon (he said that he would only serve 9 years before he was elected) someone like Lindsay Hoyle would be a likely candidate to replace him. As the Speaker and Deputies are decided (theoretically at least) on a free vote of MPs, any Deputy would not want to upset either side of the House by voting when other MPs might think they should have abstained.

  21. If, as the Graun are reporting, (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jun/13/brexit-parliament-wont-be-allowed-to-take-charge-of-talks-in-no-deal-scenario-minister-tells-tory-rebels-politics-live?page=with:block-5b211291e4b0a90d612a6ffb#block-5b211291e4b0a90d612a6ffb) Ken Clarke, Grieve and Starmer are convinced that one of the amendments passed yesterday effectively means that the UK has no option but to remain in the single market and “a” customs union then they’ve played a blinder. Presumably having seen this one coming they must have been chuckling to themselves all afternoon yesterday while all the attention was on “meaningful” votes etc.

    No doubt the usual suspects will be along shortly to explain why three of the most intelligent and coherent MPs in the Commons, two of them Tories, are completely wrong, and no doubt when challenged will fail to produce any evidence to back up their opinions. Or accuse anyone who thinks this might be a better thing than crashing out while sticking up two digits at Barnier as we dance merrily off to agree favourable trade terms with Trump and his new best mate of being unpatriotic.

  22. It`s quite clear that the largely English membership of this message-board isn`t bothered by the harsh treatment to Scotland being put out meantime by the Tories and BBC interviewers.

    Small minorities can easily be bullied, but the consequences from last night`s filibustering by the Tory government in denying any debate on the devolution clause in the EU Withdrawal Bill, will make the English majority realise that Scotland can`t be bypassed.

    I predict continuing disruption until the Scottish democratic votes are respected. The UK constitution is in serious danger of being routinely ignored when groups happen to be seriously disadvantaged, in which case we all will suffer. These events IMO have much increased the chances of the break-up of the UK.

    Meanwhile I have put in a complaint to the BBC asking for Sarah Montague to be suspended.

    The R4 5 PM programme has been much better balanced, in what ought to be the BBC`s usual way.

  23. Davwel

    “the consequences from last night`s filibustering by the Tory government in denying any debate on the devolution clause in the EU Withdrawal Bill, will make the English majority realise that Scotland can`t be bypassed.”

    Alternatively, they already know that Scotland can be, and is, bypassed. Hence the behaviour of both Con and Lab last night.

    It’s probably too technical an issue to grab the attention of most voters, but Westminster hubris may yet lead to the nemesis of the current UK.

  24. @ LEFTIELIBERAL – Thank you again. I had thought that the Speaker was, by convention, from the governing party but after you mentioned Hoyle I checked and note that Betty Boothroyd, LAB, was first appointed under CON govt. That’s two things I’ve learnt today!

    Not only was Boothroyd from the opposition party at the time but she also cast a vote on the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty (which ended up not being needed but did follow the Denison ‘Rule’ at the time).

    P.S. IMHO (and probably in most people’s opinion!) Hoyle would certainly make a better Speaker than Bercow but Bercow and Hoyle are both Remainers so being selfish I’m happy if Hoyle waits until after Bercow’s 9yrs is up in May’19.

    P.P.S. Laing, is a Leaver at heart (as were 61% of her constituents, Essex being very Brexity). I doubt that will come into play but with the HoC maths so tight it’s worth just making the odd note of what might happen if/when we get to tied votes.
    Winterton is a Remainer, although Doncaster Central did vote 66% to Leave. Again doubt it will come to it but if it did she’d probably vote ‘Remainy’ (especially if LAB whip that way)

  25. @ DALEK – I mentioned the NI vote earlier and have spoken with many folks since. Brexiteers are relaxed about it. Plan C is ready (D is better), but it is not time to act yet.
    I’m somewhat surprised DUP aren’t a little more upset though – unlike them to miss it and all 10 of them nodded the adjusted amendment through. My guess if they are working towards Plan C not D ;)

    @ DAVWEL / OLDNAT – I mentioned it at 9:49am this morning. Noes only got to 40 but like you I was ashamed by the disregard of the devolved nation debate. I’d go further and widen that out to the whole Brexit debate over last two days – very few in HoC seem to understand it is about what the EC will/will not accept, not what the UK wants.

  26. Good evening all from a damp and mild Winchester.

    “It`s quite clear that the largely English membership of this message-board isn`t bothered by the harsh treatment to Scotland being put out meantime by the Tories and BBC interviewers”

    I blame the Scots themselves!!… Why the Scots let it happen is beyond me. It’s not as if the English are superior to the Scots or any other race for that matter.

  27. @Old Nat and Davwel

    Re: Scotland

    The present situation, in which the Westminster parliament is acting in plain violation of its own Act establishing the Holyrood parliament (along with the Welsh Senate and the Northern Irish Assembly) reminds me somewhat of the 1711 case in which the House of Lords, in supporting a renegade cleric, destroyed one of the fundamentals of the 1707 Treaty and Act by overturning a perfectly legal judgement by the Church of Scotland – which had been supported in the Scottish courts. The lesson we learn from both events is that the English simply cannot be trusted to abide by their word – or by the law which they themselves agreed and passed.

    The present situation is clear: the only way in which regulations on devolved matters may be agree across the whole of the United Kingdom is through the Joint Ministerial Committee. Regulations cannot be imposed by Westminster without undermining the entire Devolution Settlement.

    But of course, we all know that the English know best and that the others, like children, ought (perhaps) to be seen but not heard…

  28. Allan Christie

    Raining here too, I’m glad to say – the plants really need it!

    “Race” was the wrong word for you to use, of course. Neither the mongrel folk living on either side of the border are a race – though those living in Scotland may have to take part in a race to secure our autonomy.

    I see that almost 1,000 folk joined the SNP this afternoon, so some are obviously gearing up for that race.

    Meanwhile, the choice of Lab and LD MPs (putting “S” in front of those labels seems inappropriate) in not siding with their MSP colleagues in SLab and SLD ensures that they no longer race, just slide slowly into oblivion – or merger with the Tories, which amounts to the same thing.

  29. John B

    No. It’s not “the English” (though few of them are bothered one way or other about how Scotland is governed).

    It’s the UK Parliament.

    That should be concerned about the governance of Scotland, and they seem to have decided that their colleagues at Holyrood (and other elected representatives) should have an increasingly limited involvement in that governance.

  30. @ Old Nat and Davwel

    Re: Scotland

    The present situation parallels that of 1711 when the House of Lords reversed a perfectly legal Church of Scotland judgement regarding a renegade cleric. This House of Lords judgement undermined one of the fundamental pillars of the Treaty and Act of Union, 1707, by ignoring the explicitly guaranteed freedom of the Church of Scotland in spiritual matters.

    Likewise, today we find that the English don’t like the Devolution Act they themselves passed and are undermining one (or more) its fundamental pillars, which is that matters not specifically reserved to Westminster is devolved.

    The UK Government, quite reasonably, wishes to ensure that regulations, regarding matters returned from the EU, be coherent across the whole of the UK. I have no quarrel with that aim. However, the way to achieve this is by seeking such unanimity in the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Four Nations, not by dictat from Westminster.

    The UK government, ably supported by the Official Opposition, is doing all it can to undermine the Devolution Settlement. The behaviour of the two major UK parties in this matter is making me consider very seriously whether the time may not have arrived for me to join a political party for the first time in my life.

  31. For some reason, my submission of 6.39 did not appear until I had already written, and submitted (6.53), a second, revised, edition (which was necessary, I thought, only because there was no sign of the first edition). Is there a time delay on this site at present?

  32. Colin,
    “Trudeau’s little foot stamping episode at the G7 is amusing when you look at Canada’s place in those rankings.”

    While Canadam ight be feling hard done by because the US is throwing its weight about, the US itself feels hard done by, with some justification. The rust belt which voted for Trump wants its industry back. It is because the US wants to change the system that the system will change.

    ” Westminster hubris may yet lead to the nemesis of the current UK.”

    Yep those ruskies have played a blinder.

  33. John B

    Some folk are reporting having problems with their posts seemingly being ignored by the system.

    This is different from the constitutional situation where Holyrood decisions are clearly visible, but totally ignored in the Westminster system.

  34. @Old Nat

    I may be regarded as extreme, but my own anecdotal experience is that few of the English understand, and fewer still care anything about, the devolution settlement. I could say the same about several Tory MPs elected from Scotland, including the present Secretary of State.

    As for the woeful behaviour of the English Labour Party… words fail me.

  35. Danny

    Ruskies?? It was the Greeks wot done it!

  36. John B

    I am in total agreement with your 7:04pm post.

    Indeed the proprietor of the Keswick Sunnyside Guest House was so determined to demonstrate how little he cared by tweeting this from his/her business account No scots in parliament – they’ll be missed – not.

    Even apart from the utter stupidity of tweeting bigoted opinions from a business account (though it may match a “No dogs or Irish” sticker in the window), s/he may not be English. Every people has its share of pig-ignorant prejudiced fools.

    Keswick, of course is a great town to visit, and folk there are usually very welcoming.

  37. @ OLDNAT

    It’s quite obvious that large tracts of the Conservative Government are ambivalent (at best towards devolution).

    A very sceptical part of me also thinks one of the main reasons Labour warmed to devolution was as a way of cementing their popularity in Wales and Scotland. I think it’s worked in Wales, but the machiavellian David, George and Oliver all knew full well what Indy Ref would do to Labour north of the border!

  38. “It`s quite clear that the largely English membership of this message-board isn`t bothered by the harsh treatment to Scotland being put out meantime by the Tories and BBC interviewers.”


    Aaaah, the narcissism of nationalism. In defence of those maligned, it might be worth considering that some may have been fatigued by past spurious grievance farming, and there is a surfeit of stuff to care about anyway. Some of which happens outside Scotland!

    (Some aren’t even retired and devoted to backing the agendas of those who don’t give two figs about them!)

    Anyway, England only need a few runs to win. I’m sure you’re pleased for us!

  39. @Carfrew

    The cricket is 33% Yorkshire affair.

    Four in the England side, and three Aussies spent time at the county too.

    (of course this b*ggers up Yorkshire for tomorrow, as the county side gets depleted AGAIN.)

    It’s an ECB conspiracy to stop them winning :-/

  40. Carfrew

    Are you wholly unaware that Davwel is English, and not a supporter of nationalism (Scottish, English or UK)?

    Perhaps you suffer from the narcissism of someone who just categorises others according to their own assumptions and prejudices?

    Mote, beam etc.

  41. Meanwhile, Labour appear to have hit the self-destruct button again. Definitely an interesting couple of days in Westminster.

  42. Interesting tweet from Ian Masterton MP who is said to be one of Scotland’s best known Conserative MPs.

    He said that the SNP “held up every division last night for as long as they could to deliberately reduce devolution debate time” and added “this is a manufactured drama from a party so out of touch and out of ideas it’s reduced to stunts”.

  43. @oldnat

    “Are you wholly unaware that Davwel is English, and not a supporter of nationalism (Scottish, English or UK)?“


    As is common with your interventions, this would do nothing to undermine my point. You don’t have to be a particular nationality to be seduced by nationalistic arguments.

  44. 327 votes against staying in EEA

    CON+DUP-2 = 326

    Hence more LAB-Leave rebels than CON-Remain rebels (even assuming every CON that could vote did vote)

    126 voted to stay in EEA but we’ll need to wait to see the breakdown (this was the vote where we should see the max CON-Remain rebellion)

  45. @oldnat

    “Perhaps you suffer from the narcissism of someone who just categorises others according to their own assumptions and prejudices?
    Mote, beam etc.“


    I didn’t categorise him that way, that’s you wasting more time projecting. I was talking about nationalism and its issues, not Davwel.

  46. @catman

    On the other hand, it gives others a chance to break into the side and to see their development!

  47. I think the voting shows how divided Labour MPs are over Brexit.

    I’m not sure the Conservatives are better, as they only squeaked past the line via arm twisting, probably threats about careers, last minute begging and offering vague promises about further “consultations and listening”.

    It’s not going well for anyone is it??

  48. @Carfrew

    Yorkshire does seem to be a strong development club.

    If we lose, I’m blaming the ECB!

  49. So as expected Soubs + Clarke voted to stay in EEA but the only other CON was Grieve.

    What happened to the other 13 or so?? This was a ‘free’ protest vote as CON-Remain knew LAB whips were pushing abstain. I hope May and CON whips noticed!!

    P.S. Fastest place to get the names on the votes is:

    Much faster than the UKPR delay in posts for sure!

  50. @Catman

    It is strong on development, and one would hope that the development system that led to Yorkshire providing several Internationals, might also be producing more up and coming players.

    Alternatively, you can relish the bittersweet irony or something!

1 10 11 12 13 14 16