Just a very quick query for our old friend @Admin4TheYoonYoon. I'm struggling to reconcile the logic of these two recent tweets -
"But the point of my original comment was that to win *in the UK* we need to win the support of former Thatcher voters."
"Indeed. But since Scotland and England aren't that different, the Union is a good idea."
Righty-ho. So if Scotland and England aren't that different, why do Labour need Thatcher voters to win in the UK, but not in Scotland? Indeed, given that Admin endlessly scoffs at the notion that Scotland might, in some specific ways, have more in common with Scandinavia than with the south of England, could he explain why social democratic parties certainly wouldn't need the support of Thatcherites to win in a hypothetical Scandinavian political union, but do in the British political union?
Tom's final pearl of wisdom for the evening was this -
"Glaswegians have more in common with Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool than they do with Edinburgh or Aberdeen."
No need to back that up, Tom, the assertion will do fine. Actually, in the light of Labour Hame's side-splitting spoof New Year's message from Alex Salmond ("Wha's like us? Absolutely no-one"), perhaps someone should pen an @Admin4TheYoonYoon message in which he explains that not only does Scotland have more in common with England in every conceivable area of policy or culture than with any other nation on earth, but that every individual town or village in Scotland has more in common with a hamlet in Shropshire than with any other location in Scotland itself.