meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Coffee House Shots

Is it time to call Sturgeon's Bluff?

Coffee House Shots

The Spectator

News, Daily News, Politics

4.42.2K Ratings

🗓️ 17 June 2022

⏱️ 8 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

The calls for Indyref2 are coming thick and fast from the SNP leader this week with a plan for a monthly speech to express the benefits of Scotland leaving the UK. But would allowing a referendum now be better than resisting one? Newer generations of Scots tend to be more nationalist than their elders. Should unionists push for Indyref2 now before more young people reach voting age?

Katy Balls talks to Fraser Nelson and James Forsyth. 

Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.


For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.


Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

This podcast is sponsored by Canacord Genuity Wealth Management,

0:04.3

award-winning Wealth Managers who go above and beyond to support and guide you.

0:09.1

Visit candewelth.com to start building your wealth with confidence.

0:22.0

Hello and welcome to CoffeeHasShorts,

0:23.7

expect haters daily political podcast.

0:26.3

I'm Katie Balls and I'm joined by James Forsyfe and Fraser Nelson.

0:29.9

So we have the news this morning that Julian Assange is an extradition from the UK to the US

0:35.3

has been approved by the home secretary. James, what comes after this? Are we expecting an appeal?

0:40.8

I think a appeal is guaranteed from the authority and they've got 14 days to make it and I think

0:45.7

they will. I think it was always highly likely that the UK was going to extract Julian Assange

0:51.8

to the US, given the national security implications of what WikiLeaks did and I think also

0:59.8

the kind of indiscriminate nature of the leaking makes it harder I think to argue that this was

1:04.7

kind of classic kind of whistleblower stuff. This is not the kind of pentagon papers and it was done

1:10.0

in such a way that I think you can say there was no consideration given to what some of the real world

1:16.4

consequences of his actions were going to be. James, what do you make of the government's decision

1:21.2

on this because there's been some surprising figures actually coming out and support of Assange

1:26.4

in recent months, effectively saying you may not like him but in terms of what this case represents,

1:32.6

it sets a dangerous precedent. I think I would have more sympathy of that argument if the

1:38.3

Assange leaking had not been so blanket, so indiscriminate. This wasn't an attempt to highlight

1:45.6

a particular issue or you know it was just we are going to leak this because we can

1:51.2

and I mean it is the indiscriminate nature of this that means I think it's harder to say that

1:56.7

this is journalism than if it had been more fought through and more aimed at uncovering or revealing

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Spectator, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Spectator and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.