Totally OT - but does @rcs1000 know if it is possible to persuade the Vanilla iframe to be `scrolling="no"` and get rid of the spurious extra scrollbar?
Back onto cosplay Thatcher's "Fuck the Bill" Bill, I don't know why BR is saying "this is what I proposed" when he has endlessly demanded they invoke Article 16. This goes straight past the A16 provision in the law and seeks to impose a settlement without negotiation. Which is the precise opposite of what A16 was intended to do.
The reality is simple - this government has demonstrated it is incapable of negotiation. So it doesn't want to invoke the A16 negotiation process as it knows it will only negotiate another settlement it doesn't understand. So fuck the bill, just impose a one-sided settlement and then claim to be an honest broker with all the people who now don't want to negotiate a coffee order with us.
Not that it will get through the House of Lords anyway. I can see the "Enemies of the State" headlines now.
It also has serious questions for the UK's integrity. In a few weeks, assuming the current mess isn't resolved, and I don't think it will be with the horror film clowns in charge as at present, I'd like to see polling on the wish for a border poll, and how the Alliance's policy in particular changes on the need for a border poll.
As long as the UK government does not impose a hard border in Ireland when it is removing the border in the Irish Sea, there will be no change in the Alliance's opposition to a border poll
Oh yes, no border at all. Good luck with that. Why do you think Mr Johnson put the one in the Irish Sea, and was so proud of it?
More generally, the Alliance aren'tr opposed to a border poll - they just don't support it. Not the same thing. And if HMG continues to rule NI from the sole point of view of keeping the DUP happy, there will be other reasons for Alliance to change their mind. For instance, wrecking the NI economy.
I attended an event at Westminster a couple of weeks ago where Steven Farry - alliance MP for North Down said they will not decide which way to jump on a border poll until it is announced- but they are happy to take part in discussions around planning one to avoid a Brexit type vote where people are promised anything and everything. They are ore open to a UI than many think.
There cannot be a UI without a border poll which requires the NI Secretary to back one and most probably Stormont to vote for one too. So without the Alliance voting for one there is no majority in the NI Assembly for one. A border poll ironically destroys the Alliance as it is the only main NI party which has almost equal support from Unionists and Nationalists.
If the Alliance took sides in a border poll it would become just another Nationalist or Unionist party
Their leader at Westminster says they will take a side but will not announce which until a poll is called.
The border poll requirement is set out in the GFA - deliberately vague but no Stormont vote required.
The moment the Alliance take a side in a border poll they are destroyed as a political party. No longer neutral they would either be a Nationalist party like SF and the SDLP so their Unionist voters would go to the UUP most likely or a Unionist party like the DUP or UUP so their Nationalist voters would go to the SDLP most likely.
There may therefore never be a border poll as it requires the NI Secretary to agree to one under the GFA and the NI Secretary won't and doesn't have to unless there is a clear majority at Stormont for one which there won't be as it is in the Alliance's interests to stay neutral and never have one
This is nonsense. They are a cross-community party. That is just as true now with NI a part of the UK as it would be with NI part of new Ireland.
No, if they take sides in a border poll they would be a Unionist or Nationalist party. No longer cross-community.
Not that Unionists would accept ever being part of a united Ireland anyway, Antrim and East Londonderry etc would declare UDI first
OK, this is now stupid nonsense. Not everyone in NI puts themselves and every issue into a binary "Unionist" or "Nationalist" box. You say that them taking sides makes them partisan. Not if the cross-community electorate they represent believes they would be better in a New Ireland.
As for the bowler hat twatters declaring UDI, that tells me everything we need to know about your respect for democracy.
The vast majority of Northern Ireland do actually put themselves in the Unionist or Nationalist box. You are a typical naive GB mainland left liberal who has not a clue about the culture and traditions of Protestant Ulster which wants to stay in the UK and will never, ever accept being forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will.
You? Lecturing someone else about having "not a clue about the culture and traditions" of somewhere else?
I am well aware that there is a No Never element in the unionist community. A former well-respected boss of mine was one of the "bowler hatted twatters" I refer to. But even he accepted that there is a democratic mandate that any political position has to respect.
Also worth your pe-brain noting is that nobody is proposing a scenario where NI would be "forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will". Because the SF scenario is that the RoI would also end, and a New Ireland created. Which sounds like it would give my former boss and his friends as much self-identity as they want.
A distinction without a difference!
Isn't that the essence of the traditional Conservative Party?
In contrast to Johnson's lot, who want to make a very real difference - trash everything - while pretending that nothing has changed.
Surely the latest shenanigans over NI mean we can kiss goodbye to joining EFTA etc. any time soon. With such a large economy as the UK's joining, the current membership will want to negotiate some serious terms to ensure they're not subsequently screwed over. I can't see much appetite for that if we retain the right to renege on any agreement at the drop of a hat.
Surely the latest shenanigans over NI mean we can kiss goodbye to joining EFTA etc. any time soon. With such a large economy as the UK's joining, the current membership will want to negotiate some serious terms to ensure they're not subsequently screwed over. I can't see much appetite for that if we retain the right to renege on any agreement at the drop of a hat.
Every nation on the planet retains that right and always has done.
Its not possible to negotiate "some serious terms" since any terms negotiated only last as long as all parties want to stick to the agreement.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
When did the UK last unilaterally break an existing treaty? We are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties and are bound by its terms. Or do you think we should break that as well?
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Surely the latest shenanigans over NI mean we can kiss goodbye to joining EFTA etc. any time soon. With such a large economy as the UK's joining, the current membership will want to negotiate some serious terms to ensure they're not subsequently screwed over. I can't see much appetite for that if we retain the right to renege on any agreement at the drop of a hat.
Every nation on the planet retains that right and always has done.
Its not possible to negotiate "some serious terms" since any terms negotiated only last as long as all parties want to stick to the agreement.
Actually they don't. Not if they want to be able to be taken seriously for any future treaties.
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
Surely the latest shenanigans over NI mean we can kiss goodbye to joining EFTA etc. any time soon. With such a large economy as the UK's joining, the current membership will want to negotiate some serious terms to ensure they're not subsequently screwed over. I can't see much appetite for that if we retain the right to renege on any agreement at the drop of a hat.
Every nation on the planet retains that right and always has done.
Its not possible to negotiate "some serious terms" since any terms negotiated only last as long as all parties want to stick to the agreement.
Agreed. It's not possible to negotiate "some serious terms" with Boris's government. You've articulated my point very well.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
I am not so sure they "bottled it". It could be that there were enough of them that didn't want to be in the same category as an obnoxious twat like Malcolm.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gammon crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shit for brains.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
When did the UK last unilaterally break an existing treaty? We are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties and are bound by its terms. Or do you think we should break that as well?
In 1964 we broke an existing Treaty, a Geneva Convention no less (the Geneva Convention on the Sea) that only came into force 15 days earlier. This is what the Judge (the future Lord Diplock) who ruled it legal said at the time.
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That is just one example I know about. In other examples, Germany and a plethora of other nations have done so in recent years.
Surely the latest shenanigans over NI mean we can kiss goodbye to joining EFTA etc. any time soon. With such a large economy as the UK's joining, the current membership will want to negotiate some serious terms to ensure they're not subsequently screwed over. I can't see much appetite for that if we retain the right to renege on any agreement at the drop of a hat.
Every nation on the planet retains that right and always has done.
Its not possible to negotiate "some serious terms" since any terms negotiated only last as long as all parties want to stick to the agreement.
Actually they don't. Not if they want to be able to be taken seriously for any future treaties.
Whether they want that or not is a political choice, not a matter of law.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
I am not so sure they "bottled it". It could be that there were enough of them that didn't want to be in the same category as an obnoxious twat like Malcolm.
Gammontastic reply , that must have taxed your braincell.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
From personal experience, yes. Every queue I stand in at Glastonbury whether it be food, bar or toilet usually features white middle class 18-24 year olds with names such as Poppy or Henry. I'm off there again next week and I'm sure it won't have changed.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
I am not so sure they "bottled it". It could be that there were enough of them that didn't want to be in the same category as an obnoxious twat like Malcolm.
Gammontastic reply , that must have taxed your braincell.
This may be difficult for you to read all of it, as I understand you probably have a low attention span, but I have used Wiki, which even you might understand because it has less big words that a proper academic description, so even someone like you who has "gone to the university of life (lol)" might understand it:
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious.
I think you are losing this exchange Malc! As you normally do. You might want to find a forum where people just like swearing at each other, it is more your level.
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 Labour Shadow Cabinet ministers are right to say that Keir Starmer's "locker is empty", but to be fair, their lockers are empty too.
This isn't about the failure of one man. The Labour Right have no ideas, no vision, nothing to say, absolutely zilch. And deep down they know it.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
Good morning
Been busy, but on indyref2 I would grant Scotland a vote not least because I genuinely believe it would vote to remain in the union
Boris is toxic in Scotland but he will not be there forever, ( indeed the sooner he goes the better) but currency and the nuclear deterrent and not least pensions and loss of income from oil will determine the result
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
I am not so sure they "bottled it". It could be that there were enough of them that didn't want to be in the same category as an obnoxious twat like Malcolm.
Gammontastic reply , that must have taxed your braincell.
This may be difficult for you to read all of it, as I understand you probably have a low attention span, but I have used Wiki, which even you might understand because it has less big words that a proper academic description, so even someone like you who has "gone to the university of life (lol)" might understand it:
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Spain is experiencing quite dangerously high temperatures and you need to keep your good lady and yourself safe
You are a typical naive GB mainland left liberal who has not a clue about the culture and traditions of Protestant Ulster which wants to stay in the UK and will never, ever accept being forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will.
Also worth your pe-brain noting is that nobody is proposing a scenario where NI would be "forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will". Because the SF scenario is that the RoI would also end, and a New Ireland created. Which sounds like it would give my former boss and his friends as much self-identity as they want.
Taken in isolation the headline figure would suggest there is a strong desire for a united Ireland, with 62 per cent of people saying they would vote in favour in a referendum... The prospect of a new flag or new national anthem to reflect the identity of unionists was rejected by more than 70 per cent of respondents. On both these issues Sinn Féin voters were stronger in their opposition than supporters of other parties. When it came to the suggestion that Ireland should rejoin the Commonwealth to reflect the new Ireland that would be brought into existence by unity, the mood was the same with more than 70 per cent of people saying no. There were just two issues on which a majority of people, by a small margin, were prepared to make concessions. One was the prospect of having unionist politicians as part of a government in Dublin which was supported by 44 per cent and opposed by 42 per cent. The other was having closer ties to the UK which had the support of 47 per cent with 42 per cent opposed.
So Sinn Fein's new Ireland, as espoused not just by their voters but by the whole of old Ireland, has the old flag, old anthem, stays out of the Commonwealth, and ideally has no unionists in government. Oh, and no new taxes or spending cuts.
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
From personal experience, yes. Every queue I stand in at Glastonbury whether it be food, bar or toilet usually features white middle class 18-24 year olds with names such as Poppy or Henry. I'm off there again next week and I'm sure it won't have changed.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
Anyone can buy tickets so obviously they don't want to go. Lenny needs to get the chip off his shoulders.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Have a nice time BTW. It must be frustrating not being able to get a "full Scottish breakfast" there in Benidorm, but I guess The English one will do if sloshed down with a few pints of lager. Keep a hanky on that bald head of yours and try not to get too cross with the locals when they don't understand your rantings. They assume you are English by the way!
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
We signed it in bad faith, I'm sorry to say. No other conclusion is supportable imo given subsequent events.
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
What’s the ethnic breakdown by population of the target audience for these festivals?
According to the 2011 census, the ‘black’ population was 3.3%, and skewed slightly towards the lower socioeconomic groups. Another 3.2% described themselves as ‘mixed’ or ‘other’ race, with a similar skew.
So, if there’s 150,000 people in the crowd at Glastonbury, there should be maybe 3,000 black people and 3,000 mixed or other?
Is the actual issue, that ethnic minority populations are generally over-estimated by the public, because they are over-represented in media coverage?
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
Good morning
Been busy, but on indyref2 I would grant Scotland a vote not least because I genuinely believe it would vote to remain in the union
Boris is toxic in Scotland but he will not be there forever, ( indeed the sooner he goes the better) but currency and the nuclear deterrent and not least pensions and loss of income from oil will determine the result
Explain loss of income on oil that currently goes to London , should be a laugh. Also why it would be only country in the world that would not have a pension, given UK is the worst in the developed world
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Have a nice time BTW. It must be frustrating not being able to get a "full Scottish breakfast" there in Benidorm, but I guess The English one will do if sloshed down with a few pints of lager. Keep a hanky on that bald head of yours and try not to get too cross with the locals when they don't understand your rantings. They assume you are English by the way!
Hmm, more than a bit racist to imply that Malky, being a Scot, must therefore demand a daily fried slice and clootie dumpling (as if it was something reprehensible) with a few litres of lager. you have at least refrained from coming out with the deep fried Mars Bars beloved of the tourists in Edinburgh.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Spain is experiencing quite dangerously high temperatures and you need to keep your good lady and yourself safe
Best to you both from this Unionists
It is extremely hot G, but plenty of shade and nice pool for cooling down. Best wishes to you and your wife.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
Good morning
Been busy, but on indyref2 I would grant Scotland a vote not least because I genuinely believe it would vote to remain in the union
Boris is toxic in Scotland but he will not be there forever, ( indeed the sooner he goes the better) but currency and the nuclear deterrent and not least pensions and loss of income from oil will determine the result
Explain loss of income on oil that currently goes to London , should be a laugh. Also why it would be only country in the world that would not have a pension, given UK is the worst in the developed world
The oil revenue goes towards expenditure across the UK and you will have pensions, just not paid by the UK treasury
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Totally OT - but does @rcs1000 know if it is possible to persuade the Vanilla iframe to be `scrolling="no"` and get rid of the spurious extra scrollbar?
IIRC there was a time when we didn't have the scrollbar and the result was that in some circumstances/devices there was no way to see the comments above or below...
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
PS: Or for that matter a tax shirking non dom.
PPS: the one thing I can think of is having one's birth certificate recorded at Register House in Edinburgh. But that has no other practical legal/governmental consequence that I can think of. Even probate is based on residence.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
We signed it in bad faith, I'm sorry to say. No other conclusion is supportable imo given subsequent events.
Whether it was good or bad faith is immaterial, what matters is what the right thing to do next is, and Truss's proposals are excellent and what should have always been proposed.
But another conclusion is supportable IMO, which is the EU have acted in bad faith. Had they shown the requisite flexibility, that even Labour's Hillary Benn has been criticising them for not showing, then the Protocol could have been made to work. They didn't, so its time to find a replacement, what's done is done now and the past belongs to the past.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
It depends. Within the West, maybe. My two nephews were born in Dubai, they’ll never be Emirati.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Have a nice time BTW. It must be frustrating not being able to get a "full Scottish breakfast" there in Benidorm, but I guess The English one will do if sloshed down with a few pints of lager. Keep a hanky on that bald head of yours and try not to get too cross with the locals when they don't understand your rantings. They assume you are English by the way!
Once again you show your thickness, greetings from my very large villa in hills North of Malaga. Cost 3 months of your universal credit at least but well worth it. Green cheese is not a pretty trait even in a gammon.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Spain is experiencing quite dangerously high temperatures and you need to keep your good lady and yourself safe
Best to you both from this Unionists
It is extremely hot G, but plenty of shade and nice pool for cooling down. Best wishes to you and your wife.
Good to keep safe
I remember stepping off the Ghan in Alice Springs into 48 celsius (118) and being unable to breath and desperate to get into the air conditioned station
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
Surely if you can self identify as a woman, then to identify as a Scotsman, all you need is to wear a kilt?
If you *feel* like a Scotsman, then you are a Scotsman.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
Beg to differ. Doesn't have to be an 'early age'. But that is a matter of opinion, so not implying you are necessarily wrong or right relative to me! Though I think your example helpfully emphasises a key point: the US/England thing is fuindamentally different from the Scot/whatever else thing, because of the different legal background./
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
From personal experience, yes. Every queue I stand in at Glastonbury whether it be food, bar or toilet usually features white middle class 18-24 year olds with names such as Poppy or Henry. I'm off there again next week and I'm sure it won't have changed.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
Anyone can buy tickets so obviously they don't want to go. Lenny needs to get the chip off his shoulders.
It is actually quite hard to get Glasto tickets, as priority goes to people from last years event, as a sort of hereditary principle. Other festivals are easier, but mostly festival crowds tend to be quite white and middle class, but not solely so.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
Words don't have to mean something we can agree on, they can mean whatever we want them to mean, that is how language ends up evolving.
Anyone is English if they want to be English and have a significant connection to England including British citizenship, regardless of where in the planet they were born.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Have a nice time BTW. It must be frustrating not being able to get a "full Scottish breakfast" there in Benidorm, but I guess The English one will do if sloshed down with a few pints of lager. Keep a hanky on that bald head of yours and try not to get too cross with the locals when they don't understand your rantings. They assume you are English by the way!
Hmm, more than a bit racist to imply that Malky, being a Scot, must therefore demand a daily fried slice and clootie dumpling (as if it was something reprehensible) with a few litres of lager. you have at least refrained from coming out with the deep fried Mars Bars beloved of the tourists in Edinburgh.
Hi carnyx. The clown is an out and out racist. Most odious creep on the site.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
Surely if you can self identify as a woman, then to identify as a Scotsman, all you need is to wear a kilt?
If you *feel* like a Scotsman, then you are a Scotsman.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
We signed it in bad faith, I'm sorry to say. No other conclusion is supportable imo given subsequent events.
The EU demanded sequencing that the NIP would be revisited once the final trade deal was done.
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
What’s the ethnic breakdown by population of the target audience for these festivals?
According to the 2011 census, the ‘black’ population was 3.3%, and skewed slightly towards the lower socioeconomic groups. Another 3.2% described themselves as ‘mixed’ or ‘other’ race, with a similar skew.
So, if there’s 150,000 people in the crowd at Glastonbury, there should be maybe 3,000 black people and 3,000 mixed or other?
Is the actual issue, that ethnic minority populations are generally over-estimated by the public, because they are over-represented in media coverage?
This whole article and associated stories about Lenny Henry and Glastonbury are just part of a pretty savvy media campaign by the BBC to drum up publicity for his new two part documentary.
The BBC webpage is full of plugs for its upcoming shows.
Be interesting to see how this translates into viewers.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Sounds like the Diplock ruling was more about whether a British court could rule on whether it was illegal for the government to amend domestic legislation (I'd assume absolutely not).
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
Surely if you can self identify as a woman, then to identify as a Scotsman, all you need is to wear a kilt?
If you *feel* like a Scotsman, then you are a Scotsman.
Well I think that illustrates the daftness of that too! (There was that chap a couple of years back who 'identified as Fillipino'.)
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
Good morning
Been busy, but on indyref2 I would grant Scotland a vote not least because I genuinely believe it would vote to remain in the union
Boris is toxic in Scotland but he will not be there forever, ( indeed the sooner he goes the better) but currency and the nuclear deterrent and not least pensions and loss of income from oil will determine the result
Explain loss of income on oil that currently goes to London , should be a laugh. Also why it would be only country in the world that would not have a pension, given UK is the worst in the developed world
The oil revenue goes towards expenditure across the UK and you will have pensions, just not paid by the UK treasury
We can use the oil money that UK currently misappropriates for pensions, free money
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
From personal experience, yes. Every queue I stand in at Glastonbury whether it be food, bar or toilet usually features white middle class 18-24 year olds with names such as Poppy or Henry. I'm off there again next week and I'm sure it won't have changed.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
Anyone can buy tickets so obviously they don't want to go. Lenny needs to get the chip off his shoulders.
It is actually quite hard to get Glasto tickets, as priority goes to people from last years event, as a sort of hereditary principle. Other festivals are easier, but mostly festival crowds tend to be quite white and middle class, but not solely so.
Glastonbury is also the one event that has managed to run a sensible ticketing system, with each ticket issued to an identifiable person and with mechanisms to return unwanted tickets before the event. Very little touting, and that being being mostly sponsor/band/production passes rather than general admission tickets.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Sounds like the Diplock ruling was more about whether a British court could rule on whether it was illegal for the government to amend domestic legislation (I'd assume absolutely not).
He deliberately didn't rule on the aspect of international law, as that was beyond the remit of a British court.
But that's precisely the point.
The UK can absolutely amend domestic legislation, including breaking international agreements, and we have done so before, there is precedence here. In fact I expect you would struggle to find a single large or medium sized country without precedence of breaking international agreements, Germany did so recently too and America has frequently done so - indeed its even a theme in the musical Hamilton.
International agreements are agreements and not domestic law. That is the sphere of politics and it is for political debate and discourse by and large.
That you and Owen Jones obsess about Keir Starmer when we have the most egregious Prime Minister and Home Secretary in any of our life times says all that needs to be said about the Corbynite left.
Who gives a shit about sending refugees to Rwanda or having a Prime Minister who doesn't even have a tandential relationship with truth. Whose Brexit is turning the UK into a basket case......
No it's all about 'Guru Corbyn' who couldn't cut it because he was hopeless. The most unsuccessful leader in fifty years. The man who Johnson and Patel owe for their careers
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Have a nice time BTW. It must be frustrating not being able to get a "full Scottish breakfast" there in Benidorm, but I guess The English one will do if sloshed down with a few pints of lager. Keep a hanky on that bald head of yours and try not to get too cross with the locals when they don't understand your rantings. They assume you are English by the way!
Hmm, more than a bit racist to imply that Malky, being a Scot, must therefore demand a daily fried slice and clootie dumpling (as if it was something reprehensible) with a few litres of lager. you have at least refrained from coming out with the deep fried Mars Bars beloved of the tourists in Edinburgh.
Hi carnyx. The clown is an out and out racist. Most odious creep on the site.
Morning, Malky. Overcast and warm here and apparently in Ayrshire here - 13-15 degC. Not much direct sun.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
Agreed 100% and happily here the law is that the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before.
That is the law, regardless of what lefty lawyers might want to think, unless the law has been changed and that precedence is no longer valid?
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Your arse. Only sad unionist lickspittle spineless English jingoistic nationalist halfwit could come out with crap like that
I'm inclined towards giving Scotland another vote on independence. Because they would bottle it again. Rightly so - there are far too many questions to which the SNP have no answers.
Good morning
Been busy, but on indyref2 I would grant Scotland a vote not least because I genuinely believe it would vote to remain in the union
Boris is toxic in Scotland but he will not be there forever, ( indeed the sooner he goes the better) but currency and the nuclear deterrent and not least pensions and loss of income from oil will determine the result
Explain loss of income on oil that currently goes to London , should be a laugh. Also why it would be only country in the world that would not have a pension, given UK is the worst in the developed world
The oil revenue goes towards expenditure across the UK and you will have pensions, just not paid by the UK treasury
We can use the oil money that UK currently misappropriates for pensions, free money
Would you support Cambo and further exploitation of oil and gas resources in the North Sea then Malc ?
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
OKC, hope you are well. You are far far more astute and intelligent than the rancid foremain An absolute oaf who portrays well all the really nasty traits of the bad Tories. A bigoted racist.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
It depends. Within the West, maybe. My two nephews were born in Dubai, they’ll never be Emirati.
The pedant in me would say yes they are, but I shall reign him in for once, because I do see your point. Why not, I wonder? Is it because they will be growing up culturally western - western schools, mainly mixing with other westerners etc - in a way which wouldn't happen if you were expat in, say, Australia, where much more (all?) of their growing up would be in a thoroughly Australian context? I wonder if there are still white people born in Kenya in the latter years of the British empire who would descibe themselves as Kenyan?
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
From personal experience, yes. Every queue I stand in at Glastonbury whether it be food, bar or toilet usually features white middle class 18-24 year olds with names such as Poppy or Henry. I'm off there again next week and I'm sure it won't have changed.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
Anyone can buy tickets so obviously they don't want to go. Lenny needs to get the chip off his shoulders.
It is actually quite hard to get Glasto tickets, as priority goes to people from last years event, as a sort of hereditary principle. Other festivals are easier, but mostly festival crowds tend to be quite white and middle class, but not solely so.
When Leon was down in New Orleans recently someone posted a link to the jazz festival there and, lo and behold, the crowd was conspicuously white.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
PS: Or for that matter a tax shirking non dom.
PPS: the one thing I can think of is having one's birth certificate recorded at Register House in Edinburgh. But that has no other practical legal/governmental consequence that I can think of. Even probate is based on residence.
Worth noting that the Scottish government has a very clear policy of welcoming "New Scots" who integrate into Scottish society from day 1. So we don't need this blood and soil stuff when the nationalist government here welcomes everyone from anywhere who wants to be Scottish as being Scottish.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
That's a nice theory, but we all know that courts means judges, who are human, and therefore sometimes make perverse rulings, even going so far as to start with their conclusions and twisting the law to fit.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
You defeat your own argument though cookie. As per your America example, English parents may want the child to be english, etc.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
That's a nice theory, but we all know that courts means judges, who are human, and therefore sometimes make perverse rulings, even going so far as to start with their conclusions and twisting the law to fit.
Have you been following every tax tribunal in about the last 7 years..
Morning all. YP look good for third, they seem to attract reasonable support generally, and the LDs are a nothing burger here. Apologies if seen/posted but tge first fortnightly red wall Redfield is out at 5, advertised by Election Maps UK as 'spicy'. Given the national picture i'd be amazed if it wasnt. Is it spicy compared to the national picture? Thats key. Id expect tories to be holding on slightly better than UNS
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
From personal experience, yes. Every queue I stand in at Glastonbury whether it be food, bar or toilet usually features white middle class 18-24 year olds with names such as Poppy or Henry. I'm off there again next week and I'm sure it won't have changed.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
Anyone can buy tickets so obviously they don't want to go. Lenny needs to get the chip off his shoulders.
It is actually quite hard to get Glasto tickets, as priority goes to people from last years event, as a sort of hereditary principle. Other festivals are easier, but mostly festival crowds tend to be quite white and middle class, but not solely so.
Yes, most of these big concerts / festivals are difficult I imagine but to try to say obliquely that it is racist is extremely poor.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
He even backs the odd winner too.
Hello Taz, they will not let me log on to bookies from here, scandalous.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
That's a nice theory, but we all know that courts means judges, who are human, and therefore sometimes make perverse rulings, even going so far as to start with their conclusions and twisting the law to fit.
Have you been following every tax tribunal in about the last 7 years..
It's a time-honoured tradition, dating back to at least Roe v Wade...
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
From personal experience, yes. Every queue I stand in at Glastonbury whether it be food, bar or toilet usually features white middle class 18-24 year olds with names such as Poppy or Henry. I'm off there again next week and I'm sure it won't have changed.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
Anyone can buy tickets so obviously they don't want to go. Lenny needs to get the chip off his shoulders.
It is actually quite hard to get Glasto tickets, as priority goes to people from last years event, as a sort of hereditary principle. Other festivals are easier, but mostly festival crowds tend to be quite white and middle class, but not solely so.
Yes, most of these big concerts / festivals are difficult I imagine but to try to say obliquely that it is racist is extremely poor.
And is Knotting Hill carnival racist as it is mostly black people enjoying themselves?
Question for the parents out there, what's the first likely age we can go on a holiday? This week's sun has made me want to go to Puglia around September time but want to make sure it's all good wrt the baby before I make the pitch to my wife.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
Agreed 100% and happily here the law is that the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before.
That is the law, regardless of what lefty lawyers might want to think, unless the law has been changed and that precedence is no longer valid?
Of course the court can question it - governments cannot break their own laws. If and when this new bill becomes law then the validity and compatibility of that law in the framework of other international treaties also enacted into UK law can be questioned.
In theory the government will need to amend the laws governing the Good Friday Agreement to get this bill legal and valid. And I say in theory because it will never become law and was not written with that intention in mind.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
He even backs the odd winner too.
Hello Taz, they will not let me log on to bookies from here, scandalous.
Hey Malc, hope your’e having a great time and the weather is good. That’s dreadful of the bookies. You’re bound to get a winner.
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
From personal experience, yes. Every queue I stand in at Glastonbury whether it be food, bar or toilet usually features white middle class 18-24 year olds with names such as Poppy or Henry. I'm off there again next week and I'm sure it won't have changed.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
Anyone can buy tickets so obviously they don't want to go. Lenny needs to get the chip off his shoulders.
It is actually quite hard to get Glasto tickets, as priority goes to people from last years event, as a sort of hereditary principle. Other festivals are easier, but mostly festival crowds tend to be quite white and middle class, but not solely so.
I can assure you that priority doesn't go to people from last year's event. I go with a group of about 10 friends (it's our one week a year to be a bit irresponsible) and the ticket booking system is a nightmare. We very nearly didn't get it for this year's edition when we were trying all the way back in October 2019.
You can maximise your chances by getting 5 of your friends to try with you as one group, each with 2-3 devices refreshing the booking page every 5-10 seconds to try and get through, but it's not a given.
Sandpit is also right in that it's a very well done ticketing system to stop touts. Tickets are printed with your photo on and it's checked against your ID on entry.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
It depends. Within the West, maybe. My two nephews were born in Dubai, they’ll never be Emirati.
The pedant in me would say yes they are, but I shall reign him in for once, because I do see your point. Why not, I wonder? Is it because they will be growing up culturally western - western schools, mainly mixing with other westerners etc - in a way which wouldn't happen if you were expat in, say, Australia, where much more (all?) of their growing up would be in a thoroughly Australian context? I wonder if there are still white people born in Kenya in the latter years of the British empire who would descibe themselves as Kenyan?
I think it’s to do with the temporary nature of expatriate life, as opposed to permanent immigration.
Unless your parent is Emirati, you’ll never get a passport from them (bar a few asylum seekers and extraordinary individuals), you’re always seen as being from your “home country”, even if you’ve lived your whole life here.
Compare to most Western countries, where there is a path to citizenship for the majority of immigrants.
I certainly know a few white Kenyans and Rhodesians Zimbabweans, they do indeed think of themselves as African.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
Agreed 100% and happily here the law is that the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before.
That is the law, regardless of what lefty lawyers might want to think, unless the law has been changed and that precedence is no longer valid?
Of course the court can question it - governments cannot break their own laws. If and when this new bill becomes law then the validity and compatibility of that law in the framework of other international treaties also enacted into UK law can be questioned.
In theory the government will need to amend the laws governing the Good Friday Agreement to get this bill legal and valid. And I say in theory because it will never become law and was not written with that intention in mind.
One does wonder what they would do if their little law escaped the lab, so to speak, and got out into the wild.
Question for the parents out there, what's the first likely age we can go on a holiday? This week's sun has made me want to go to Puglia around September time but want to make sure it's all good wrt the baby before I make the pitch to my wife.
You can go anytime you like - book a cottage in Devon.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
That's a nice theory, but we all know that courts means judges, who are human, and therefore sometimes make perverse rulings, even going so far as to start with their conclusions and twisting the law to fit.
Which is why we have the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. But ultimately your legal argument either is legally valid or it is no. Your political persuasion or motivation for establishing the legal ruling does not affect the outcome of what is legal or not.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
That's a nice theory, but we all know that courts means judges, who are human, and therefore sometimes make perverse rulings, even going so far as to start with their conclusions and twisting the law to fit.
Which is why we have the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. But ultimately your legal argument either is legally valid or it is no. Your political persuasion or motivation for establishing the legal ruling does not affect the outcome of what is legal or not.
The Supreme Court is the worst for starting with the judges' conclusions and twisting the law to fit.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Have a nice time BTW. It must be frustrating not being able to get a "full Scottish breakfast" there in Benidorm, but I guess The English one will do if sloshed down with a few pints of lager. Keep a hanky on that bald head of yours and try not to get too cross with the locals when they don't understand your rantings. They assume you are English by the way!
Hmm, more than a bit racist to imply that Malky, being a Scot, must therefore demand a daily fried slice and clootie dumpling (as if it was something reprehensible) with a few litres of lager. you have at least refrained from coming out with the deep fried Mars Bars beloved of the tourists in Edinburgh.
Hi carnyx. The clown is an out and out racist. Most odious creep on the site.
Morning, Malky. Overcast and warm here and apparently in Ayrshire here - 13-15 degC. Not much direct sun.
At least double that here, but too hot in fact. Pleasant in the shade though and lovely view across the valley so shall not complain. Winnebago in 15 degrees soon enough.
Question for the parents out there, what's the first likely age we can go on a holiday? This week's sun has made me want to go to Puglia around September time but want to make sure it's all good wrt the baby before I make the pitch to my wife.
You can go anytime you like - book a cottage in Devon.
if you are talking about flying - no idea!
That’s what private jets are for, surely?
I’ve seen very young babies on planes, certainly only a few months old. It will screw with their ears though, and they will be crying for most of the flight.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
It depends. Within the West, maybe. My two nephews were born in Dubai, they’ll never be Emirati.
The pedant in me would say yes they are, but I shall reign him in for once, because I do see your point. Why not, I wonder? Is it because they will be growing up culturally western - western schools, mainly mixing with other westerners etc - in a way which wouldn't happen if you were expat in, say, Australia, where much more (all?) of their growing up would be in a thoroughly Australian context? I wonder if there are still white people born in Kenya in the latter years of the British empire who would descibe themselves as Kenyan?
I think it’s to do with the temporary nature of expatriate life, as opposed to permanent immigration.
Unless your parent is Emirati, you’ll never get a passport from them (bar a few asylum seekers and extraordinary individuals), you’re always seen as being from your “home country”, even if you’ve lived your whole life here.
Compare to most Western countries, where there is a path to citizenship for the majority of immigrants.
I certainly know a few white Kenyans and Rhodesians Zimbabweans, they do indeed think of themselves as African.
I have "emigrated" to Scotland. I am not planning to permanently live in any other country. My kids are going to school here. I am paying my taxes here. I ran for election here and have been involved in the community council as well. I am running several small businesses here and am advising another.
I may be of English heritage, but I am intending to be accepted as Scottish as soon as they will have me.
Question for the parents out there, what's the first likely age we can go on a holiday? This week's sun has made me want to go to Puglia around September time but want to make sure it's all good wrt the baby before I make the pitch to my wife.
I don't think there are any rules. Maybe not a good idea in the first 3 months.
Pre Covid we flew out to Bulgaria when my daughter was 9 months.
Question for the parents out there, what's the first likely age we can go on a holiday? This week's sun has made me want to go to Puglia around September time but want to make sure it's all good wrt the baby before I make the pitch to my wife.
Pretty much whenever you feel confident.
A baby's needs are fairly simple but heavily demanding, they want to be fed, changed, comforted, sleep or whatever else they presently need and rinse and repeat every few hours. That can be done on home, or in the sun, or in a plane.
My in-laws live overseas so my wife was very keen to spend our daughters first Christmas with them, so we went on holiday when she was eight months old. We stopped at Iceland for a few days as we were crossing the Atlantic and had a holiday there first then continued the flight afterwards.
We loved our holiday and the flight crew of Iceland Air and all the airport staff etc both here and abroad were very helpful for parents with babies, people always seem to bend over backwards to help babies. From memory we were advised to use the disabled security queue since we had a baby which made things smoother too when travelling.
Absolutely no regrets and well worth doing. Yours would be quite a different holiday, but same principles really. Just whenever you feel confident and willing to go.
Leach once again looking completely unthreatening. I honestly think we would be better bowling Root.
(And if this doesn’t get him a wicket nothing will ).
Quite surprised to see Leach has 82 test wickets from his 24 tests. I know he has played some of those in helpful conditions but I thought it was much less.
Comments
In contrast to Johnson's lot, who want to make a very real difference - trash everything - while pretending that nothing has changed.
Its not possible to negotiate "some serious terms" since any terms negotiated only last as long as all parties want to stick to the agreement.
Sir Lenny Henry has said he is “always surprised” by the lack of black and brown people at Glastonbury, as he called for better representation of ethnic minorities in all facets of British society.
“It’s interesting to watch Glastonbury and look at the audience and not see any black people there,” Henry said in an interview with the journalist Clive Myrie in the Radio Times.
Isn't this because Glastonbury attracts a very middle class audience?
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That is just one example I know about. In other examples, Germany and a plethora of other nations have done so in recent years.
I've been every year it's been held since 2016 and there's been big political events happening in the weeks preceding or after. Had to watch the EU Ref in a late night bar at Glastonbury in 2016 and saw a mob of middle class people chasing a Land Rover with Corbyn inside in 2017 on the way to his silly speech. In 2019 it was mid Tory leadership election and there was a lot of anti Boris chanting.
PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1536479711395815424/photo/1
@OwenJones84
Labour Shadow Cabinet ministers are right to say that Keir Starmer's "locker is empty", but to be fair, their lockers are empty too.
This isn't about the failure of one man. The Labour Right have no ideas, no vision, nothing to say, absolutely zilch. And deep down they know it.
Been busy, but on indyref2 I would grant Scotland a vote not least because I genuinely believe it would vote to remain in the union
Boris is toxic in Scotland but he will not be there forever, ( indeed the sooner he goes the better) but currency and the nuclear deterrent and not least pensions and loss of income from oil will determine the result
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American.
But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish?
You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition.
If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
Best to you both from this Unionists
Taken in isolation the headline figure would suggest there is a strong desire for a united Ireland, with 62 per cent of people saying they would vote in favour in a referendum... The prospect of a new flag or new national anthem to reflect the identity of unionists was rejected by more than 70 per cent of respondents. On both these issues Sinn Féin voters were stronger in their opposition than supporters of other parties. When it came to the suggestion that Ireland should rejoin the Commonwealth to reflect the new Ireland that would be brought into existence by unity, the mood was the same with more than 70 per cent of people saying no. There were just two issues on which a majority of people, by a small margin, were prepared to make concessions. One was the prospect of having unionist politicians as part of a government in Dublin which was supported by 44 per cent and opposed by 42 per cent. The other was having closer ties to the UK which had the support of 47 per cent with 42 per cent opposed.
So Sinn Fein's new Ireland, as espoused not just by their voters but by the whole of old Ireland, has the old flag, old anthem, stays out of the Commonwealth, and ideally has no unionists in government. Oh, and no new taxes or spending cuts.
PS: Or for that matter a tax shirking non dom.
According to the 2011 census, the ‘black’ population was 3.3%, and skewed slightly towards the lower socioeconomic groups. Another 3.2% described themselves as ‘mixed’ or ‘other’ race, with a similar skew.
So, if there’s 150,000 people in the crowd at Glastonbury, there should be maybe 3,000 black people and 3,000 mixed or other?
Is the actual issue, that ethnic minority populations are generally over-estimated by the public, because they are over-represented in media coverage?
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/socioeconomic-status/latest#socio-economic-groups-by-ethnicity
Small boys lay flowers by the eternal flame of Armenian suffering. I had to run out shortly after this. Too emotional
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
But another conclusion is supportable IMO, which is the EU have acted in bad faith. Had they shown the requisite flexibility, that even Labour's Hillary Benn has been criticising them for not showing, then the Protocol could have been made to work. They didn't, so its time to find a replacement, what's done is done now and the past belongs to the past.
I remember stepping off the Ghan in Alice Springs into 48 celsius (118) and being unable to breath and desperate to get into the air conditioned station
If you *feel* like a Scotsman, then you are a Scotsman.
Anyone is English if they want to be English and have a significant connection to England including British citizenship, regardless of where in the planet they were born.
Who was acting in bad faith?
The BBC webpage is full of plugs for its upcoming shows.
Be interesting to see how this translates into viewers.
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=28275-20
He deliberately didn't rule on the aspect of international law, as that was beyond the remit of a British court.
The UK can absolutely amend domestic legislation, including breaking international agreements, and we have done so before, there is precedence here. In fact I expect you would struggle to find a single large or medium sized country without precedence of breaking international agreements, Germany did so recently too and America has frequently done so - indeed its even a theme in the musical Hamilton.
International agreements are agreements and not domestic law. That is the sphere of politics and it is for political debate and discourse by and large.
Who gives a shit about sending refugees to Rwanda or having a Prime Minister who doesn't even have a tandential relationship with truth. Whose Brexit is turning the UK into a basket case......
No it's all about 'Guru Corbyn' who couldn't cut it because he was hopeless. The most unsuccessful leader in fifty years. The man who Johnson and Patel owe for their careers
That is the law, regardless of what lefty lawyers might want to think, unless the law has been changed and that precedence is no longer valid?
I wonder if there are still white people born in Kenya in the latter years of the British empire who would descibe themselves as Kenyan?
Apologies if seen/posted but tge first fortnightly red wall Redfield is out at 5, advertised by Election Maps UK as 'spicy'. Given the national picture i'd be amazed if it wasnt.
Is it spicy compared to the national picture? Thats key.
Id expect tories to be holding on slightly better than UNS
In theory the government will need to amend the laws governing the Good Friday Agreement to get this bill legal and valid. And I say in theory because it will never become law and was not written with that intention in mind.
You can maximise your chances by getting 5 of your friends to try with you as one group, each with 2-3 devices refreshing the booking page every 5-10 seconds to try and get through, but it's not a given.
Sandpit is also right in that it's a very well done ticketing system to stop touts. Tickets are printed with your photo on and it's checked against your ID on entry.
Unless your parent is Emirati, you’ll never get a passport from them (bar a few asylum seekers and extraordinary individuals), you’re always seen as being from your “home country”, even if you’ve lived your whole life here.
Compare to most Western countries, where there is a path to citizenship for the majority of immigrants.
I certainly know a few white Kenyans and Rhodesians Zimbabweans, they do indeed think of themselves as African.
if you are talking about flying - no idea!
(And if this doesn’t get him a wicket nothing will ).
I’ve seen very young babies on planes, certainly only a few months old. It will screw with their ears though, and they will be crying for most of the flight.
Desperately need an attacking spinner who is a threat.
I may be of English heritage, but I am intending to be accepted as Scottish as soon as they will have me.
Pre Covid we flew out to Bulgaria when my daughter was 9 months.
https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/snp-mp-patrick-grady-recommended-for-two-day-suspension-by-independent-expert-panel-over-sexual-misconduct/
A baby's needs are fairly simple but heavily demanding, they want to be fed, changed, comforted, sleep or whatever else they presently need and rinse and repeat every few hours. That can be done on home, or in the sun, or in a plane.
My in-laws live overseas so my wife was very keen to spend our daughters first Christmas with them, so we went on holiday when she was eight months old. We stopped at Iceland for a few days as we were crossing the Atlantic and had a holiday there first then continued the flight afterwards.
We loved our holiday and the flight crew of Iceland Air and all the airport staff etc both here and abroad were very helpful for parents with babies, people always seem to bend over backwards to help babies. From memory we were advised to use the disabled security queue since we had a baby which made things smoother too when travelling.
Absolutely no regrets and well worth doing. Yours would be quite a different holiday, but same principles really. Just whenever you feel confident and willing to go.