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 ?
If independent then short term we would have little option. Longer term we should get more renewable but so far AND are copying Tories and selling it all off to big business, they really are turning into Tories.
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.
We went to Menorca around that age with my eldest. Would have been OK, but they thought this would be a good time to have their first fever for most of it.... Would recommend a package, or at least a proper big tourist hotel with a creche or summat. Self-catering isn't much different to being at home with a baby. Only warmer.
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.
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.
It used to be. Under Read ( bizarrely known as Disco Bob in Scotland) it has been a lot more cautious.
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.
Sometime around 2122 probably...
My parents have been in their Wiltshire village since 1978. I think they have just about been accepted.
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?
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.
Not quite. Decisions in court are based on at least three factors: law, facts and discretion. Being wrong in law is appealable and often is. Appeals on facts are much harder as the judge sees the witnesses and hears the evidence first hand while the appeal court doesn't, and won't overturn unless its pretty obvious. Ditto with discretion. In the Rwanda interlocutory case a judge uses his discretion whether to grant an injunction. It can never happen as of right. I don't think the CA would have intervened whichever decision the judge had come to. Both choices were rational.
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.
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.
Great-niece was taken to Dubai at just under 6 months for family holiday. I thought it was a fecking stupid thing to do, but kept that opinion to myself!
(Mind, I think going to Dubai on holiday is a fecking stupid thing to do, baby or no baby.)
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 ).
I tend to agree with this. Root has 45 test wickets. He is much more than a part time spinner. Desperately need an attacking spinner who is a threat.
Leach is rubbish. Boring, samey, predictable. On what level is he a Test spinner? Stokes and McCullum need to knock on Adil Rashid's door and get him back into the Test arena PDQ.
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.
We had our first holiday with children when our first daughter was three months old. We rented a cottage in North Yorkshire - it was lovely. She was still very portable at that age. It was a different sort of holiday, but, compared to holidays with toddlers, not actually that different - just needed to make sure we built in time to do the things a baby needs to do - sleep, play, feed - all of which can be done almost anywhere with very young children. I'm sure whatever holiday you want to do will be feasible and enjoyable.
Holidays with toddlers are much more difficult; their needs and wants are so different from those of adults. When they're that age you need to think very carefully about what you will be doing on holiday to find something which all three of you will enjoy - I quite enjoyed farm holidays when mine were that age. Once children get past toddler age, it starts to get easier again; and once they're in the 5-10 bracket they're brilliant.
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.
My cousin and his family, who emigrated to Aotearoa fifteen or so years ago regard themselves as Kiwis. One of his sons, when told he was qualified to play Rugby for Wales, was quite definite he wouldn't!
I have grandchildren in Thailand one of whom at almost 17 regards herself is English; her sister two years younger regards herself as Thai.
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.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a 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?
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.
Sometime around 2122 probably...
My parents have been in their Wiltshire village since 1978. I think they have just about been accepted.
He’s in Aberdeenshire. He will need references from at least 3 of the local sheep.
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
It's a motley crew of 40 constituencies though. With almost nowt in common. Other than having gone to the Tories in 2019. It would be more useful just to poll the north, Midlands and Wales. These are the seats. They are very heterogeneous in nature.
IIRC the complaint didn't want to go to the police.
I guess that's sensible in a case like this, lower burden of proof and still very damaging to the accused.
I'm fairly certain I read an article at the time that they also didn't want to clog up police resources, they just wanted to make sure it never happened again
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!
Think biggest issue with very young children is the air pressure often affects them badly, normally if you put paper cups over their ears just before descent etc it can help. You do get some howling if unlucky though.
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.
No reason not to go on holiday, better whilst you only have one as it will be even harder if more! Just be prepared for the fact that packing will take much longer, and everywhere you go you need to think about car seats, cots, nappies and if you start bottle feeding, sterilisation. Also better if you can speak the language where you go, or they can speak one of yours.
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 ).
I tend to agree with this. Root has 45 test wickets. He is much more than a part time spinner. Desperately need an attacking spinner who is a threat.
Leach is rubbish. Boring, samey, predictable. On what level is he a Test spinner? Stokes and McCullum need to knock on Adil Rashid's door and get him back into the Test arena PDQ.
Won't happen. Moeen Ali is more likely (and even then not so much). They have seen the earning potential of bowling 24 deliveries a match rather than 40 overs and rather like it. I do not blame them.
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.
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?
My very words to my wife.
Yes, people spread unevenly. Unless there are barriers in place, it's the sort of thing which should be treated with a polite shrug. Similarly, people who say that the countryside is 'too white' are implying that the cities are 'not white enough'.
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.
Why then is such an abusive arsehole on many of the posts he puts out? And not just to me, whom of course he doesn't like because I regularly call him out. He is certainly no gentleman. Highly obnoxious.
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.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
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.
Be careful about taking a baby on a plane. They can't understand differential air pressure, needing to swallow to equalise pressures to relieve the discomfort, etc.
IIRC the complaint didn't want to go to the police.
I guess that's sensible in a case like this, lower burden of proof and still very damaging to the accused.
I'm fairly certain I read an article at the time that they also didn't want to clog up police resources, they just wanted to make sure it never happened again
Oh, so you think they might not be happy with the fuss that is being made by the standards committee?
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.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
Consequences? For actions done or omitted? What heresy is this?
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.
I'm not sure I do. In principle, in my book, your nationality is where you were born and raised. But I do recognise the ambiguity as above that some people are born elsewhere to where they were raised. But we must at least try - you can't go claiming to be a nationality just because you feel like it. Not because I want to exclude non-English people from certain things, just because I want the word 'English' or 'Scottish' to mean something.
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.
Great-niece was taken to Dubai at just under 6 months for family holiday. I thought it was a fecking stupid thing to do, but kept that opinion to myself!
(Mind, I think going to Dubai on holiday is a fecking stupid thing to do, baby or no baby.)
Once is probably OK. My sister and I were brought up close to the creeks of the Thames Estuary. Much later her son-in-law got a long-term job in Dubai so, of course took his family, and Sister went to visit. Emailed me to the effect that Dubai Creek was like no creek we'd ever seen.
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.
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.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
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 ).
I tend to agree with this. Root has 45 test wickets. He is much more than a part time spinner. Desperately need an attacking spinner who is a threat.
Leach is rubbish. Boring, samey, predictable. On what level is he a Test spinner? Stokes and McCullum need to knock on Adil Rashid's door and get him back into the Test arena PDQ.
Won't happen. Moeen Ali is more likely (and even then not so much). They have seen the earning potential of bowling 24 deliveries a match rather than 40 overs and rather like it. I do not blame them.
Never say never. McCullum has some powers of persuasion.
Mooed would be a vast improvement on Leach in any case – he is also a good bat.
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.
Great-niece was taken to Dubai at just under 6 months for family holiday. I thought it was a fecking stupid thing to do, but kept that opinion to myself!
(Mind, I think going to Dubai on holiday is a fecking stupid thing to do, baby or no baby.)
Once is probably OK. My sister and I were brought up close to the creeks of the Thames Estuary. Much later her son-in-law got a long-term job in Dubai so, of course took his family, and Sister went to visit. Emailed me to the effect that Dubai Creek was like no creek we'd ever seen.
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.
Why then is such an abusive arsehole on many of the posts he puts out? And not just to me, whom of course he doesn't like because I regularly call him out. He is certainly no gentleman. Highly obnoxious.
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
It's a motley crew of 40 constituencies though. With almost nowt in common. Other than having gone to the Tories in 2019. It would be more useful just to poll the north, Midlands and Wales. These are the seats. They are very heterogeneous in nature.
Thats true enough, and tbf in the sort of national swing we are seeing all of them ought to revert. But if they have tories holding 10 plus or do so in future whilst tories lag by mid single figures, c'est intrigue
Mitchell has batted quite brilliantly in this match but taking a single off the first ball of a Broad over exposing a guy with a dodgy back was just stupid.
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.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
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.
Great-niece was taken to Dubai at just under 6 months for family holiday. I thought it was a fecking stupid thing to do, but kept that opinion to myself!
(Mind, I think going to Dubai on holiday is a fecking stupid thing to do, baby or no baby.)
Once is probably OK. My sister and I were brought up close to the creeks of the Thames Estuary. Much later her son-in-law got a long-term job in Dubai so, of course took his family, and Sister went to visit. Emailed me to the effect that Dubai Creek was like no creek we'd ever seen.
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.
That's all very laudable Rochdale. But my problem with that approach is that it takes away meaning from the word explaining where you were born and raised - which is an interesting thing in itself. But perhaps we need a separate word here.
My (Scottish) grandmother always used to talk about 'when we were staying in (Arran/Bury/Cyprus/wherever)' rather than 'when were were living in' - I don't know whether this is a Scottish turn of phrase or simply reflected her rather peripatetic life, that she never felt like anywhere was permanently 'home'. But perhaps there are three levels of this:
I am staying in x (I am living in x, I'm not necessarily from x and I don't know how long I will live here) I live in y (I have identified y as my home - Scotland, now, in your case, or specifically your locality in Nort hEast Scotland) I am z-ish (I was born and raised in z; z is the place which made me).
This works at local level as well as national level. For my teens and twenties, I lived in a variety of places, none of which I would describe myself as being 'from', and none of which I expected to make my home. It would have been useful to be able to say 'I am staying in Nottingham' (say) as well as 'I am from Stockport'. EDIT: So in the Tony Blair example, we can distinguish between 'born and raised/educated in Scotland' from 'has chosen to make England his home'.
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.
I'm not sure I do. In principle, in my book, your nationality is where you were born and raised. But I do recognise the ambiguity as above that some people are born elsewhere to where they were raised. But we must at least try - you can't go claiming to be a nationality just because you feel like it. Not because I want to exclude non-English people from certain things, just because I want the word 'English' or 'Scottish' to mean something.
I agree, just becomes a question when people are temporarily somewhere or move when children are very young.
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.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
What do you make of the paper on Indyref2 published this morning?
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.
Great-niece was taken to Dubai at just under 6 months for family holiday. I thought it was a fecking stupid thing to do, but kept that opinion to myself!
(Mind, I think going to Dubai on holiday is a fecking stupid thing to do, baby or no baby.)
Once is probably OK. My sister and I were brought up close to the creeks of the Thames Estuary. Much later her son-in-law got a long-term job in Dubai so, of course took his family, and Sister went to visit. Emailed me to the effect that Dubai Creek was like no creek we'd ever seen.
Because the victim did not report it to the police.
(I use "victim" rather than "complainant" since the Independent Parliamentary investigator has made a finding.)
Is this ruling pre- or post- Appeal?
And is there a ruling on the other one, Patricia Gibson, yet? Still ensconced on the front bench, afaics, and merrily tweeting away about the Violence against Women and Girls this morning. https://twitter.com/PGibsonSNP/status/1536628219641724928
Senior female politicians groping junior male members of staff does not seem to count as sexual violence chez Gibson.
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.
Why then is such an abusive arsehole on many of the posts he puts out? And not just to me, whom of course he doesn't like because I regularly call him out. He is certainly no gentleman. Highly obnoxious.
Mitchell has batted quite brilliantly in this match but taking a single off the first ball of a Broad over exposing a guy with a dodgy back was just stupid.
Possibly. You could argue that they have enough now to set up a great climax, so it doesn't matter too much how many more they get.
Yes, I think there is a risk of expectations management going awry which will gift a propaganda victory to the Tories if they manage to hang on to something that by rights they should hold easily.
Rather like how our experience of seeing Ukraine humiliate Russia repeatedly in the first month or two of the war left us unprepared for the rather more gruelling war of attrition that Russia so far seems to be winning in the Donbas. Never underestimate the enemy.
Mitchell has batted quite brilliantly in this match but taking a single off the first ball of a Broad over exposing a guy with a dodgy back was just stupid.
He seems quite happy to throw the tail under the bus.
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.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
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.
I will not put up with this. Although I use an alias it isn't too difficult to work out who I am. I will be consulting lawyers.
You flatter yourself you half witted cretin. I have no wish to know anything about such a creep.You appear to be a self important deluded halfwitted certainly numpty who dreams they are somebody. Get a life, hardly can you be anyone of merit given the drivel you post on here. Off to order order with you.
PS I have heard it all now, presume you watched the grit last night and lawyer dagget will be after me for calling the anonymous man a numpty. Get a grip of yourself you big baby.
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.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
I don't want to intrude on private sorrows, but does anyone know why David Herdson stopped posting here?
Вusy campaigning perhaps ?
Essentially that - and family commitments.
I used to be regularly up until 3am or later writing the Saturday piece and it was beginning to intrude into my weekends.
I still lurk and occasionally post.
FWIW, I think we are good value for third place. Labour is going to walk it, with a hyper-controlled, defensive campaign that seems to mostly involve keeping their candidate in a cupboard.
Still hustings start this week so presumably they'll have to let him out for those.
Ye Gods. Is Glastonbury the latest PB Tory obsession? FFS, if you don't like it, don't go.
(FWIW it's the worst festival I have been too, far too large; really quiet dance tent; shite conditions and facilities. There are a multitude of better weekenders out there)
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.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
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 ).
I tend to agree with this. Root has 45 test wickets. He is much more than a part time spinner. Desperately need an attacking spinner who is a threat.
Leach is rubbish. Boring, samey, predictable. On what level is he a Test spinner? Stokes and McCullum need to knock on Adil Rashid's door and get him back into the Test arena PDQ.
Won't happen. Moeen Ali is more likely (and even then not so much). They have seen the earning potential of bowling 24 deliveries a match rather than 40 overs and rather like it. I do not blame them.
In any case, I don't think Rashid's shoulder is up to the rigours of test cricket any more, even if he wanted to come back. It's a shame, as he is an entertaining bowler.
I don't want to intrude on private sorrows, but does anyone know why David Herdson stopped posting here?
Вusy campaigning perhaps ?
Essentially that - and family commitments.
I used to be regularly up until 3am or later writing the Saturday piece and it was beginning to intrude into my weekends.
I still lurk and occasionally post.
FWIW, I think we are good value for third place. Labour is going to walk it, with a hyper-controlled, defensive campaign that seems to mostly involve keeping their candidate in a cupboard.
Still hustings start this week so presumably they'll have to let him out for those.
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.
I will not put up with this. Although I use an alias it isn't too difficult to work out who I am. I will be consulting lawyers.
You flatter yourself you half witted cretin. I have no wish to know anything about such a creep.You appear to be a self important deluded halfwitted certainly numpty who dreams they are somebody. Get a life, hardly can you be anyone of merit given the drivel you post on here. Off to order order with you.
Hiding behind your stupidity and general ignorance is not a defence. I will not be slandered, even though I am using an alias. Have a nice holiday. If I were you I would shut up.
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.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
PRECEDENT. Precedence is who gets to break wind first in the presence of Her Majesty
At the time of that judgment English law also said you could rape your wife with absolute impunity. You ok with people who actually did that?
I don't want to intrude on private sorrows, but does anyone know why David Herdson stopped posting here?
Вusy campaigning perhaps ?
Essentially that - and family commitments.
I used to be regularly up until 3am or later writing the Saturday piece and it was beginning to intrude into my weekends.
I still lurk and occasionally post.
FWIW, I think we are good value for third place. Labour is going to walk it, with a hyper-controlled, defensive campaign that seems to mostly involve keeping their candidate in a cupboard.
Still hustings start this week so presumably they'll have to let him out for those.
Come on David, I've got a tenner on you at 130-1! I have every faith in you.
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.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
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.
That's all very laudable Rochdale. But my problem with that approach is that it takes away meaning from the word explaining where you were born and raised - which is an interesting thing in itself. But perhaps we need a separate word here.
My (Scottish) grandmother always used to talk about 'when we were staying in (Arran/Bury/Cyprus/wherever)' rather than 'when were were living in' - I don't know whether this is a Scottish turn of phrase or simply reflected her rather peripatetic life, that she never felt like anywhere was permanently 'home'. But perhaps there are three levels of this:
I am staying in x (I am living in x, I'm not necessarily from x and I don't know how long I will live here) I live in y (I have identified y as my home - Scotland, now, in your case, or specifically your locality in Nort hEast Scotland) I am z-ish (I was born and raised in z; z is the place which made me).
This works at local level as well as national level. For my teens and twenties, I lived in a variety of places, none of which I would describe myself as being 'from', and none of which I expected to make my home. It would have been useful to be able to say 'I am staying in Nottingham' (say) as well as 'I am from Stockport'. EDIT: So in the Tony Blair example, we can distinguish between 'born and raised/educated in Scotland' from 'has chosen to make England his home'.
I hear you, but it prompts the question about to what we are referring? Nationality? Ethnicity? Citizenship? Culturally?
I was born in Ashton-Under-Lyne which makes me a Lancastrian by birth. Grew up in Rochdale (hence the handle). But have lived longer in Yorkshire than I did in Lancashire yet didn't consider myself a Yorkshireman.
So I'm not ever culturally going to be Scottish even if I live here til they carry me out in a box. I don't sound Scottish, or share Scottish heritage. But I am a citizen of Scotland, and should they become independent would become a Scottish national.
And I think that is the difference - you can live somewhere and consider yourself not to be a citizen of there, or you can move somewhere and be adopted by it without losing your origins. America does this well - plenty of x-American groups where the x can be during their lifetime or their great great great grandparent's lifetime.
No surprise Glastonbury is middle class. That would be the price of it.
Glastonbury Festival shifted strongly to middle class in the years mid 90s to mid 00s, which was also the period when the fence became more like an international border, ticket security massively stepped up, and buying them became a pain in the arse.
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.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
I am happy to accept your assurance that you are not racist and that you had no intention of being racist in deploying what are standard anti-Scottish racist tropes - high fat foods, large amounts of alcohol - in your comments.
Rather like how our experience of seeing Ukraine humiliate Russia repeatedly in the first month or two of the war left us unprepared for the rather more gruelling war of attrition that Russia so far seems to be winning in the Donbas. Never underestimate the enemy.
The pb.com Couch Commandos definitely lost interest in the conflict as soon as the supply of dank memes from the front lines was disrupted.
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.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
PRECEDENT. Precedence is who gets to break wind first in the presence of Her Majesty
At the time of that judgment English law also said you could rape your wife with absolute impunity. You ok with people who actually did that?
Damn I had it as precedent and the 'corrected' it.
Of course not. In fact that goes with what I think, which is that we should evolve over time rather than sticking to the rules of the past arbitrarily just because they were agreed in the past.
If there were an international agreement stating that those who rape their wives can't be prosecuted, then I would be perfectly content to break that agreement when the law is changed to say they can be. The law would then be that it is illegal to do so, even if the agreement said otherwise.
Unless something has changed since Diplock to mean that precedent is no longer valid, the Crown is fully within its rights to act following that precedent.
Cracking drive over Mazzini pass feeling like Fittipaldi in the mille miglia in my fiat Panda, to Novara which is bloody lovely and completely empty. Taormina can f right off
Places like Taormina there's no bars only restaurants so if you want a campari and a coffee you have to incorporate them into an indifferent dinner
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.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
I am happy to accept your assurance that you are not racist and that you had no intention of being racist in deploying what are standard anti-Scottish racist tropes - high fat foods, large amounts of alcohol - in your comments.
I am not asking for your acceptance of anything I am asking for an apology for your slur.
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.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
What do you make of the paper on Indyref2 published this morning?
Not seen it yet, been too busy laughing at that idiot foreskin. Off for a swim but will reply later, not hopeful surgeon will do anything other than ask London for an s30 at best.
I don't want to intrude on private sorrows, but does anyone know why David Herdson stopped posting here?
Вusy campaigning perhaps ?
Essentially that - and family commitments.
I used to be regularly up until 3am or later writing the Saturday piece and it was beginning to intrude into my weekends.
I still lurk and occasionally post.
FWIW, I think we are good value for third place. Labour is going to walk it, with a hyper-controlled, defensive campaign that seems to mostly involve keeping their candidate in a cupboard.
Still hustings start this week so presumably they'll have to let him out for those.
Come on David, I've got a tenner on you at 130-1! I have every faith in you.
How kind of you to take the time to respond! Thanks for your sage observations over the years, and I hope you get a really good second place next week!
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.
That's all very laudable Rochdale. But my problem with that approach is that it takes away meaning from the word explaining where you were born and raised - which is an interesting thing in itself. But perhaps we need a separate word here.
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.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
I am happy to accept your assurance that you are not racist and that you had no intention of being racist in deploying what are standard anti-Scottish racist tropes - high fat foods, large amounts of alcohol - in your comments.
I am not asking for your acceptance of anything I am asking for an apology for your slur.
I didn't say you were racist. I pointed out your *post* was decidedly dodgy, certainly in content.
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.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
But what you are promoting is a world in which International law and treaties have no meaning at all. Spain can take back Gibraltar because our only right to it is under a treaty - and we know what you think of treaties. We should not prosecute war criminals nor hold anyone to account for cross border crimes because these are only covered by treaties and treaties have no value.
So, it's no wonder it's very middle/upper-middle class, white and champagne socialist.
I always think of it as primarily the BBC having a party.
Don’t they send something like 500 staff to cover it?
The BBC and The Guardian are almost 1:1.
A lot of young people go to Glasto. I keep being told that young people never watch the BBC, and they certainly don't read The Guardian. So I'm not sure the stereotype quite works.
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.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
I am happy to accept your assurance that you are not racist and that you had no intention of being racist in deploying what are standard anti-Scottish racist tropes - high fat foods, large amounts of alcohol - in your comments.
I am not asking for your acceptance of anything I am asking for an apology for your slur.
I didn't say you were racist. I pointed out your *post* was decidedly dodgy.
My characterisation was aligned to slobbishness and parochial nature that aligns with his posting style. It is you that made the connection, and I suggest quite deliberately.
I will not be called or inferred as a racist. Stop justifying it. Please apologise
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.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
But what you are promoting is a world in which International law and treaties have no meaning at all. Spain can take back Gibraltar because our only right to it is under a treaty - and we know what you think of treaties. We should not prosecute war criminals nor hold anyone to account for cross border crimes because these are only covered by treaties and treaties have no value.
Your world stinks.
I'm sorry but what I am promoting is the world that actually exists, which is that International Treaties hold meaning for as long as all parties are willing to abide by the terms of those Treaties.
If a party to a Treaty wishes to renege upon a Treaty, or wishes to remain bound to the Treaty but as per Diplock deliberately breaking some of its provisions, then that is something they are entitled as sovereign states to do.
Absolutely we can and should prosecute war criminals, or hold to account cross border crimes, because those are incorporated into domestic law unless or until they cease to be incorporated within domestic law. The decision to cease to incorporate international agreements, or to break them, is a matter for politics and not a matter for lawyers and that is as the world already is, always has been, and always should be.
We have never and should never be bound in perpetuity to agreements of the past. If we were bound to an agreement in the past that we must respect a nation's right to have slavery, then should we remain bound to that agreement in perpetuity for as long as the other party wishes to maintain slavery? Or should we have the right to say that we have changed our minds and have determined slavery is not acceptable?
Your world stinks. My world is the real world as it is, and as it should be.
Normally I would agree, and it is probably the most likely outcome, but its worth noting just now many runs have been scored on this pitch and at what rate. Tricky on 5th day pitch for sure. Plus 1 up in the series mean leas onus on England to chase.
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.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
I am happy to accept your assurance that you are not racist and that you had no intention of being racist in deploying what are standard anti-Scottish racist tropes - high fat foods, large amounts of alcohol - in your comments.
I am not asking for your acceptance of anything I am asking for an apology for your slur.
Okay, I'll start again. I am happy to apologise for suggesting that you might be racist in the intent of your posting. This was unfair.
Comments
Would recommend a package, or at least a proper big tourist hotel with a creche or summat.
Self-catering isn't much different to being at home with a baby.
Only warmer.
My parents have been in their Wiltshire village since 1978. I think they have just about been accepted.
That would be the price of it.
When you're a germophobe like me, I'm glad Allah gave me a larger bladder and Loperamide exists.
(Mind, I think going to Dubai on holiday is a fecking stupid thing to do, baby or no baby.)
Holidays with toddlers are much more difficult; their needs and wants are so different from those of adults. When they're that age you need to think very carefully about what you will be doing on holiday to find something which all three of you will enjoy - I quite enjoyed farm holidays when mine were that age. Once children get past toddler age, it starts to get easier again; and once they're in the 5-10 bracket they're brilliant.
I have grandchildren in Thailand one of whom at almost 17 regards herself is English; her sister two years younger regards herself as Thai.
Free babysitting either at home or on holiday.
They are a bloody Godsend.
MODERATOR: Can you please ensure this abusive slimeball corrects this. I would like to request a ban please? @rcs1000 @MikeSmithson @TheScreamingEagles
He says he has not got the foggiest, because the alleged plans change so often.
Another example of BoJo the Useless sitting on his butt, blithering.
It would be more useful just to poll the north, Midlands and Wales.
These are the seats. They are very heterogeneous in nature.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/red-wall-poll-results/
Similarly, people who say that the countryside is 'too white' are implying that the cities are 'not white enough'.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
In principle, in my book, your nationality is where you were born and raised. But I do recognise the ambiguity as above that some people are born elsewhere to where they were raised. But we must at least try - you can't go claiming to be a nationality just because you feel like it. Not because I want to exclude non-English people from certain things, just because I want the word 'English' or 'Scottish' to mean something.
Emailed me to the effect that Dubai Creek was like no creek we'd ever seen.
I will not put up with this. Although I use an alias it isn't too difficult to work out who I am. I will be consulting lawyers.
Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
Mooed would be a vast improvement on Leach in any case – he is also a good bat.
(View from my office!)
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/liberal-democrats-tiverton-honiton/
Thanks for the advice all, she'd be about 4 and a bit months around then but I might wait until later in the summer to make the pitch.
But if they have tories holding 10 plus or do so in future whilst tories lag by mid single figures, c'est intrigue
My (Scottish) grandmother always used to talk about 'when we were staying in (Arran/Bury/Cyprus/wherever)' rather than 'when were were living in' - I don't know whether this is a Scottish turn of phrase or simply reflected her rather peripatetic life, that she never felt like anywhere was permanently 'home'. But perhaps there are three levels of this:
I am staying in x (I am living in x, I'm not necessarily from x and I don't know how long I will live here)
I live in y (I have identified y as my home - Scotland, now, in your case, or specifically your locality in Nort hEast Scotland)
I am z-ish (I was born and raised in z; z is the place which made me).
This works at local level as well as national level. For my teens and twenties, I lived in a variety of places, none of which I would describe myself as being 'from', and none of which I expected to make my home. It would have been useful to be able to say 'I am staying in Nottingham' (say) as well as 'I am from Stockport'.
EDIT: So in the Tony Blair example, we can distinguish between 'born and raised/educated in Scotland' from 'has chosen to make England his home'.
So, it's no wonder it's very middle/upper-middle class, white and champagne socialist.
As with Perez before, his odds are too long given the car he's in.
Also, 16 for the win is worth thinking about, although reliability could be a factor.
(I use "victim" rather than "complainant" since the Independent Parliamentary investigator has made a finding.)
Is this ruling pre- or post- Appeal?
And is there a ruling on the other one, Patricia Gibson, yet? Still ensconced on the front bench, afaics, and merrily tweeting away about the Violence against Women and Girls this morning.
https://twitter.com/PGibsonSNP/status/1536628219641724928
Senior female politicians groping junior male members of staff does not seem to count as sexual violence chez Gibson.
Don’t they send something like 500 staff to cover it?
Rather like how our experience of seeing Ukraine humiliate Russia repeatedly in the first month or two of the war left us unprepared for the rather more gruelling war of attrition that Russia so far seems to be winning in the Donbas. Never underestimate the enemy.
PS I have heard it all now, presume you watched the grit last night and lawyer dagget will be after me for calling the anonymous man a numpty. Get a grip of yourself you big baby.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
I used to be regularly up until 3am or later writing the Saturday piece and it was beginning to intrude into my weekends.
I still lurk and occasionally post.
FWIW, I think we are good value for third place. Labour is going to walk it, with a hyper-controlled, defensive campaign that seems to mostly involve keeping their candidate in a cupboard.
Still hustings start this week so presumably they'll have to let him out for those.
(FWIW it's the worst festival I have been too, far too large; really quiet dance tent; shite conditions and facilities. There are a multitude of better weekenders out there)
It's a shame, as he is an entertaining bowler.
At the time of that judgment English law also said you could rape your wife with absolute impunity. You ok with people who actually did that?
Nationality? Ethnicity? Citizenship? Culturally?
I was born in Ashton-Under-Lyne which makes me a Lancastrian by birth. Grew up in Rochdale (hence the handle). But have lived longer in Yorkshire than I did in Lancashire yet didn't consider myself a Yorkshireman.
So I'm not ever culturally going to be Scottish even if I live here til they carry me out in a box. I don't sound Scottish, or share Scottish heritage. But I am a citizen of Scotland, and should they become independent would become a Scottish national.
And I think that is the difference - you can live somewhere and consider yourself not to be a citizen of there, or you can move somewhere and be adopted by it without losing your origins. America does this well - plenty of x-American groups where the x can be during their lifetime or their great great great grandparent's lifetime.
Of course not. In fact that goes with what I think, which is that we should evolve over time rather than sticking to the rules of the past arbitrarily just because they were agreed in the past.
If there were an international agreement stating that those who rape their wives can't be prosecuted, then I would be perfectly content to break that agreement when the law is changed to say they can be. The law would then be that it is illegal to do so, even if the agreement said otherwise.
Unless something has changed since Diplock to mean that precedent is no longer valid, the Crown is fully within its rights to act following that precedent.
Places like Taormina there's no bars only restaurants so if you want a campari and a coffee you have to incorporate them into an indifferent dinner
"I was raised in xxx"
Your world stinks.
I will not be called or inferred as a racist. Stop justifying it. Please apologise
If a party to a Treaty wishes to renege upon a Treaty, or wishes to remain bound to the Treaty but as per Diplock deliberately breaking some of its provisions, then that is something they are entitled as sovereign states to do.
Absolutely we can and should prosecute war criminals, or hold to account cross border crimes, because those are incorporated into domestic law unless or until they cease to be incorporated within domestic law. The decision to cease to incorporate international agreements, or to break them, is a matter for politics and not a matter for lawyers and that is as the world already is, always has been, and always should be.
We have never and should never be bound in perpetuity to agreements of the past. If we were bound to an agreement in the past that we must respect a nation's right to have slavery, then should we remain bound to that agreement in perpetuity for as long as the other party wishes to maintain slavery? Or should we have the right to say that we have changed our minds and have determined slavery is not acceptable?
Your world stinks. My world is the real world as it is, and as it should be.
Plus 1 up in the series mean leas onus on England to chase.