The carpet-biting on PB tonight reminds me that there is a precedent for an advisory referendum in Scotland. The Tories bitterly opposed it. Yet it had a permanent and decisive (to date) result. That on the ownership of water in Scotland.
Russia's deputy chief of Gazprombank jumped into Ukraine and enlisted in the army - the country's "Russian legion". The Russian Freedom Legion has more than 400 Russian fighters fighting for Ukraine. https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008891038.html
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
Have you forgotten about the 1979 referendum?
Almost the same result as Brexit:
51.6 v 48.4 in 1979
51.9 v 48.1 in 2016.
But that's including the dead in 1979 ... and the one was for devolution, so you should compare it with 1997 really. However, it does show how opinion has permanently shifted under the rule fo the Conservative Party in London.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
She wont do it. It is all talk for internal reasons.
I can always rely on PB for insight into Sturgeon's real motivations.
Anyway, someone who knows stuff.
You know where I stand - there is a democratic mandate for a new referendum. But, there is no point holding an advisory vote. People will simply boycott it. Yes will win massively. And then nothing at all happens.
Sturgeon made all the right points at her presser. Her government has a direct mandate for this referendum. So go on campaign mode to secure it. The Tories attacking democracy. Your vote is worthless. Go at it in England. Make the Tories look like the duplicitous shits they are.
Because unless there is a Westminster-mandated referendum its all a waste of time. So make it politically a ball-ache to deny the will of the people.
If Sturgeon holds an unofficial referendum not agreed with the UK government unlike 2014 then Unionists will boycott it as in the unofficial Catalan independence referendum in 2017. The UK government like the Spanish government then would also ignore the result
Creating a constitutional crisis could be the move. Rock, pond.
I've bet on SindyRef2 before 2025 and I'm certainly not writing it off yet.
You have to hand it to Sir Keir Royale, a man of honour. If he goes, he’ll do his best to secure the legacy and keep the Corbynites away from control of the party.
I’m a Reeves man, but wonder if Phillipson sneaks in in an open contest?
Labour have a number of decent choices, including Phillipson. My sense is that Reeves and Burnham would be a turnoff for the extra voters they need. It's easy to think that the 'Labour through and through' types (typified by Burnham) are what is needed. What is needed is a few million voters who don't vote for that and last time voted Tory.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
She wont do it. It is all talk for internal reasons.
I can always rely on PB for insight into Sturgeon's real motivations.
Anyway, someone who knows stuff.
You know where I stand - there is a democratic mandate for a new referendum. But, there is no point holding an advisory vote. People will simply boycott it. Yes will win massively. And then nothing at all happens.
Sturgeon made all the right points at her presser. Her government has a direct mandate for this referendum. So go on campaign mode to secure it. The Tories attacking democracy. Your vote is worthless. Go at it in England. Make the Tories look like the duplicitous shits they are.
Because unless there is a Westminster-mandated referendum its all a waste of time. So make it politically a ball-ache to deny the will of the people.
If Sturgeon holds an unofficial referendum not agreed with the UK government unlike 2014 then Unionists will boycott it as in the unofficial Catalan independence referendum in 2017. The UK government like the Spanish government then would also ignore the result
Creating a constitutional crisis could be the move. Rock, pond.
I've bet on SindyRef2 before 2025 and I'm certainly not writing it off yet.
If you mean a UK government authorised one I think the odds are very long.
https://twitter.com/mariamposts/status/1538225195453915136 Today was the funeral of the Ukrainian activist Roman Ratushny. Russians killed him. To honor him and thousands of other Ukrainians, I want to talk about my generation—a thread about the first generation of independent Ukraine…
Sir Keir Starmer is planning for his own succession and has told candidates vying to replace him to be ready to fight for the leadership if he is forced to quit over claims that he broke Covid rules.
The Labour leader has told allies he wants plans in place to ensure that his work rebuilding the party will not be at risk if he is suddenly forced to resign. He has promised to quit if Durham police find he broke lockdown rules when he had beer and curry with staff after a day campaigning in the local elections on April 30 last year.
He told friends: “I will not let this party become a basket case again. I will not let our hard-won gains be squandered so we will need to be ready in the unlikely event that the worst comes to the worst.”
It is understood he has since met a number of members of his shadow cabinet with leadership ambitions and has urged them to put campaign teams in place.
Wes Streeting and Lisa Nandy have made no secret of their ambitions and are believed to be among the candidates to have received Starmer’s endorsement.
While I’m not a Starmer fan, the contrast with Johnson in his willingness to put a greater good ahead of his own personal interest is palpable.
PMSL he backed himself into a corner and left himself with no choice.
There is no contrast whatsoever, Starmer was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Corbyn turning a blind eye to all the antisemitism in order to further his own personal interest.
Not sure it will play out that way with the masses if Starmer does end up resigning.
Probably not but just because he backed himself into a corner doesn't mean there's a real contrast.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
She wont do it. It is all talk for internal reasons.
I can always rely on PB for insight into Sturgeon's real motivations.
Anyway, someone who knows stuff.
You know where I stand - there is a democratic mandate for a new referendum. But, there is no point holding an advisory vote. People will simply boycott it. Yes will win massively. And then nothing at all happens.
Sturgeon made all the right points at her presser. Her government has a direct mandate for this referendum. So go on campaign mode to secure it. The Tories attacking democracy. Your vote is worthless. Go at it in England. Make the Tories look like the duplicitous shits they are.
Because unless there is a Westminster-mandated referendum its all a waste of time. So make it politically a ball-ache to deny the will of the people.
If Sturgeon holds an unofficial referendum not agreed with the UK government unlike 2014 then Unionists will boycott it as in the unofficial Catalan independence referendum in 2017. The UK government like the Spanish government then would also ignore the result
What you think on this issue has as much weight as what my cat thinks. And he at least is a Scottish resident.
Sir Keir Starmer is planning for his own succession and has told candidates vying to replace him to be ready to fight for the leadership if he is forced to quit over claims that he broke Covid rules.
The Labour leader has told allies he wants plans in place to ensure that his work rebuilding the party will not be at risk if he is suddenly forced to resign. He has promised to quit if Durham police find he broke lockdown rules when he had beer and curry with staff after a day campaigning in the local elections on April 30 last year.
He told friends: “I will not let this party become a basket case again. I will not let our hard-won gains be squandered so we will need to be ready in the unlikely event that the worst comes to the worst.”
It is understood he has since met a number of members of his shadow cabinet with leadership ambitions and has urged them to put campaign teams in place.
Wes Streeting and Lisa Nandy have made no secret of their ambitions and are believed to be among the candidates to have received Starmer’s endorsement.
While I’m not a Starmer fan, the contrast with Johnson in his willingness to put a greater good ahead of his own personal interest is palpable.
PMSL he backed himself into a corner and left himself with no choice.
There is no contrast whatsoever, Starmer was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Corbyn turning a blind eye to all the antisemitism in order to further his own personal interest.
Not sure it will play out that way with the masses if Starmer does end up resigning.
Probably not but just because he backed himself into a corner doesn't mean there's a real contrast.
Maybe he just backed himself not to have broken the law.
In any event, whatever the outcome, at a fundamental level the contrast between Johnson and Starmer couldn't be more striking.
You have to hand it to Sir Keir Royale, a man of honour. If he goes, he’ll do his best to secure the legacy and keep the Corbynites away from control of the party.
I’m a Reeves man, but wonder if Phillipson sneaks in in an open contest?
Labour have a number of decent choices, including Phillipson. My sense is that Reeves and Burnham would be a turnoff for the extra voters they need. It's easy to think that the 'Labour through and through' types (typified by Burnham) are what is needed. What is needed is a few million voters who don't vote for that and last time voted Tory.
Indeed so. Having Rayner even as deputy is a problem because of the "scum" comments.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
You have to hand it to Sir Keir Royale, a man of honour. If he goes, he’ll do his best to secure the legacy and keep the Corbynites away from control of the party.
I’m a Reeves man, but wonder if Phillipson sneaks in in an open contest?
Labour have a number of decent choices, including Phillipson. My sense is that Reeves and Burnham would be a turnoff for the extra voters they need. It's easy to think that the 'Labour through and through' types (typified by Burnham) are what is needed. What is needed is a few million voters who don't vote for that and last time voted Tory.
Indeed so. Having Rayner even as deputy is a problem because of the "scum" comments.
Rayner is Starmer's John Prescott, his connection to the non London, non Southern working class
Keir Starmer leaves Labour in its best position since 1994.
He will go down in history as the man who saved this great party from extinction. Something nobody thought possible in 2019, he did it in three years.
Wtf is this leaving Labour thing?
If you're coming out with stuff like this can you please at least give us a link? I'm assuming it's on twitter or instagram or Only Fans or Love island or some chap you bumped into the other day called Bernard.
No, my source speaks for themselves, I am sure others will be able to back me up.
Ah.
I like you and most of your posts but I'm going to treat this with 99% cynicism, if you don't mind.
Without being inflammatory you have been prone to claim a source in power yourself...
You have to hand it to Sir Keir Royale, a man of honour. If he goes, he’ll do his best to secure the legacy and keep the Corbynites away from control of the party.
I’m a Reeves man, but wonder if Phillipson sneaks in in an open contest?
Labour have a number of decent choices, including Phillipson. My sense is that Reeves and Burnham would be a turnoff for the extra voters they need. It's easy to think that the 'Labour through and through' types (typified by Burnham) are what is needed. What is needed is a few million voters who don't vote for that and last time voted Tory.
Indeed so. Having Rayner even as deputy is a problem because of the "scum" comments.
Yeah I was thinking about this today. People complain about Boris Johnson and all his many flaws. Conservative voters don't like him and a proportion think he is unethical and a liar. But then why would they switch to Labour when people like Rayner are around, someone who appears to regard you as 'scum' for voting Conservative? They just won't. They will carry on voting Conservative.
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
Just gone below $18k, was $32k on 31st May.
The real problem comes when Tether falls over, which has been predicted for weeks but still not happened. The real clothing of the Emperor is slowly being revealed.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
"We're not Francoist granny-bashers." A slogan to go on election with for the Tories. On a level with "We don't kill as many grannies as Dr Shipman".
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
Oh yes: I'm just thinking that the Conservative Party - and you, the other day - are always going on and on and on and on about their electoral mandate.
Yet when there is one in Scotland, it doesn't count?
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
Loads of retail investors will start complaining that the financial authorities didn't warn them that could lose the lot?
The worry is more that people with leveraged positions have to start offloading proper assets to meet margin calls...
Scale matters for that though. If a few people have to do that it's a problem for them. It only becomes a problem for everyone else if the numbers are large, or involve institutions that drags in people who weren't directly involved.
I have no idea what the exposure is, but I would be surprised if it was comparable to the sub-prime crisis.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
Oh yes: I'm just thinking that the Conservative Party - and you, the other day - are always going on and on and on and on about their electoral mandate.
Yet when there is one in Scotland, it doesn't count?
Well you never accepted the result of the 2014 Scottish vote against independence anyway did you
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
Loads of retail investors will start complaining that the financial authorities didn't warn them that could lose the lot?
The worry is more that people with leveraged positions have to start offloading proper assets to meet margin calls...
Scale matters for that though. If a few people have to do that it's a problem for them. It only becomes a problem for everyone else if the numbers are large, or involve institutions that drags in people who weren't directly involved.
I have no idea what the exposure is, but I would be surprised if it was comparable to the sub-prime crisis.
Isn't a lot of crypto held by criminal gangs of various descriptions.
It would be a terrible tragedy if they all went bust. Think of all the casualties it might cause as we all died laughing.
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
"We're not Francoist granny-bashers." A slogan to go on election with for the Tories. On a level with "We don't kill as many grannies as Dr Shipman".
Let's not be hasty, until we see how the Christian People's Alliance candidate in Wakefield does with their innovative 'Vote for me, I have never sexually assaulted anyone' campaign message, we cannot be sure such direct slogans do not work.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
Oh yes: I'm just thinking that the Conservative Party - and you, the other day - are always going on and on and on and on about their electoral mandate.
Yet when there is one in Scotland, it doesn't count?
Well you never accepted the result of the 2014 Scottish vote against independence anyway did you
What on earth are you talking about? I've never seen any move to have it suspended or changed. Unlike yoiur party with its attempts to prorogue parliament, ignore the law of the land, and so on.
A different referendum under the current conditions is a different matter.
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
"We're not Francoist granny-bashers." A slogan to go on election with for the Tories. On a level with "We don't kill as many grannies as Dr Shipman".
Let's not be hasty, until we see how the Christian People's Alliance candidate does with their innovative 'Vote for me, I have never sexually assaulted anyone' campaign message, we cannot be sure such direct slogans do not work.
Point taken, but there is a difference between
"We don't molest as many people as the Tory MPs do"
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
Oh yes: I'm just thinking that the Conservative Party - and you, the other day - are always going on and on and on and on about their electoral mandate.
Yet when there is one in Scotland, it doesn't count?
Well you never accepted the result of the 2014 Scottish vote against independence anyway did you
What on earth are you talking about? I've never seen any move to have it suspended or changed. Unlike yoiur party with its attempts to prorogue parliament, ignore the law of the land, and so on.
A different referendum under the current conditions is a different matter.
What is Sturgeon's motive but to ignore it until she gets the result she wants despite it being less than a decade ago.
The UK government however will respect it and thus refuse to allow an official indyref2 for at least a generation since 2014 and ignore the result of any unofficial indyref
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
Pressure must be considerable on Sturgeon, though. Unless she wants to head off into the sunset
The Sunday newspapers must be grim if Nicola Sturgeon is throwing a wildcat Indy Referendum on the table on a Saturday night. I have no doubt that Autumn 2023 is her planned exit date, that PR stunt inside and outside Holyrood this week was definitely the launch of her preferred successor Angus Robertson's leadership campaign. They also needed a diversion from Angus Robertson's shambolic management of the Scottish Census, the Patrick Grady finding and of course the latest bad news trickling out of committee on the ferries scandal all week.
While the promise of a wildcat Indy Referendum next year might keep the SNP/Yes base happy for a while, the main opposition parties will simple boycott it. Nicola Sturgeon would have to be desperate to plan to preside over such a shambolic circus as it would definitely end up in the courts while causing yet more division among Scots, especially if she is planning to export her 'civic nationalism' onto the world stage post Holyrood. Remember this is the SNP who cannot even manage a census or build a couple of ferries without lengthy delays and going massively over budget. But don't be surprised if Peter Murrell was to cynically launch a 'new Indy Referendum' fundraiser...
Interesting. I picked up a paper copy of the Times for free at de airport dis mornin an it said, phatboi tried to give Ilse Koch a job as chief of staff at the FO while he was FS, without disclosing they was in lurve. apparently story has now vanished from Times online.
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
Loads of retail investors will start complaining that the financial authorities didn't warn them that could lose the lot?
The worry is more that people with leveraged positions have to start offloading proper assets to meet margin calls...
Scale matters for that though. If a few people have to do that it's a problem for them. It only becomes a problem for everyone else if the numbers are large, or involve institutions that drags in people who weren't directly involved.
I have no idea what the exposure is, but I would be surprised if it was comparable to the sub-prime crisis.
...waits for the first council to fess up that they've put their reserves into bitcoin.
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
Loads of retail investors will start complaining that the financial authorities didn't warn them that could lose the lot?
The worry is more that people with leveraged positions have to start offloading proper assets to meet margin calls...
Scale matters for that though. If a few people have to do that it's a problem for them. It only becomes a problem for everyone else if the numbers are large, or involve institutions that drags in people who weren't directly involved.
I have no idea what the exposure is, but I would be surprised if it was comparable to the sub-prime crisis.
It will be interesting to see if Tesla have liquidated their position, or not. Neither thing is likely to be positive for crypto…
Nicola Sturgeon is prepared to hold an ‘advisory referendum’ on Scottish independence in Autumn 2023 if the UK government refuses to grant an S30 order for an official referendum.
This will be.. fascinating
Futile and stupid. Unionists will just boycott it.
How would it even work, mechanically and financially? Non-SNP authorities, starting with the Lab-Lib-Con Edinburgh City Council, wouldn’t co-operate.
IANAE, but one assumes that the Scottish Parliament could legislate to compel them to do so? Unless Westminster decides to intervene first and amend the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve the right to hold plebiscites - although, on balance, you'd think the more productive tactic would be a Unionist boycott.
Boycott? You don't vote, you don't get. Absolute principle of any vote in the UK.
The UK government would tell Unionists to boycott, then completely ignore the result as the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster
Not an argument at all.
You don't vote, you are assumed not to give a shit about the results.
Or else any government or administration could tell people that they'd assume that DNV was for the ruling party. You know, like your arithmetic on PB.
Even if 100% voted and 100% voted Yes the UK government could ignore the result as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. A Unionist boycott just adds to its illegitimacy.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
Oh yes: I'm just thinking that the Conservative Party - and you, the other day - are always going on and on and on and on about their electoral mandate.
Yet when there is one in Scotland, it doesn't count?
Well you never accepted the result of the 2014 Scottish vote against independence anyway did you
What on earth are you talking about? I've never seen any move to have it suspended or changed. Unlike yoiur party with its attempts to prorogue parliament, ignore the law of the land, and so on.
A different referendum under the current conditions is a different matter.
What is Sturgeon's motive but to ignore it until she gets the result she wants despite it being less than a decade ago.
The UK government however will respect it and thus refuse to allow an official indyref2 for at least a generation since 2014 and ignore the result of any unofficial indyref
Ignoring it = proceeding as if it had not happened.
Asking for a second referendum is, absolutely fundamentally, the opposite.
Especially after several general elections since 2014.
Pressure must be considerable on Sturgeon, though. Unless she wants to head off into the sunset
The Sunday newspapers must be grim if Nicola Sturgeon is throwing a wildcat Indy Referendum on the table on a Saturday night. I have no doubt that Autumn 2023 is her planned exit date, that PR stunt inside and outside Holyrood this week was definitely the launch of her preferred successor Angus Robertson's leadership campaign. They also needed a diversion from Angus Robertson's shambolic management of the Scottish Census, the Patrick Grady finding and of course the latest bad news trickling out of committee on the ferries scandal all week.
While the promise of a wildcat Indy Referendum next year might keep the SNP/Yes base happy for a while, the main opposition parties will simple boycott it. Nicola Sturgeon would have to be desperate to plan to preside over such a shambolic circus as it would definitely end up in the courts while causing yet more division among Scots, especially if she is planning to export her 'civic nationalism' onto the world stage post Holyrood. Remember this is the SNP who cannot even manage a census or build a couple of ferries without lengthy delays and going massively over budget. But don't be surprised if Peter Murrell was to cynically launch a 'new Indy Referendum' fundraiser...
The SNP which can electrify railways and build major bridges withouyt going over budget? In contrast to you know who ...
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
Loads of retail investors will start complaining that the financial authorities didn't warn them that could lose the lot?
The worry is more that people with leveraged positions have to start offloading proper assets to meet margin calls...
Scale matters for that though. If a few people have to do that it's a problem for them. It only becomes a problem for everyone else if the numbers are large, or involve institutions that drags in people who weren't directly involved.
I have no idea what the exposure is, but I would be surprised if it was comparable to the sub-prime crisis.
It will be interesting to see if Tesla have liquidated their position, or not. Neither thing is likely to be positive for crypto…
The only people I know who still have Bitcoins, are Russians that had their bank accounts shut down by Putin. The exchanges have very little liquidity to actually turn BTC into Greenbacks.
Pressure must be considerable on Sturgeon, though. Unless she wants to head off into the sunset
The Sunday newspapers must be grim if Nicola Sturgeon is throwing a wildcat Indy Referendum on the table on a Saturday night. I have no doubt that Autumn 2023 is her planned exit date, that PR stunt inside and outside Holyrood this week was definitely the launch of her preferred successor Angus Robertson's leadership campaign. They also needed a diversion from Angus Robertson's shambolic management of the Scottish Census, the Patrick Grady finding and of course the latest bad news trickling out of committee on the ferries scandal all week.
While the promise of a wildcat Indy Referendum next year might keep the SNP/Yes base happy for a while, the main opposition parties will simple boycott it. Nicola Sturgeon would have to be desperate to plan to preside over such a shambolic circus as it would definitely end up in the courts while causing yet more division among Scots, especially if she is planning to export her 'civic nationalism' onto the world stage post Holyrood. Remember this is the SNP who cannot even manage a census or build a couple of ferries without lengthy delays and going massively over budget. But don't be surprised if Peter Murrell was to cynically launch a 'new Indy Referendum' fundraiser...
Still, not so terrible that the party you support can come even close to them of course. 60+ years isn't it..
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
I always roll my eyes when I hear that human rights can be protected through domestic legislation. Any democratically elected government with a majority in the house of commons would come under irresistible pressure to remove minority rights that are unpopular or politically inconvenient at any point in time. It is clear to me that leaving the ECHR is the end of human rights, as we know them. We'd end up with a malleable, ever changing set of rights that follow changing public whims. Some people may want this, which is a view I respect; but the idea that human rights are safe if we leave the ECHR is complete nonsense.
Pressure must be considerable on Sturgeon, though. Unless she wants to head off into the sunset
The Sunday newspapers must be grim if Nicola Sturgeon is throwing a wildcat Indy Referendum on the table on a Saturday night. I have no doubt that Autumn 2023 is her planned exit date, that PR stunt inside and outside Holyrood this week was definitely the launch of her preferred successor Angus Robertson's leadership campaign. They also needed a diversion from Angus Robertson's shambolic management of the Scottish Census, the Patrick Grady finding and of course the latest bad news trickling out of committee on the ferries scandal all week.
While the promise of a wildcat Indy Referendum next year might keep the SNP/Yes base happy for a while, the main opposition parties will simple boycott it. Nicola Sturgeon would have to be desperate to plan to preside over such a shambolic circus as it would definitely end up in the courts while causing yet more division among Scots, especially if she is planning to export her 'civic nationalism' onto the world stage post Holyrood. Remember this is the SNP who cannot even manage a census or build a couple of ferries without lengthy delays and going massively over budget. But don't be surprised if Peter Murrell was to cynically launch a 'new Indy Referendum' fundraiser...
The SNP which can electrify railways and build major bridges withouyt going over budget? In contrast to you know who ...
I thought Sturgeon's reaction to the "what first - ferries or a referendum?" was telling - she knows it (and similar stuff) will cause issues.
The Census is interesting for another reason - if some of the low turnout is attributed to Unionist boycott, then Scotland will find itself in all sorts of trouble going forward. Including in trying to hold a referendum.
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
So long as Mike Yarwood doesn't get back on TV, I'm cool. (Yes. He's still alive).
Indeed. Slightly sad pic
That care home must be an interesting one to work at.
I liked Mike Yarwood.
Another person whose career was destroyed by Thatcher.
Ŧhe Genius that was Bob Monkhouse brought Mike Yarwood on for both's last gig. Bob knew he had months left at best. And gave time to Mike Yarwood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
Bah. Came close with my Alonso bet. Absolutely no idea what Russell thought he was doing
Fair play to Russell for trying something different. He could have been the hero today, but it was the wrong call.
All the potentials there. Would have beaten Hamilton I reckon - but every now and then you can see the immaturity. He’ll do well tomorrow though I reckon
Interesting. I picked up a paper copy of the Times for free at de airport dis mornin an it said, phatboi tried to give Ilse Koch a job as chief of staff at the FO while he was FS, without disclosing they was in lurve. apparently story has now vanished from Times online.
Makes ya fink.
I posted that earlier. Bonzo is corrupt shock.
Also- point of order. Don't have an affair at work. Never ends well. (I've not done it, but have consoled its victims...)
So long as Mike Yarwood doesn't get back on TV, I'm cool. (Yes. He's still alive).
Indeed. Slightly sad pic
That care home must be an interesting one to work at.
I liked Mike Yarwood.
Another person whose career was destroyed by Thatcher.
Ŧhe Genius that was Bob Monkhouse brought Mike Yarwood on for both's last gig. Bob knew he had months left at best. And gave time to Mike Yarwood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
Damn you! It’s 1:30am now, and thanks to that post I’m not getting to bed before 2:30.
Will confess to having broken off a successful diet with a few beers tonight. Been on a couple of decent walks over the last few days. Today was going to find the Bridge of Alvah. Successful, with a nice meander down dashed on the map in reality a farm track route back to the car.
A track that led me through the middle of Macduff Distillery. The right to roam is important in Scotland.
The weather? 20c and either sunny or muggy. But not silly warm like in London. Or my FIL in the hills above Alicante where its been 43 in the shade.
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
Loads of retail investors will start complaining that the financial authorities didn't warn them that could lose the lot?
The worry is more that people with leveraged positions have to start offloading proper assets to meet margin calls...
Scale matters for that though. If a few people have to do that it's a problem for them. It only becomes a problem for everyone else if the numbers are large, or involve institutions that drags in people who weren't directly involved.
I have no idea what the exposure is, but I would be surprised if it was comparable to the sub-prime crisis.
It will be interesting to see if Tesla have liquidated their position, or not. Neither thing is likely to be positive for crypto…
The only people I know who still have Bitcoins, are Russians that had their bank accounts shut down by Putin. The exchanges have very little liquidity to actually turn BTC into Greenbacks.
So long as Mike Yarwood doesn't get back on TV, I'm cool. (Yes. He's still alive).
Indeed. Slightly sad pic
That care home must be an interesting one to work at.
I liked Mike Yarwood.
Another person whose career was destroyed by Thatcher.
Ŧhe Genius that was Bob Monkhouse brought Mike Yarwood on for both's last gig. Bob knew he had months left at best. And gave time to Mike Yarwood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
Damn you! It’s 1:30am now, and thanks to that post I’m not getting to bed before 2:30.
I promise you it is worth your time. Bob was a genius, and that last gig was bitter-sweet
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
I always roll my eyes when I hear that human rights can be protected through domestic legislation. Any democratically elected government with a majority in the house of commons would come under irresistible pressure to remove minority rights that are unpopular or politically inconvenient at any point in time. It is clear to me that leaving the ECHR is the end of human rights, as we know them. We'd end up with a malleable, ever changing set of rights that follow changing public whims. Some people may want this, which is a view I respect; but the idea that human rights are safe if we leave the ECHR is complete nonsense.
I don't agree:
- many democracies manage to protect human rights without being members of the ECHR. - we somehow had human rights before we joined. - many of the recent improvements in human rights did not come from the ECHR, but from our democratically elected government, sometimes acting with popular opinion, sometimes (e.g. abolition of the death penalty, legalisation of homosexuality, gay marriage) against it.
Pressure must be considerable on Sturgeon, though. Unless she wants to head off into the sunset
The Sunday newspapers must be grim if Nicola Sturgeon is throwing a wildcat Indy Referendum on the table on a Saturday night. I have no doubt that Autumn 2023 is her planned exit date, that PR stunt inside and outside Holyrood this week was definitely the launch of her preferred successor Angus Robertson's leadership campaign. They also needed a diversion from Angus Robertson's shambolic management of the Scottish Census, the Patrick Grady finding and of course the latest bad news trickling out of committee on the ferries scandal all week.
While the promise of a wildcat Indy Referendum next year might keep the SNP/Yes base happy for a while, the main opposition parties will simple boycott it. Nicola Sturgeon would have to be desperate to plan to preside over such a shambolic circus as it would definitely end up in the courts while causing yet more division among Scots, especially if she is planning to export her 'civic nationalism' onto the world stage post Holyrood. Remember this is the SNP who cannot even manage a census or build a couple of ferries without lengthy delays and going massively over budget. But don't be surprised if Peter Murrell was to cynically launch a 'new Indy Referendum' fundraiser...
The SNP which can electrify railways and build major bridges withouyt going over budget? In contrast to you know who ...
I thought Sturgeon's reaction to the "what first - ferries or a referendum?" was telling - she knows it (and similar stuff) will cause issues.
The Census is interesting for another reason - if some of the low turnout is attributed to Unionist boycott, then Scotland will find itself in all sorts of trouble going forward. Including in trying to hold a referendum.
Have a word, dude. Census completion is mandatory, you think people are choosing to risk a hefty fine to make an anti-SNP political point?
So long as Mike Yarwood doesn't get back on TV, I'm cool. (Yes. He's still alive).
Indeed. Slightly sad pic
That care home must be an interesting one to work at.
I liked Mike Yarwood.
Another person whose career was destroyed by Thatcher.
Ŧhe Genius that was Bob Monkhouse brought Mike Yarwood on for both's last gig. Bob knew he had months left at best. And gave time to Mike Yarwood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
Damn you! It’s 1:30am now, and thanks to that post I’m not getting to bed before 2:30.
I promise you it is worth your time. Bob was a genius, and that last gig was bitter-sweet
I remember watching An Audience With Bob, where he spent 20 minutes making jokes to link the names of members of the audience as he looked around. A genius indeed.
Interesting. I picked up a paper copy of the Times for free at de airport dis mornin an it said, phatboi tried to give Ilse Koch a job as chief of staff at the FO while he was FS, without disclosing they was in lurve. apparently story has now vanished from Times online.
Makes ya fink.
I posted that earlier. Bonzo is corrupt shock.
Also- point of order. Don't have an affair at work. Never ends well. (I've not done it, but have consoled its victims...)
Even by phatboi standards this is outrageous. The disappearance of the story even more so because it means he has got yet another super-injunction like the one about his third love child and the other one about shagging Russian violinists. And lots of others we don't know about.
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
I always roll my eyes when I hear that human rights can be protected through domestic legislation. Any democratically elected government with a majority in the house of commons would come under irresistible pressure to remove minority rights that are unpopular or politically inconvenient at any point in time. It is clear to me that leaving the ECHR is the end of human rights, as we know them. We'd end up with a malleable, ever changing set of rights that follow changing public whims. Some people may want this, which is a view I respect; but the idea that human rights are safe if we leave the ECHR is complete nonsense.
I don't agree:
- many democracies manage to protect human rights without being members of the ECHR. - we somehow had human rights before we joined. - many of the recent improvements in human rights did not come from the ECHR, but from our democratically elected government, sometimes acting with popular opinion, sometimes (e.g. abolition of the death penalty, legalisation of homosexuality, gay marriage) against it.
Any evidence that public opinion was against same-sex marriage?
Interesting. I picked up a paper copy of the Times for free at de airport dis mornin an it said, phatboi tried to give Ilse Koch a job as chief of staff at the FO while he was FS, without disclosing they was in lurve. apparently story has now vanished from Times online.
Makes ya fink.
I posted that earlier. Bonzo is corrupt shock.
Also- point of order. Don't have an affair at work. Never ends well. (I've not done it, but have consoled its victims...)
Even by phatboi standards this is outrageous. The disappearance of the story even more so because it means he has got yet another super-injunction like the one about his third love child and the other one about shagging Russian violinists. And lots of others we don't know about.
It was reported on the BBC this morning. I don’t see how an injunction could possibly be granted to pull such a story.
Interesting. I picked up a paper copy of the Times for free at de airport dis mornin an it said, phatboi tried to give Ilse Koch a job as chief of staff at the FO while he was FS, without disclosing they was in lurve. apparently story has now vanished from Times online.
Makes ya fink.
I posted that earlier. Bonzo is corrupt shock.
Also- point of order. Don't have an affair at work. Never ends well. (I've not done it, but have consoled its victims...)
Even by phatboi standards this is outrageous. The disappearance of the story even more so because it means he has got yet another super-injunction like the one about his third love child and the other one about shagging Russian violinists. And lots of others we don't know about.
It was reported on the BBC this morning. I don’t see how an injunction could possibly be granted to pull such a story.
MP Nick Fletcher schools letter says trans 'nothing more than a phase'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61842311 A Conservative MP has sent a letter describing children's gender identity doubts as "nothing more than a phase" to every school in his constituency. Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley, South Yorkshire, said he wanted to "clearly set out his position" on the issue and asked head teachers to do the same. His letter states that "boys are boys and girls are girls", and the media glamorises a "transgender lifestyle". One school said the letter was "neither helpful nor positively received". It was also criticised by councillors and the former boss of an LGBTQ+ youth charity, who said the comments "deny the existence" of transgender teens and could harm their mental health. The BBC has approached Mr Fletcher for comment. His letter asks schools to confirm their position on the matter …
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
I always roll my eyes when I hear that human rights can be protected through domestic legislation. Any democratically elected government with a majority in the house of commons would come under irresistible pressure to remove minority rights that are unpopular or politically inconvenient at any point in time. It is clear to me that leaving the ECHR is the end of human rights, as we know them. We'd end up with a malleable, ever changing set of rights that follow changing public whims. Some people may want this, which is a view I respect; but the idea that human rights are safe if we leave the ECHR is complete nonsense.
Absolutely I want that, democracy is the best check on Governments that the world has ever seen. It is not perfect, but it is better than every alternative humanity has ever tried. And actually under democracy minority rights have evolved to be protected, democratically.
The ECHR is not the end of human rights, but it might be the end of democracy if we're not careful. The people putting the ECHR on a pedestal have it entirely backwards, the ECHR as Churchill's day originally designed, a pledge of rights to be backed up by Parliament, was a great idea. The monstrosity it has evolved into today, where rights are supposedly backed up by the Council of Europe, an institution so corrupt, so malign, that it makes the European Union look angelic - is beyond pathetic.
Let us not forget that the Council of Europe deemed Vladimir Putin's Russia to be in good standing until February of this year. This is the Russia where the free press have been destroyed, elections are a sham, opposition politicians are routinely arrested or poisoned, and anyone inconvenient tends to literally be defenestrated. And I do mean literally, literally. The Council of Europe temporarily pulled Russia's voting rights after the invasion of Crimea (human rights concerns should have been flashing red long before then) but then Russia threatened to pull funding from the Council, so they were restored.
That is the institution you wish to 'protect' your rights? An institution that not only gave a cloak of credibility to claim Vladimir Putin's Russia has good human rights, but then bent over backwards to keep receiving his money?
There has never in the history of humanity been a better check on power than democracy. All other institutions, like the ECHR, inevitably get corrupted and the Council of Europe failed in its duties many years ago. We would be well shot of it.
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
Loads of retail investors will start complaining that the financial authorities didn't warn them that could lose the lot?
The worry is more that people with leveraged positions have to start offloading proper assets to meet margin calls...
Scale matters for that though. If a few people have to do that it's a problem for them. It only becomes a problem for everyone else if the numbers are large, or involve institutions that drags in people who weren't directly involved.
I have no idea what the exposure is, but I would be surprised if it was comparable to the sub-prime crisis.
Sub prime had a mountain of wholesale derivatives hanging off it - so every dollar of default mapped to many many dollars of risk on many many balance sheets. Don't think that's the so much the case with crypto.
Interesting. I picked up a paper copy of the Times for free at de airport dis mornin an it said, phatboi tried to give Ilse Koch a job as chief of staff at the FO while he was FS, without disclosing they was in lurve. apparently story has now vanished from Times online.
Makes ya fink.
I posted that earlier. Bonzo is corrupt shock.
Also- point of order. Don't have an affair at work. Never ends well. (I've not done it, but have consoled its victims...)
Even by phatboi standards this is outrageous. The disappearance of the story even more so because it means he has got yet another super-injunction like the one about his third love child and the other one about shagging Russian violinists. And lots of others we don't know about.
It was reported on the BBC this morning. I don’t see how an injunction could possibly be granted to pull such a story.
Where's the privacy angle? I don't get it.
There isn’t one. As reported, it was multiple sourced, and concerns conduct in a public office.
Jesus did Bart call Johnson a man of principle, the man who wrote two columns on Brexit and decided at the last minute
QTWAIN.
I said that Starmer has no more principles than Johnson. That was a comment on Starmer, not praise for Johnson.
Bart we both know this is nonsense.
No, we don't. Your beloved Starmer was willing to serve in Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, while everyone decent quit it, in order to further his own career. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer was willing to be elected in 2017 saying that Brexit must happen and there'll be no second referendum, then once elected did everything he could to prevent Brexit while saying there must be a second referendum and Labour must campaign for remain. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer was willing to campaign in 2020 saying he would "unite" the Labour Party and continue with Corbynite policies, only to jettison them and expel Corbyn as soon as it was convenient in order to further his sole agenda which is to become PM. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer is Labour's answer to Boris Johnson, but better dress sense and less charisma. He has no more principles than Boris, he'll say anything, do anything, and screw over anyone in order to become PM. He hasn't got an iota of principle or integrity beyond that, just like Boris.
Mystery surrounds Times exclusive claiming Boris Johnson wanted to give Carrie Symonds a £100,000 role Why did one of the scoops of the year suddenly disappear from newspapers friendly to the prime minister?
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-wanted-to-give-carrie-symonds-a-100000-downing-street-role/ … Walters quoted one of Johnson’s senior foreign office staffers as saying: “An illicit relationship with Carrie was none of our business. Making her chief of staff was definitely our business. Our job was to protect him and we knew what was going on between them, and it would have been an insane risk to let him do it.” Another staffer was quoted as saying that, apart from anything else, Symonds was “relatively inexperienced” and the feeling was she wasn’t the “right person” for the job.
Walters stated that three of Johnson’s aides – including Ben Gascoigne, now one of his deputy chiefs of staffs and a friend of Wheeler, threatened to resign over the proposed appointment. Walters got the story into the Times on page five. MailOnline, conscious that they couldn’t ignore such a big story once it was out in the public domain, duly followed it up.…
Jesus did Bart call Johnson a man of principle, the man who wrote two columns on Brexit and decided at the last minute
QTWAIN.
I said that Starmer has no more principles than Johnson. That was a comment on Starmer, not praise for Johnson.
Bart we both know this is nonsense.
No, we don't. Your beloved Starmer was willing to serve in Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, while everyone decent quit it, in order to further his own career. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer was willing to be elected in 2017 saying that Brexit must happen and there'll be no second referendum, then once elected did everything he could to prevent Brexit while saying there must be a second referendum and Labour must campaign for remain. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer was willing to campaign in 2020 saying he would "unite" the Labour Party and continue with Corbynite policies, only to jettison them and expel Corbyn as soon as it was convenient in order to further his sole agenda which is to become PM. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer is Labour's answer to Boris Johnson, but better dress sense and less charisma. He has no more principles than Boris, he'll say anything, do anything, and screw over anyone in order to become PM. He hasn't got an iota of principle or integrity beyond that, just like Boris.
No we had our Johnson, that was Jeremy Corbyn.
You know deep down Starmer has more principles and integrity than Johnson. I don't know why you don't just admit it.
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
I always roll my eyes when I hear that human rights can be protected through domestic legislation. Any democratically elected government with a majority in the house of commons would come under irresistible pressure to remove minority rights that are unpopular or politically inconvenient at any point in time. It is clear to me that leaving the ECHR is the end of human rights, as we know them. We'd end up with a malleable, ever changing set of rights that follow changing public whims. Some people may want this, which is a view I respect; but the idea that human rights are safe if we leave the ECHR is complete nonsense.
If a future democratically elected government can just leave the ECHR with no consequences, and if continued membership of the ECHR is what's protecting human rights, then human rights aren't "safe" in any meaning of the word that matters.
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
Comments
The Russian Freedom Legion has more than 400 Russian fighters fighting for Ukraine.
https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008891038.html
51.6 v 48.4 in 1979
51.9 v 48.1 in 2016.
I've bet on SindyRef2 before 2025 and I'm certainly not writing it off yet.
https://twitter.com/mariamposts/status/1538225195453915136
Today was the funeral of the Ukrainian activist Roman Ratushny. Russians killed him. To honor him and thousands of other Ukrainians, I want to talk about my generation—a thread about the first generation of independent Ukraine…
In any event, whatever the outcome, at a fundamental level the contrast between Johnson and Starmer couldn't be more striking.
The SNP should just be grateful this Tory UK government has not yet followed their conservative PP cousins when they were in government in Spain in 2017, when not only did they urge unionists to ignore the unofficial independence referendum held by the Catalan Nationalist government and ignored the result but imposed temporary direct rule on Catalonia and via the Spanish courts ordered the arrest of Nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing them into exile
We'd have a frost.
...but thankfully we've both caught covid so had to bail out.
Every cloud, eh?
Not that I inherently care but this will shirley have spillover effects?
The real problem comes when Tether falls over, which has been predicted for weeks but still not happened. The real clothing of the Emperor is slowly being revealed.
End of days colours blazing the skies.
Betting orchid is a bit trippy.
Yet when there is one in Scotland, it doesn't count?
I have no idea what the exposure is, but I would be surprised if it was comparable to the sub-prime crisis.
It would be a terrible tragedy if they all went bust. Think of all the casualties it might cause as we all died laughing.
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anonymous-strasbourg-judge-uk-courts-comment-rwanda-flights-vvszw86z0
A different referendum under the current conditions is a different matter.
"We don't molest as many people as the Tory MPs do"
and
"We don't molest people full stop".
Vettel - eliminated in R1.
Alonso - second!
The UK government however will respect it and thus refuse to allow an official indyref2 for at least a generation since 2014 and ignore the result of any unofficial indyref
Keep on chipping away at that metropolitan elite, m'lord, you'll bring'em down one day!
While the promise of a wildcat Indy Referendum next year might keep the SNP/Yes base happy for a while, the main opposition parties will simple boycott it. Nicola Sturgeon would have to be desperate to plan to preside over such a shambolic circus as it would definitely end up in the courts while causing yet more division among Scots, especially if she is planning to export her 'civic nationalism' onto the world stage post Holyrood. Remember this is the SNP who cannot even manage a census or build a couple of ferries without lengthy delays and going massively over budget. But don't be surprised if Peter Murrell was to cynically launch a 'new Indy Referendum' fundraiser...
Interesting. I picked up a paper copy of the Times for free at de airport dis mornin an it said, phatboi tried to give
Ilse Koch a job as chief of staff at the FO while he was FS, without disclosing they was in lurve. apparently story has now vanished from Times online.
Makes ya fink.
...waits for the first council to fess up that they've put their reserves into bitcoin.
Neither thing is likely to be positive for crypto…
Asking for a second referendum is, absolutely fundamentally, the opposite.
Especially after several general elections since 2014.
The Census is interesting for another reason - if some of the low turnout is attributed to Unionist boycott, then Scotland will find itself in all sorts of trouble going forward. Including in trying to hold a referendum.
Well, it's gone dark now and I am still alive so I think it was a natural event.
I’m afraid I’m anti, rather than conSumption on that.
Also- point of order. Don't have an affair at work. Never ends well. (I've not done it, but have consoled its victims...)
A track that led me through the middle of Macduff Distillery. The right to roam is important in Scotland.
The weather? 20c and either sunny or muggy. But not silly warm like in London. Or my FIL in the hills above Alicante where its been 43 in the shade.
I said that Starmer has no more principles than Johnson. That was a comment on Starmer, not praise for Johnson.
- many democracies manage to protect human rights without being members of the ECHR.
- we somehow had human rights before we joined.
- many of the recent improvements in human rights did not come from the ECHR, but from our democratically elected government, sometimes acting with popular opinion, sometimes (e.g. abolition of the death penalty, legalisation of homosexuality, gay marriage) against it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_opinion
I don’t see how an injunction could possibly be granted to pull such a story.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61842311
A Conservative MP has sent a letter describing children's gender identity doubts as "nothing more than a phase" to every school in his constituency.
Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley, South Yorkshire, said he wanted to "clearly set out his position" on the issue and asked head teachers to do the same.
His letter states that "boys are boys and girls are girls", and the media glamorises a "transgender lifestyle".
One school said the letter was "neither helpful nor positively received".
It was also criticised by councillors and the former boss of an LGBTQ+ youth charity, who said the comments "deny the existence" of transgender teens and could harm their mental health.
The BBC has approached Mr Fletcher for comment.
His letter asks schools to confirm their position on the matter …
The ECHR is not the end of human rights, but it might be the end of democracy if we're not careful. The people putting the ECHR on a pedestal have it entirely backwards, the ECHR as Churchill's day originally designed, a pledge of rights to be backed up by Parliament, was a great idea. The monstrosity it has evolved into today, where rights are supposedly backed up by the Council of Europe, an institution so corrupt, so malign, that it makes the European Union look angelic - is beyond pathetic.
Let us not forget that the Council of Europe deemed Vladimir Putin's Russia to be in good standing until February of this year. This is the Russia where the free press have been destroyed, elections are a sham, opposition politicians are routinely arrested or poisoned, and anyone inconvenient tends to literally be defenestrated. And I do mean literally, literally. The Council of Europe temporarily pulled Russia's voting rights after the invasion of Crimea (human rights concerns should have been flashing red long before then) but then Russia threatened to pull funding from the Council, so they were restored.
That is the institution you wish to 'protect' your rights? An institution that not only gave a cloak of credibility to claim Vladimir Putin's Russia has good human rights, but then bent over backwards to keep receiving his money?
There has never in the history of humanity been a better check on power than democracy. All other institutions, like the ECHR, inevitably get corrupted and the Council of Europe failed in its duties many years ago. We would be well shot of it.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
As reported, it was multiple sourced, and concerns conduct in a public office.
Starmer was willing to be elected in 2017 saying that Brexit must happen and there'll be no second referendum, then once elected did everything he could to prevent Brexit while saying there must be a second referendum and Labour must campaign for remain. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer was willing to campaign in 2020 saying he would "unite" the Labour Party and continue with Corbynite policies, only to jettison them and expel Corbyn as soon as it was convenient in order to further his sole agenda which is to become PM. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer is Labour's answer to Boris Johnson, but better dress sense and less charisma. He has no more principles than Boris, he'll say anything, do anything, and screw over anyone in order to become PM. He hasn't got an iota of principle or integrity beyond that, just like Boris.
Why did one of the scoops of the year suddenly disappear from newspapers friendly to the prime minister?
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-wanted-to-give-carrie-symonds-a-100000-downing-street-role/
… Walters quoted one of Johnson’s senior foreign office staffers as saying: “An illicit relationship with Carrie was none of our business. Making her chief of staff was definitely our business. Our job was to protect him and we knew what was going on between them, and it would have been an insane risk to let him do it.” Another staffer was quoted as saying that, apart from anything else, Symonds was “relatively inexperienced” and the feeling was she wasn’t the “right person” for the job.
Walters stated that three of Johnson’s aides – including Ben Gascoigne, now one of his deputy chiefs of staffs and a friend of Wheeler, threatened to resign over the proposed appointment. Walters got the story into the Times on page five. MailOnline, conscious that they couldn’t ignore such a big story once it was out in the public domain, duly followed it up.…
You know deep down Starmer has more principles and integrity than Johnson. I don't know why you don't just admit it.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.