What happens if a non SNP run council refuses to take part in a Section 30 less plebiscite?
Some interesting issues there. Not least that if a Tory council refuses to take part it will mean that the Unionist majority there is not counted at all.
Hopefully no Unionist voters will take part at all. I expect Boris to tell all Unionist voters to boycott this SNP propaganda exercise the result of which he would completely ignore
Why is it any of your business whether the people of Scotland decide to become Independent or otherwise?
A vote for YES would plunge Scotland into economic depression, and rUK into a very deep recession, and hurl the £ into a tailspin from which it would take years to recover, sending inflation surging. IScotland might well require an instant bailout from the Bank of England, ie rUK taxpayers
That is just one reason why this shit matters to all Britons, and why the right to hold referendums is correctly reserved to the British parliament
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
No it didn't, 62% voted Remain in Scotland yet the latest Mori poll on independence has Yes on 45%, exactly the same as 2014.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
None of HY’s views reflect any reality! Not on this Earth, anyhow.
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014 [snip]
If the EU referendum had gone the other way, Nicola would have had a much stronger argument: "Now we know that the rest of the UK is going to remain in the EU, the issue of a potential hard border at Gretna Green goes away."
The biggest change since 2014, is that the border between Scotland and England is very much an issue, should Scotland wish to join the EU.
Given the wayin which Labour and the Tories were insisting on a Inner British Border with minefields and automatic machine-guns behind the barbed wire, that is hardly novel. As well as the insistence that Scotland woiuld not be in the EU anyway after independence.
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014 [snip]
If the EU referendum had gone the other way, Nicola would have had a much stronger argument: "Now we know that the rest of the UK is going to remain in the EU, the issue of a potential hard border at Gretna Green goes away."
The biggest change since 2014, is that the border between Scotland and England is very much an issue, should Scotland wish to join the EU.
Indeed, and it's an absolute humdinger of an issue. I really don't see how they would deal with it, if they really want to apply to join the EU. It would make all the problems of Brexit look trivial in comparison.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
Yet the vote for YES in 2014 was a vote for instant Scexit. Didn’t seem to bother the Nats then
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014
All of the UK voted to leave the EU because we voted as one sovereign country. That same country will decide if and when a part of it gets to vote on secession
"instant scexit"
No, it wasn't - the time to leave the UK would be used to open entry into thje EU.
In any case, ytour lot won both - and must take the consequences. "Waah, this is crap, it's all the fault of the remainers!"
The UK would have had a veto in the EU so it wouldn't have been possible to do any of that without the acquiescence of London.
What happens if a non SNP run council refuses to take part in a Section 30 less plebiscite?
Some interesting issues there. Not least that if a Tory council refuses to take part it will mean that the Unionist majority there is not counted at all.
Hopefully no Unionist voters will take part at all. I expect Boris to tell all Unionist voters to boycott this SNP propaganda exercise the result of which he would completely ignore
Why is it any of your business whether the people of Scotland decide to become Independent or otherwise?
A vote for YES would plunge Scotland into economic depression, and rUK into a very deep recession, and hurl the £ into a tailspin from which it would take years to recover, sending inflation surging. IScotland might well require an instant bailout from the Bank of England, ie rUK taxpayers
That is just one reason why this shit matters to all Britons, and why the right to hold referendums is correctly reserved to the British parliament
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
Yet the vote for YES in 2014 was a vote for instant Scexit. Didn’t seem to bother the Nats then
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014
All of the UK voted to leave the EU because we voted as one sovereign country. That same country will decide if and when a part of it gets to vote on secession
The Nats will always be arguing for Sindy, yes. That's obvious. However if SindyRef2 happens soon and it's No again, that will in practice be the end of it as a serious prospect for a long time. That's equally obvious. Why? Because the SNP would not be able to win again in the short or medium term on a platform of Ref3. They'd have to back-burner it and play the (very) long game.
Bottom line is the Scots won't keep voting for Sindy Refs only to vote No to it. Makes no sense. These Refs are draining divisive events. I mean, would we have kept electing governments to hold Brexit referendums and then kept voting Remain? Hardly. Same with them.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Actually, on this point Boris is absolutely correct. The manifesto promise was inflation plus 0.5%, but no-one expected inflation to be spiking (hopefully temporarily, but who knows?) at 10% or even more, so they can genuinely cite a very material change of circumstances. In any case, they'd have trouble increasing defence spending that fast.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
No it didn't, 62% voted Remain in Scotland yet the latest Mori poll on independence has Yes on 45%, exactly the same as 2014.
What happens if a non SNP run council refuses to take part in a Section 30 less plebiscite?
Some interesting issues there. Not least that if a Tory council refuses to take part it will mean that the Unionist majority there is not counted at all.
Hopefully no Unionist voters will take part at all. I expect Boris to tell all Unionist voters to boycott this SNP propaganda exercise the result of which he would completely ignore
Why is it any of your business whether the people of Scotland decide to become Independent or otherwise?
A vote for YES would plunge Scotland into economic depression, and rUK into a very deep recession, and hurl the £ into a tailspin from which it would take years to recover, sending inflation surging. IScotland might well require an instant bailout from the Bank of England, ie rUK taxpayers
That is just one reason why this shit matters to all Britons, and why the right to hold referendums is correctly reserved to the British parliament
I seem to recall some of the more loony toon Brexiteers (not an insignificant section) were predicting Brexit would be a hugely grievous blow to the EU from which they'd be reeling for decades. On that basis do you think the EU should have had oversight over whether the UK should have been 'allowed' a referendum?
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Actually, on this point Boris is absolutely correct. The manifesto promise was inflation plus 0.5%, but no-one expected inflation to be spiking (hopefully temporarily, but who knows?) at 10% or even more, so they can genuinely cite a very material change of circumstances. In any case, they'd have trouble increasing defence spending that fast.
The Graun report which I cited below seems to suggest some disagreewment nevertheless on what figure to settle for, which is quite normal in normal times, but a bit surprising in the circs (and Mr J's professions at thwe weekend) unless Mr J is desperate to stop Mr Sunak from jacking it in.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Actually, on this point Boris is absolutely correct. The manifesto promise was inflation plus 0.5%, but no-one expected inflation to be spiking (hopefully temporarily, but who knows?) at 10% or even more, so they can genuinely cite a very material change of circumstances. In any case, they'd have trouble increasing defence spending that fast.
If inflation is 10% then everything they were planning to buy this year is already up in price by that figure roughly presumably. So no increase in velocity of spend is needed surely?
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Maybe the MOD could spend it's money better.
Ukraine with $5.4B seems to be giving $65.9B Russia a run for it's money. The UK is at $68.4B, so we should be able to whup the Russians all the way back to Moscow with that.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Actually, on this point Boris is absolutely correct. The manifesto promise was inflation plus 0.5%, but no-one expected inflation to be spiking (hopefully temporarily, but who knows?) at 10% or even more, so they can genuinely cite a very material change of circumstances. In any case, they'd have trouble increasing defence spending that fast.
If inflation is 10% then everything they were planning to buy this year is already up in price by that figure roughly presumably. So no increase in velocity of spend is needed surely?
No, I don't think that consumer price inflation is a good measure for defence-spending inflation.
What happens if a non SNP run council refuses to take part in a Section 30 less plebiscite?
Some interesting issues there. Not least that if a Tory council refuses to take part it will mean that the Unionist majority there is not counted at all.
Hopefully no Unionist voters will take part at all. I expect Boris to tell all Unionist voters to boycott this SNP propaganda exercise the result of which he would completely ignore
Why is it any of your business whether the people of Scotland decide to become Independent or otherwise?
A vote for YES would plunge Scotland into economic depression, and rUK into a very deep recession, and hurl the £ into a tailspin from which it would take years to recover, sending inflation surging. IScotland might well require an instant bailout from the Bank of England, ie rUK taxpayers
That is just one reason why this shit matters to all Britons, and why the right to hold referendums is correctly reserved to the British parliament
I seem to recall some of the more loony toon Brexiteers (not an insignificant section) were predicting Brexit would be a hugely grievous blow to the EU from which they'd be reeling for decades. On that basis do you think the EU should have had oversight over whether the UK should have been 'allowed' a referendum?
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
No it didn't, 62% voted Remain in Scotland yet the latest Mori poll on independence has Yes on 45%, exactly the same as 2014.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Maybe the MOD could spend it's money better.
Ukraine with $5.4B seems to be giving $65.9B Russia a run for it's money. The UK is at $68.4B, so we should be able to whup the Russians all the way back to Moscow with that.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Actually, on this point Boris is absolutely correct. The manifesto promise was inflation plus 0.5%, but no-one expected inflation to be spiking (hopefully temporarily, but who knows?) at 10% or even more, so they can genuinely cite a very material change of circumstances. In any case, they'd have trouble increasing defence spending that fast.
Depends how closely MODflation tracks general inflation. Does military spending need to rise by 10 per cent or so just to stand still?
The bigger issue is that, if we want to spend more on the military, where's the money coming from? The sums wouldn't half be easier if GDP were larger.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Maybe the MOD could spend it's money better.
Ukraine with $5.4B seems to be giving $65.9B Russia a run for it's money. The UK is at $68.4B, so we should be able to whup the Russians all the way back to Moscow with that.
Its!
We've allegedly Brexited.
We're getting the greengrocer's apostrophe together with pounds and shillings and ounces.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was clarifying his position not stating my own
Independent life has a couple of counterarguments. For starters a newborn isn't capable of Independent life from its mother except by virtue of ad hoc wet nursing arrangements or the modern invention of artificial baby milk.
Interesting to think if we were marsupial where the cut off point would be
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Whose ?
The foetus' ?
Gets more interesting when you consider the placenta. Surely part of the woman's body, but rather important to the foetus.
Wasn't there a push a few years ago to change the terms of the abortion laws - time limits or some such?
It got nowhere after some debate iirc?
I think abortion for non medical reasons should be very very strongly discouraged. Made illegal ? That's a different matter. Britain frankly needs more kids - the current system of freebies for the old and debt for the young isn't going to help that.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Maybe the MOD could spend it's money better.
Ukraine with $5.4B seems to be giving $65.9B Russia a run for it's money. The UK is at $68.4B, so we should be able to whup the Russians all the way back to Moscow with that.
The Russian defence budget is employing lots of Russians. The UK defence budget is employing a lot of much more expensive Westeners.
Oh, and there’s not much evidence for the output of the Russian budget, given they’re dragging T-62s out of storage to refight a war from six decades ago. Hello you old tank, meet the NLAWs
Of course, defence spending everywhere seems to be a merry-go-round of political back-scratching and job creation schemes. Governments need to start prioritising efficiency over the latest new something that’s a decade away and will be triple the budget. Current-gen tech is fine against a clearly inferior army, we just need lots more of it, and lots more men and women to operate it.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Maybe the MOD could spend it's money better.
Ukraine with $5.4B seems to be giving $65.9B Russia a run for it's money. The UK is at $68.4B, so we should be able to whup the Russians all the way back to Moscow with that.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Maybe the MOD could spend it's money better.
Ukraine with $5.4B seems to be giving $65.9B Russia a run for it's money. The UK is at $68.4B, so we should be able to whup the Russians all the way back to Moscow with that.
Its!
We've allegedly Brexited.
We're getting the greengrocer's apostrophe together with pounds and shillings and ounces.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Whose ?
The foetus' ?
Gets more interesting when you consider the placenta. Surely part of the woman's body, but rather important to the foetus.
Wasn't there a push a few years ago to change the terms of the abortion laws - time limits or some such?
It got nowhere after some debate iirc?
I think abortion for non medical reasons should be very very strongly discouraged. Made illegal ? That's a different matter. Britain frankly needs more kids - the current system of freebies for the old and debt for the young isn't going to help that.
The Catholic Church used to have a network of support centres and adoption agencies, set up to support single women through pregnancy, and let them decide whether to keep their child or not once it was born.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
No it didn't, 62% voted Remain in Scotland yet the latest Mori poll on independence has Yes on 45%, exactly the same as 2014.
We were talking about facts not opinions. That is your problem. You think your opinions are facts. Everyone else just thinks you are mad.
Those are facts.
If Brexit was a material change in circumstance then Yes would now be on 62% ie matching the percentage of Scots who voted Remain.
It isn't, it is on 45% ie the same as 2014
Nope. Material change does not necessarily relate to opinion polls. We have Brexited and the opinion polls on whether it was right or wrong are no different to the Remain/Leave polls for much of the time prior to the vote itself. What is undeniable is that there has been a material change in the status of people in Scotland with regard to the EU. Just as there has in the rest of the UK. A change that they were told - by the Government at the time - would not happen as long as they voted for remaining in the UK.
That is a material change. They are no longer EU citizens. Now that may not matter to you and for me it is a big bonus but I would never deny it is a material change. What its effects on polling are is immaterial in these terms. That is for a referendum to decide. But you want to deny the people that choice so that you can continue to misrepresent them.
I see that Mail is reporting that Johnson about to ditch manifesto promise to increase defence spending.
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Maybe the MOD could spend it's money better.
Ukraine with $5.4B seems to be giving $65.9B Russia a run for it's money. The UK is at $68.4B, so we should be able to whup the Russians all the way back to Moscow with that.
Its!
We've allegedly Brexited.
We're getting the greengrocer's apostrophe together with pounds and shillings and ounces.
Would the SNP like to tell the people of Scotland how much the annual fee for joining the EU will be?
And then, how they propose to pay for it?
(And if the answer is "by borrowing", how we will laugh...like there's going to be any more headroom for more borrowing.)
"It has been carefully costed, and as a result of prudent economic policy decisions made by the UK Conservative Government since 2010 we can afford to move forward with tackling the not insubstantial but nonetheless worthwhile costs of Scottish independence".
It's a similar load of old b******s to that Mr Sunak seems to get away with saying.
19th October 2023? I think that i am definitely washing my hair that day.
The first step of this nonsense will be for the Presiding Officer of the Parliament to certify whether the bill is competent or not. It is very clearly not. Whether politics will override law at that stage will have to be seen. If it is then passed it will be challenged in the SC and held to be incompetent. There will therefore be no basis on which it can be said to have legal effect and no basis on which local authorities can participate by spending taxpayers money on this.
In many ways I regret this. Salmond, with political genius, set up the best possible scenario in 2014 and still lost. The current mess is so far from ideal that Yes could lose really badly. And, as I have acknowledged before, I do accept that by a tiny margin the people of Scotland voted for parties committed to a second referendum. But, as a matter of law, it is just not going to happen.
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014 [snip]
If the EU referendum had gone the other way, Nicola would have had a much stronger argument: "Now we know that the rest of the UK is going to remain in the EU, the issue of a potential hard border at Gretna Green goes away."
The biggest change since 2014, is that the border between Scotland and England is very much an issue, should Scotland wish to join the EU.
Yes as I have mentioned before Remainders, Leavers, Pro Indy and Anti Indy will be doing absolute somersaults in contradicting themselves re the difficulties of a border between the UK and Scotland/Ireland
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
No it didn't, 62% voted Remain in Scotland yet the latest Mori poll on independence has Yes on 45%, exactly the same as 2014.
We were talking about facts not opinions. That is your problem. You think your opinions are facts. Everyone else just thinks you are mad.
Those are facts.
If Brexit was a material change in circumstance then Yes would now be on 62% ie matching the percentage of Scots who voted Remain.
It isn't, it is on 45% ie the same as 2014
Nope. Material change does not necessarily relate to opinion polls. We have Brexited and the opinion polls on whether it was right or wrong are no different to the Remain/Leave polls for much of the time prior to the vote itself. What is undeniable is that there has been a material change in the status of people in Scotland with regard to the EU. Just as there has in the rest of the UK. A change that they were told - by the Government at the time - would not happen as long as they voted for remaining in the UK.
That is a material change. They are no longer EU citizens. Now that may not matter to you and for me it is a big bonus but I would never deny it is a material change. What its effects on polling are is immaterial in these terms. That is for a referendum to decide. But you want to deny the people that choice so that you can continue to misrepresent them.
Even the EU Referendum result was irrelevant until Westminster had a majority to implement it in late 2019.
This UK government will refuse to grant an official referendum and ignore the result of any such SNP referendum. They can whinge, it makes no difference
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Would the SNP like to tell the people of Scotland how much the annual fee for joining the EU will be?
And then, how they propose to pay for it?
(And if the answer is "by borrowing", how we will laugh...like there's going to be any more headroom for more borrowing.)
You'ds be the first to complain if serious negotiations started to determine precisely that.
Why? It is the absolute pre-requirement to joining the EU. All I see is an SNP not serious about the fundamental questions an indy Scotland would face. You may not like somebody south of the border pointing that out. But better us than the Scottish voters, eh?
Perhaps you would like to tell us how much of the Scottish Govt. take from whisky would be paid to Brussels in joining fees? Half? Three quarters? All of it? The answer is, you haven't a clue - because the EU's answer will be "that depends..." That depends on a supplicant Scotland, that has got its independence on the back of pledges to rejoin the EU, hoping that Brussels looks favourably on their application to join. But Scotland would be in exactly the same position as David Cameron when trying to get his "renegotiation" taken seriously.
Simply put: the EU will screw every Euro it can out of an applicant Scotland. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a mug - a mug who is blind to modern history.
Almost everybody would consider terminating a baby the day before birth to be murder.
And the vast majority would not regard the moment of fertilization (or even at a point where no-one can know if fertilization has taken place) as murder.
I would regard anything in the first trimester as absolutely fine, and anything in the third to be highly suspect - simply because at that point, they have ceased being foetuses and are now pain-feeling, potentially viable babies.
The question then becomes where to draw the line. I personally would probably draw it slightly earlier than the UK does, but accept that there are many different views, and that my calculations are not necessarily going to be the same as someone else's.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was clarifying his position not stating my own
Independent life has a couple of counterarguments. For starters a newborn isn't capable of Independent life from its mother except by virtue of ad hoc wet nursing arrangements or the modern invention of artificial baby milk.
Interesting to think if we were marsupial where the cut off point would be
But that is why I added the caveat of medical intervention. If a baby can be successfully transferred from mother to incubator and develop to term even if outside its mother then I think at that point elective abortion should not be allowed. Up until then I think it is a valid choice.
If the mother doesn't want the child then it can be adopted. But termination for an unwanted child that can survive outside the mother should not be an option except in circumstances of medical emergency for the mother.
Again this is a personal view. I am not saying other views are 'wrong', just that I disagree with them.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
Let them have it.
And when they lose again hopefully this can be put to bed just like it was in Quebec after 1995.
That was 15 years after the 1980 Quebec referendum not just 9 years
Nothing had fundamentally changed in Canada between the first and second referendums. You can't say the same about the UK.
If it was raining one day the SNP would say it was a change of circumstances. Just same old Nationalist whinging and Westminster will correctly continue to ignore her
That view is delusional. Brexit changed things fundamentally. Even as someone who fully supports it I recognise that. Your inability to do so reflects your personal antipathy towards Scottish Independence rather than any reality.
No it didn't, 62% voted Remain in Scotland yet the latest Mori poll on independence has Yes on 45%, exactly the same as 2014.
We were talking about facts not opinions. That is your problem. You think your opinions are facts. Everyone else just thinks you are mad.
Those are facts.
If Brexit was a material change in circumstance then Yes would now be on 62% ie matching the percentage of Scots who voted Remain.
It isn't, it is on 45% ie the same as 2014
Nope. Material change does not necessarily relate to opinion polls. We have Brexited and the opinion polls on whether it was right or wrong are no different to the Remain/Leave polls for much of the time prior to the vote itself. What is undeniable is that there has been a material change in the status of people in Scotland with regard to the EU. Just as there has in the rest of the UK. A change that they were told - by the Government at the time - would not happen as long as they voted for remaining in the UK.
That is a material change. They are no longer EU citizens. Now that may not matter to you and for me it is a big bonus but I would never deny it is a material change. What its effects on polling are is immaterial in these terms. That is for a referendum to decide. But you want to deny the people that choice so that you can continue to misrepresent them.
I agree entirely and it will be interesting how this plays out and expect various legal challenges from Scots themselves
The effect on Scotland in terms of investment over the coming years is not going to be good and and if they vote yes the years of economic uncertainty for Scotland will make Brexit look like a walk in the park
I’ve just had exclusive sight of the Indyref2 question, which I can share with you. “Do you want to live in a separate country to @Leon and @HYUFD? Yes/No.” Should be a guaranteed Yes.
You know, if we simply put @Leon and @HYUFD on a small island together, we could single handedly kill of Scottish independence.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Whose ?
The foetus' ?
And here we get into the key debate - what to do about ownership apostrophes when the subject ends with an S
I hate foetus' but it is the convention in ancient history publications cos so many male names end in s, and it starts to look very messy (or essy) when you write about Elagabalus's obsession with Gannys's and Hierocles's and Zoticus's penises.
1) Does Holyrood have the power to hold referendums in general? If Yes goto 2) In No goto END-Bad)
2) Does a non-binding referendum mean that any actual change is guaranteed to take place If Yes goto 3) In No goto 4)
3) Really? Actually no you are right, it doesn't goto 4)
4)Is there any law that limits the topics a non-binding referendum the Scottish government calls can be on (Bearing in mind the result of the referendum doesn't actually change anything)? If Yes goto 5) If No got END-Good)
5) Are you able to actually point at in the law book? if Yes goto 6) No got END-Good)
6) Go on then, give us a link? If able to give link then goto END-Bad Otherwise got END-Good
END-Bad) Holyrood does not have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on Sindy END-Good) Holyrood can call a non binding advisory referendum on any topic it likes.
All referendums are non binding. The Brexit referendum was non binding.
Presume you mean, all UK referendums (or referenda IF you prefer) are non binding.
Ballot referendums in US states and other jurisdictions generally ARE binding, unless the law authorizing them provides otherwise.
For example, in 2012 the WA State legislature legalized gay marriage, but the opponents gathered required signatures to require a statewide vote on the measure, via Referendum 74.
The law was suspended UNTIL the results of the vote on R74 were certified - 54% of those who cast a voting on the measure voting to approve gay marriage.
This confirmed enactment of the new law. Whereas a majority to reject would have meant it was NOT enacted.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was clarifying his position not stating my own
Independent life has a couple of counterarguments. For starters a newborn isn't capable of Independent life from its mother except by virtue of ad hoc wet nursing arrangements or the modern invention of artificial baby milk.
Interesting to think if we were marsupial where the cut off point would be
But that is why I added the caveat of medical intervention. If a baby can be successfully transferred from mother to incubator and develop to term even if outside its mother then I think at that point elective abortion should not be allowed. Up until then I think it is a valid choice.
If the mother doesn't want the child then it can be adopted. But termination for an unwanted child that can survive outside the mother should not be an option except in circumstances of medical emergency for the mother.
Again this is a personal view. I am not saying other views are 'wrong', just that I disagree with them.
It would be great if so many warriors in the culture wars could show a similar level of humility.
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014 [snip]
If the EU referendum had gone the other way, Nicola would have had a much stronger argument: "Now we know that the rest of the UK is going to remain in the EU, the issue of a potential hard border at Gretna Green goes away."
The biggest change since 2014, is that the border between Scotland and England is very much an issue, should Scotland wish to join the EU.
Yes as I have mentioned before Remainders, Leavers, Pro Indy and Anti Indy will be doing absolute somersaults in contradicting themselves re the difficulties of a border between the UK and Scotland/Ireland
I have a half-formed thought that, if the UK and EU sides could come up with a pragmatic solution to the NI border, then a pragmatic solution could also be found to the England/Scotland border.
But, as we’ve seen in the past few years, pragmatic solutions are a prisoners’ dilemma.
The England/Scotland border is, physically, much simpler than the NI/RoI border. Not many roads actually cross it.
The pragmatic solution involves trusted traders, spot checks on approach roads, and intelligence-led policing of actual smuggling, but little in the way of physical border infrastructure except for ANPR cameras.
If the EU can do it right in NI, then they have a chance of persuading the Scottish that there doesn’t need to be a hard border between Carlisle and Gretna if they vote to leave. Sturgeon needs to be beating the EU into line to sort out the NI issue.
I’ve just had exclusive sight of the Indyref2 question, which I can share with you. “Do you want to live in a separate country to @Leon and @HYUFD? Yes/No.” Should be a guaranteed Yes.
You know, if we simply put @Leon and @HYUFD on a small island together, we could single handedly kill of Scottish independence.
And a glorious voyage of sexual discovery to boot!
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Re the philanthropic funds, if for example Melinda Gates, ex Mrs Bezos and Oprah Winfrey got together and set up a $3 billion foundation to cover travel, expenses etc for anyone needing an abortion in a state where it was banned, would these three potentially face charges in those states for enabling the abortions?
I’ve just had exclusive sight of the Indyref2 question, which I can share with you. “Do you want to live in a separate country to @Leon and @HYUFD? Yes/No.” Should be a guaranteed Yes.
You know, if we simply put @Leon and @HYUFD on a small island together, we could single handedly kill of Scottish independence.
But there are no small islands in GB. HYUFD has just told us that.
Would the SNP like to tell the people of Scotland how much the annual fee for joining the EU will be?
And then, how they propose to pay for it?
(And if the answer is "by borrowing", how we will laugh...like there's going to be any more headroom for more borrowing.)
You'ds be the first to complain if serious negotiations started to determine precisely that.
Why? It is the absolute pre-requirement to joining the EU. All I see is an SNP not serious about the fundamental questions an indy Scotland would face. You may not like somebody south of the border pointing that out. But better us than the Scottish voters, eh?
Perhaps you would like to tell us how much of the Scottish Govt. take from whisky would be paid to Brussels in joining fees? Half? Three quarters? All of it? The answer is, you haven't a clue - because the EU's answer will be "that depends..." That depends on a supplicant Scotland, that has got its independence on the back of pledges to rejoin the EU, hoping that Brussels looks favourably on their application to join. But Scotland would be in exactly the same position as David Cameron when trying to get his "renegotiation" taken seriously.
Simply put: the EU will screw every Euro it can out of an applicant Scotland. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a mug - a mug who is blind to modern history.
You're demanding the information while denying the SG the locus to get it at all. The concept of SG negotiating is *itself* otiose in your worldview. It's pointless to discuss further.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was clarifying his position not stating my own
Independent life has a couple of counterarguments. For starters a newborn isn't capable of Independent life from its mother except by virtue of ad hoc wet nursing arrangements or the modern invention of artificial baby milk.
Interesting to think if we were marsupial where the cut off point would be
But that is why I added the caveat of medical intervention. If a baby can be successfully transferred from mother to incubator and develop to term even if outside its mother then I think at that point elective abortion should not be allowed. Up until then I think it is a valid choice.
If the mother doesn't want the child then it can be adopted. But termination for an unwanted child that can survive outside the mother should not be an option except in circumstances of medical emergency for the mother.
Again this is a personal view. I am not saying other views are 'wrong', just that I disagree with them.
Agree, I think.
I am actually quite taken with my marsupial argument. Identify the stage of development at which if we were koalas we would do the womb to pouch thing and there's your answer
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014 [snip]
If the EU referendum had gone the other way, Nicola would have had a much stronger argument: "Now we know that the rest of the UK is going to remain in the EU, the issue of a potential hard border at Gretna Green goes away."
The biggest change since 2014, is that the border between Scotland and England is very much an issue, should Scotland wish to join the EU.
Yes as I have mentioned before Remainders, Leavers, Pro Indy and Anti Indy will be doing absolute somersaults in contradicting themselves re the difficulties of a border between the UK and Scotland/Ireland
I have a half-formed thought that, if the UK and EU sides could come up with a pragmatic solution to the NI border, then a pragmatic solution could also be found to the England/Scotland border.
But, as we’ve seen in the past few years, pragmatic solutions are a prisoners’ dilemma.
The England/Scotland border is, physically, much simpler than the NI/RoI border. Not many roads actually cross it.
The pragmatic solution involves trusted traders, spot checks on approach roads, and intelligence-led policing of actual smuggling, but little in the way of physical border infrastructure except for ANPR cameras.
If the EU can do it right in NI, then they have a chance of persuading the Scottish that there doesn’t need to be a hard border between Carlisle and Gretna if they vote to leave. Sturgeon needs to be beating the EU into line to sort out the NI issue.
I don't think the EU want an independent Scotland as a member...
I’ve just had exclusive sight of the Indyref2 question, which I can share with you. “Do you want to live in a separate country to @Leon and @HYUFD? Yes/No.” Should be a guaranteed Yes.
You know, if we simply put @Leon and @HYUFD on a small island together, we could single handedly kill of Scottish independence.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Re the philanthropic funds, if for example Melinda Gates, ex Mrs Bezos and Oprah Winfrey got together and set up a $3 billion foundation to cover travel, expenses etc for anyone needing an abortion in a state where it was banned, would these three potentially face charges in those states for enabling the abortions?
I wondered that myself. I would have though the states only have jurisdiction over what happens on their territory...?? so no.
I’ve just had exclusive sight of the Indyref2 question, which I can share with you. “Do you want to live in a separate country to @Leon and @HYUFD? Yes/No.” Should be a guaranteed Yes.
You know, if we simply put @Leon and @HYUFD on a small island together, we could single handedly kill of Scottish independence.
It would be like that time that Leon spent a night on an island in the Maldives, alone save for an obliging manservant. I am sure that HYUFD would happily step into the Friday role.
I’ve just had exclusive sight of the Indyref2 question, which I can share with you. “Do you want to live in a separate country to @Leon and @HYUFD? Yes/No.” Should be a guaranteed Yes.
You know, if we simply put @Leon and @HYUFD on a small island together, we could single handedly kill of Scottish independence.
And a glorious voyage of sexual discovery to boot!
I see we had the same warped and perverted view as each other. I'm worried about you.
All referendums are non binding. The Brexit referendum was non binding.
Presume you mean, all UK referendums (or referenda IF you prefer) are non binding.
Ballot referendums in US states and other jurisdictions generally ARE binding, unless the law authorizing them provides otherwise.
For example, in 2012 the WA State legislature legalized gay marriage, but the opponents gathered required signatures to require a statewide vote on the measure, via Referendum 74.
The law was suspended UNTIL the results of the vote on R74 were certified - 54% of those who cast a voting on the measure voting to approve gay marriage.
This confirmed enactment of the new law. Whereas a majority to reject would have meant it was NOT enacted.
Please stop reading the Njegos book. I can’t access it coz you
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Re the philanthropic funds, if for example Melinda Gates, ex Mrs Bezos and Oprah Winfrey got together and set up a $3 billion foundation to cover travel, expenses etc for anyone needing an abortion in a state where it was banned, would these three potentially face charges in those states for enabling the abortions?
I wondered that myself. I would have though the states only have jurisdiction over what happens on their territory...?? so no.
Didn't Dred Scott hinge in part on extending penalties throughout the USA for refugee slaves?
The Met needs the RUC treatment. Disband it and reform with a totally new team at the top. It can probably be split in two at the same time, with policing London separated from national policing roles.
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014 [snip]
If the EU referendum had gone the other way, Nicola would have had a much stronger argument: "Now we know that the rest of the UK is going to remain in the EU, the issue of a potential hard border at Gretna Green goes away."
The biggest change since 2014, is that the border between Scotland and England is very much an issue, should Scotland wish to join the EU.
Yes as I have mentioned before Remainders, Leavers, Pro Indy and Anti Indy will be doing absolute somersaults in contradicting themselves re the difficulties of a border between the UK and Scotland/Ireland
I have a half-formed thought that, if the UK and EU sides could come up with a pragmatic solution to the NI border, then a pragmatic solution could also be found to the England/Scotland border.
But, as we’ve seen in the past few years, pragmatic solutions are a prisoners’ dilemma.
The England/Scotland border is, physically, much simpler than the NI/RoI border. Not many roads actually cross it.
The pragmatic solution involves trusted traders, spot checks on approach roads, and intelligence-led policing of actual smuggling, but little in the way of physical border infrastructure except for ANPR cameras.
If the EU can do it right in NI, then they have a chance of persuading the Scottish that there doesn’t need to be a hard border between Carlisle and Gretna if they vote to leave. Sturgeon needs to be beating the EU into line to sort out the NI issue.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was clarifying his position not stating my own
Independent life has a couple of counterarguments. For starters a newborn isn't capable of Independent life from its mother except by virtue of ad hoc wet nursing arrangements or the modern invention of artificial baby milk.
Interesting to think if we were marsupial where the cut off point would be
But that is why I added the caveat of medical intervention. If a baby can be successfully transferred from mother to incubator and develop to term even if outside its mother then I think at that point elective abortion should not be allowed. Up until then I think it is a valid choice.
If the mother doesn't want the child then it can be adopted. But termination for an unwanted child that can survive outside the mother should not be an option except in circumstances of medical emergency for the mother.
Again this is a personal view. I am not saying other views are 'wrong', just that I disagree with them.
Agree, I think.
I am actually quite taken with my marsupial argument. Identify the stage of development at which if we were koalas we would do the womb to pouch thing and there's your answer
I’m sure most higher courts would have accepted this argument unfortunately SCOTUS is a kangaroo court.
All referendums are non binding. The Brexit referendum was non binding.
The AV referendum was binding.
Does that mean we have FPTP forever more?
What TSE means is that there was, in fact, legislation specifically enacting AV (the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011). The legislation required ("must" rather than "may") the Government to make an order bringing the relevant provisions into force if the referendum result was "Yes" and repealing them if it was "No".
I believe (although haven't checked) that the Licensing Act 1961 was similar. This was specific to Wales and repealed about 20 years ago, but it provided for a referendum every seven years in each county or borough in Wales (if 500 voters requested it) with the question being whether alcohol could be sold on a Sunday, the result being binding - it required the bringing into or out of force of very specific, pre-prepared legislative provisions.
There is a lot to be said for binding referendums of this type - the legislation is all in place and the question is simply "do we bring it into force or repeal it?" Regardless of your view on the result of the Brexit referendum (and the same is true for Scotland had they voted for independence) it's undeniable that there was a lack of clarity about what a Leave vote meant - it started a process rather than ending it. That was the source of huge problems.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Re the philanthropic funds, if for example Melinda Gates, ex Mrs Bezos and Oprah Winfrey got together and set up a $3 billion foundation to cover travel, expenses etc for anyone needing an abortion in a state where it was banned, would these three potentially face charges in those states for enabling the abortions?
I wondered that myself. I would have though the states only have jurisdiction over what happens on their territory...?? so no.
Perhaps Seashanty or one of our other US posters could enlighten us as to whether “aiding someone committing a crime” against a state’s laws from outside that state can be prosecuted and perhaps even extradited as it wouldn’t be a protected Federal law now RvW gone?
I’ve just had exclusive sight of the Indyref2 question, which I can share with you. “Do you want to live in a separate country to @Leon and @HYUFD? Yes/No.” Should be a guaranteed Yes.
You know, if we simply put @Leon and @HYUFD on a small island together, we could single handedly kill of Scottish independence.
They might breed.
"Rub them against each other all you like, they're not going to breed!"
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was clarifying his position not stating my own
Independent life has a couple of counterarguments. For starters a newborn isn't capable of Independent life from its mother except by virtue of ad hoc wet nursing arrangements or the modern invention of artificial baby milk.
Interesting to think if we were marsupial where the cut off point would be
But that is why I added the caveat of medical intervention. If a baby can be successfully transferred from mother to incubator and develop to term even if outside its mother then I think at that point elective abortion should not be allowed. Up until then I think it is a valid choice.
If the mother doesn't want the child then it can be adopted. But termination for an unwanted child that can survive outside the mother should not be an option except in circumstances of medical emergency for the mother.
Again this is a personal view. I am not saying other views are 'wrong', just that I disagree with them.
Agree, I think.
I am actually quite taken with my marsupial argument. Identify the stage of development at which if we were koalas we would do the womb to pouch thing and there's your answer
But we aren't koalas. (I never thought that would ever be my argument, but there it is).
All referendums are non binding. The Brexit referendum was non binding.
The AV referendum was binding.
Does that mean we have FPTP forever more?
What TSE means is that there was, in fact, legislation specifically enacting AV (the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011). The legislation required ("must" rather than "may") the Government to make an order bringing the relevant provisions into force if the referendum result was "Yes" and repealing them if it was "No".
I believe (although haven't checked) that the Licensing Act 1961 was similar. This was specific to Wales and repealed about 20 years ago, but it provided for a referendum every seven years in each county or borough in Wales (if 500 voters requested it) with the question being whether alcohol could be sold on a Sunday, the result being binding - it required the bringing into or out of force of very specific, pre-prepared legislative provisions.
There is a lot to be said for binding referendums of this type - the legislation is all in place and the question is simply "do we bring it into force or repeal it?" Regardless of your view on the result of the Brexit referendum (and the same is true for Scotland had they voted for independence) it's undeniable that there was a lack of clarity about what a Leave vote meant - it started a process rather than ending it. That was the source of huge problems.
Don't worry, I knew exactly what TSE meant, but the point is, it isn't binding. AV could have come in and then been replaced at a later date.
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014 [snip]
If the EU referendum had gone the other way, Nicola would have had a much stronger argument: "Now we know that the rest of the UK is going to remain in the EU, the issue of a potential hard border at Gretna Green goes away."
The biggest change since 2014, is that the border between Scotland and England is very much an issue, should Scotland wish to join the EU.
Yes as I have mentioned before Remainders, Leavers, Pro Indy and Anti Indy will be doing absolute somersaults in contradicting themselves re the difficulties of a border between the UK and Scotland/Ireland
I have a half-formed thought that, if the UK and EU sides could come up with a pragmatic solution to the NI border, then a pragmatic solution could also be found to the England/Scotland border.
But, as we’ve seen in the past few years, pragmatic solutions are a prisoners’ dilemma.
The England/Scotland border is, physically, much simpler than the NI/RoI border. Not many roads actually cross it.
The pragmatic solution involves trusted traders, spot checks on approach roads, and intelligence-led policing of actual smuggling, but little in the way of physical border infrastructure except for ANPR cameras.
If the EU can do it right in NI, then they have a chance of persuading the Scottish that there doesn’t need to be a hard border between Carlisle and Gretna if they vote to leave. Sturgeon needs to be beating the EU into line to sort out the NI issue.
I don't think the EU want an independent Scotland as a member...
Possibly not, but they’d take the chance to make it look that way just to spite the British.
All referendums are non binding. The Brexit referendum was non binding.
The AV referendum was binding.
Does that mean we have FPTP forever more?
What TSE means is that there was, in fact, legislation specifically enacting AV (the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011). The legislation required ("must" rather than "may") the Government to make an order bringing the relevant provisions into force if the referendum result was "Yes" and repealing them if it was "No".
I believe (although haven't checked) that the Licensing Act 1961 was similar. This was specific to Wales and repealed about 20 years ago, but it provided for a referendum every seven years in each county or borough in Wales (if 500 voters requested it) with the question being whether alcohol could be sold on a Sunday, the result being binding - it required the bringing into or out of force of very specific, pre-prepared legislative provisions.
There is a lot to be said for binding referendums of this type - the legislation is all in place and the question is simply "do we bring it into force or repeal it?" Regardless of your view on the result of the Brexit referendum (and the same is true for Scotland had they voted for independence) it's undeniable that there was a lack of clarity about what a Leave vote meant - it started a process rather than ending it. That was the source of huge problems.
Don't worry, I knew exactly what TSE meant, but the point is, it isn't binding. AV could have come in and then been replaced at a later date.
You're confusing "binding" with "irreversible".
If you want to test the point, go and steal a Mars Bar and, when you are up before the magistrate, try arguing that the Theft Act is non-binding as it could be repealed later.
That's a actually an appalling verdict on Boris's Brexit. I'd have thought that the 'Going Well' number would have been much higher, simply through a combination of Brexit Loyalty and wishful thinking. Perhaps Leavers seriously over-promised and left a lot of disappointed voters out there. At what point will the Tories start considering Brexit an electoral hindrance - I'm thinking Labour with the Winter of Discontent here - and what will they do about it when they do?
While delightful for my very speculative punt on the Dems (which i do not recommend anyone follows) Marist have a bif Dem skew to their results in recent history.
The one advantage to the Dems of last week’s decision, should be that their suporters get out and vote in November.
It may avert the Republican landslide.
(I’m still surprised we haven’t seen at least two Supreme Court resignations. Maybe they wait until Brandon is back in town).
Edit, LOL my autocorrect changed Biden to Brandon. Which means millions of people are training the AI to change common misspellings of Biden to Brandon.
I’ve just had exclusive sight of the Indyref2 question, which I can share with you. “Do you want to live in a separate country to @Leon and @HYUFD? Yes/No.” Should be a guaranteed Yes.
You know, if we simply put @Leon and @HYUFD on a small island together, we could single handedly kill of Scottish independence.
They might breed.
"Rub them against each other all you like, they're not going to breed!"
I'm really sorry I suggested that now as I can't get what you said out of my head.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Re the philanthropic funds, if for example Melinda Gates, ex Mrs Bezos and Oprah Winfrey got together and set up a $3 billion foundation to cover travel, expenses etc for anyone needing an abortion in a state where it was banned, would these three potentially face charges in those states for enabling the abortions?
I wondered that myself. I would have though the states only have jurisdiction over what happens on their territory...?? so no.
I suppose the fear might be that an activist SCOTUS might decide that it was in some form of breach of the Mann Act banning the transportation of women or minors for sexual exploitation.
I am not saying they should of course, nor that they would, just that this seems the sort of trick they might play if committed enough.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Re the philanthropic funds, if for example Melinda Gates, ex Mrs Bezos and Oprah Winfrey got together and set up a $3 billion foundation to cover travel, expenses etc for anyone needing an abortion in a state where it was banned, would these three potentially face charges in those states for enabling the abortions?
I wondered that myself. I would have though the states only have jurisdiction over what happens on their territory...?? so no.
Didn't Dred Scott hinge in part on extending penalties throughout the USA for refugee slaves?
Exactly. It is what persuaded many Northerners that the only way to prevent the spread of slavery was to abolish it in the South. It also demonstrated what self-serving horseshit the South's blather about states' rights was. It was probably the point at which Civil War became, if not unstoppable, then at least highly likely. If the anti abortion states (who align pretty well with the states of the Confederacy) succeed in extending their policies beyond their borders then I think we could see a repeat of the Dred Scott dynamic.
Almost everybody would consider terminating a baby the day before birth to be murder.
And the vast majority would not regard the moment of fertilization (or even at a point where no-one can know if fertilization has taken place) as murder.
I would regard anything in the first trimester as absolutely fine, and anything in the third to be highly suspect - simply because at that point, they have ceased being foetuses and are now pain-feeling, potentially viable babies.
The question then becomes where to draw the line. I personally would probably draw it slightly earlier than the UK does, but accept that there are many different views, and that my calculations are not necessarily going to be the same as someone else's.
I believe that is the viewpoint of the vast majority in the UK and almost certainly a healthy majority in the US.
Misrepresentation. What he really says is they do over their _own_ bodies but a foetus is someone else's body.
Personally - and of course this is all about personal views - I think he is wrong on that. I don't think it is someone else's body until it has the ability to survive independently of the mother - either completely or with the current levels of medical assistance. That for me seems a good point at which to make the distinction and hence set the barrier to elective abortion.
I was listening to the American woman on holiday in Malta whose unborn child was rendered unsustainable due to a detached placenta and broken waters but retained a heartbeat. Due to the heartbeat any medical intervention was illegal in Malta and she had to be Medivacced to Majorca, she was scathing that her ordeal could now be repeated in her own country.
I am not religious, but I do have some unresolved moral concerns over on-demand terminations, however it seems plain mad that in a civilised society a woman could be allowed, by doctors, to bleed to death, killing her and her unborn child for fear of prosecution. She said doctors in Malta had confirmed they could only intervene, due to the baby's heartbeat, at the point when her life was in grave peril.
One of the interesting things is that Roe has been stable for 50 years. That's pretty much a couple of generations. Yeh, loads of religious right and GOP people have been against it, but the majority will has prevailed.
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Re the philanthropic funds, if for example Melinda Gates, ex Mrs Bezos and Oprah Winfrey got together and set up a $3 billion foundation to cover travel, expenses etc for anyone needing an abortion in a state where it was banned, would these three potentially face charges in those states for enabling the abortions?
I wondered that myself. I would have though the states only have jurisdiction over what happens on their territory...?? so no.
Perhaps Seashanty or one of our other US posters could enlighten us as to whether “aiding someone committing a crime” against a state’s laws from outside that state can be prosecuted and perhaps even extradited as it wouldn’t be a protected Federal law now RvW gone?
The point is, I would have though, that the abortion would take place in a state where abortion was legal. No crime was committed in either state, therefore.
@HYUFD is right. There will always be a “fundamental reason” why there should be a Scottish indyref, for the Nats, it is what they live for. All they care about. Brexit is a handy excuse even tho they were happy to Scexit in 2014 [snip]
If the EU referendum had gone the other way, Nicola would have had a much stronger argument: "Now we know that the rest of the UK is going to remain in the EU, the issue of a potential hard border at Gretna Green goes away."
The biggest change since 2014, is that the border between Scotland and England is very much an issue, should Scotland wish to join the EU.
Yes as I have mentioned before Remainders, Leavers, Pro Indy and Anti Indy will be doing absolute somersaults in contradicting themselves re the difficulties of a border between the UK and Scotland/Ireland
I have a half-formed thought that, if the UK and EU sides could come up with a pragmatic solution to the NI border, then a pragmatic solution could also be found to the England/Scotland border.
But, as we’ve seen in the past few years, pragmatic solutions are a prisoners’ dilemma.
The England/Scotland border is, physically, much simpler than the NI/RoI border. Not many roads actually cross it.
The pragmatic solution involves trusted traders, spot checks on approach roads, and intelligence-led policing of actual smuggling, but little in the way of physical border infrastructure except for ANPR cameras.
If the EU can do it right in NI, then they have a chance of persuading the Scottish that there doesn’t need to be a hard border between Carlisle and Gretna if they vote to leave. Sturgeon needs to be beating the EU into line to sort out the NI issue.
I don't think the EU want an independent Scotland as a member...
Possibly not, but they’d take the chance to make it look that way just to spite the British.
Comments
That is just one reason why this shit matters to all Britons, and why the right to hold referendums is correctly reserved to the British parliament
Oh, that's right, they're not taking part (just like most of their PB cohort first time round).
Huge mistake. This will come back to haunt us all.
Bottom line is the Scots won't keep voting for Sindy Refs only to vote No to it. Makes no sense. These Refs are draining divisive events. I mean, would we have kept electing governments to hold Brexit referendums and then kept voting Remain? Hardly. Same with them.
He’s certainly been a tremendous asset.
Ukraine with $5.4B seems to be giving $65.9B Russia a run for it's money. The UK is at $68.4B, so we should be able to whup the Russians all the way back to Moscow with that.
It got nowhere after some debate iirc?
If Brexit was a material change in circumstance then Yes would now be on 62% ie matching the percentage of Scots who voted Remain.
It isn't, it is on 45% ie the same as 2014
Now what happens when the majority will has been overturned by the minority in US?
The bigger issue is that, if we want to spend more on the military, where's the money coming from? The sums wouldn't half be easier if GDP were larger.
We're getting the greengrocer's apostrophe together with pounds and shillings and ounces.
Independent life has a couple of counterarguments. For starters a newborn isn't capable of Independent life from its mother except by virtue of ad hoc wet nursing arrangements or the modern invention of artificial baby milk.
Interesting to think if we were marsupial where the cut off point would be
Britain frankly needs more kids - the current system of freebies for the old and debt for the young isn't going to help that.
Oh, and there’s not much evidence for the output of the Russian budget, given they’re dragging T-62s out of storage to refight a war from six decades ago. Hello you old tank, meet the NLAWs
Of course, defence spending everywhere seems to be a merry-go-round of political back-scratching and job creation schemes. Governments need to start prioritising efficiency over the latest new something that’s a decade away and will be triple the budget. Current-gen tech is fine against a clearly inferior army, we just need lots more of it, and lots more men and women to operate it.
That is a material change. They are no longer EU citizens. Now that may not matter to you and for me it is a big bonus but I would never deny it is a material change. What its effects on polling are is immaterial in these terms. That is for a referendum to decide. But you want to deny the people that choice so that you can continue to misrepresent them.
Actually I think it does though, because of changes in the law enabling the victims of thalidomide to sue in their own name.
It's a similar load of old b******s to that Mr Sunak seems to get away with saying.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-hunt-wants-reduce-abortion-16489285
The first step of this nonsense will be for the Presiding Officer of the Parliament to certify whether the bill is competent or not. It is very clearly not. Whether politics will override law at that stage will have to be seen. If it is then passed it will be challenged in the SC and held to be incompetent. There will therefore be no basis on which it can be said to have legal effect and no basis on which local authorities can participate by spending taxpayers money on this.
In many ways I regret this. Salmond, with political genius, set up the best possible scenario in 2014 and still lost. The current mess is so far from ideal that Yes could lose really badly. And, as I have acknowledged before, I do accept that by a tiny margin the people of Scotland voted for parties committed to a second referendum. But, as a matter of law, it is just not going to happen.
This UK government will refuse to grant an official referendum and ignore the result of any such SNP referendum. They can whinge, it makes no difference
Not much.
Many states will carry on aborting and offer travel vouchers from other states where it is illegal.
Voters in states where it is illegal will get the chance to vote for people who want to legalise it.
The victims, if there are any, are surely the poorest in society who cannot afford to cross state lines to get a procedure. I imagine all kinds of philanthropic funds will be targeted at these women. As they should be.
Perhaps you would like to tell us how much of the Scottish Govt. take from whisky would be paid to Brussels in joining fees? Half? Three quarters? All of it? The answer is, you haven't a clue - because the EU's answer will be "that depends..." That depends on a supplicant Scotland, that has got its independence on the back of pledges to rejoin the EU, hoping that Brussels looks favourably on their application to join. But Scotland would be in exactly the same position as David Cameron when trying to get his "renegotiation" taken seriously.
Simply put: the EU will screw every Euro it can out of an applicant Scotland. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a mug - a mug who is blind to modern history.
Almost everybody would consider terminating a baby the day before birth to be murder.
And the vast majority would not regard the moment of fertilization (or even at a point where no-one can know if fertilization has taken place) as murder.
I would regard anything in the first trimester as absolutely fine, and anything in the third to be highly suspect - simply because at that point, they have ceased being foetuses and are now pain-feeling, potentially viable babies.
The question then becomes where to draw the line. I personally would probably draw it slightly earlier than the UK does, but accept that there are many different views, and that my calculations are not necessarily going to be the same as someone else's.
I suspect that, to maximise impact, we're now moving into a period when a defector would time it to hit just before or during party conference season.
Not impossible by any means, but it feels somewhat below a 20% chance.
If the mother doesn't want the child then it can be adopted. But termination for an unwanted child that can survive outside the mother should not be an option except in circumstances of medical emergency for the mother.
Again this is a personal view. I am not saying other views are 'wrong', just that I disagree with them.
The effect on Scotland in terms of investment over the coming years is not going to be good and and if they vote yes the years of economic uncertainty for Scotland will make Brexit look like a walk in the park
Sigh *taps sign*
1) Does Holyrood have the power to hold referendums in general?
If Yes goto 2)
In No goto END-Bad)
2) Does a non-binding referendum mean that any actual change is guaranteed to take place
If Yes goto 3)
In No goto 4)
3) Really?
Actually no you are right, it doesn't goto 4)
4)Is there any law that limits the topics a non-binding referendum the Scottish government calls can be on (Bearing in mind the result of the referendum doesn't actually change anything)?
If Yes goto 5)
If No got END-Good)
5) Are you able to actually point at in the law book?
if Yes goto 6)
No got END-Good)
6) Go on then, give us a link?
If able to give link then goto END-Bad
Otherwise got END-Good
END-Bad) Holyrood does not have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on Sindy
END-Good) Holyrood can call a non binding advisory referendum on any topic it likes.
Ballot referendums in US states and other jurisdictions generally ARE binding, unless the law authorizing them provides otherwise.
For example, in 2012 the WA State legislature legalized gay marriage, but the opponents gathered required signatures to require a statewide vote on the measure, via Referendum 74.
The law was suspended UNTIL the results of the vote on R74 were certified - 54% of those who cast a voting on the measure voting to approve gay marriage.
This confirmed enactment of the new law. Whereas a majority to reject would have meant it was NOT enacted.
Going well: 16%
Going badly: 54%
Neither: 20%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/06/28/8746b/2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=daily_question https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1541792577082605568/photo/1
But, as we’ve seen in the past few years, pragmatic solutions are a prisoners’ dilemma.
The England/Scotland border is, physically, much simpler than the NI/RoI border. Not many roads actually cross it.
The pragmatic solution involves trusted traders, spot checks on approach roads, and intelligence-led policing of actual smuggling, but little in the way of physical border infrastructure except for ANPR cameras.
If the EU can do it right in NI, then they have a chance of persuading the Scottish that there doesn’t need to be a hard border between Carlisle and Gretna if they vote to leave. Sturgeon needs to be beating the EU into line to sort out the NI issue.
I am actually quite taken with my marsupial argument. Identify the stage of development at which if we were koalas we would do the womb to pouch thing and there's your answer
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1541800211588210688
Actions suggest the opposite. Boris has created more life than Hunt.
The Met needs the RUC treatment. Disband it and reform with a totally new team at the top. It can probably be split in two at the same time, with policing London separated from national policing roles.
I believe (although haven't checked) that the Licensing Act 1961 was similar. This was specific to Wales and repealed about 20 years ago, but it provided for a referendum every seven years in each county or borough in Wales (if 500 voters requested it) with the question being whether alcohol could be sold on a Sunday, the result being binding - it required the bringing into or out of force of very specific, pre-prepared legislative provisions.
There is a lot to be said for binding referendums of this type - the legislation is all in place and the question is simply "do we bring it into force or repeal it?" Regardless of your view on the result of the Brexit referendum (and the same is true for Scotland had they voted for independence) it's undeniable that there was a lack of clarity about what a Leave vote meant - it started a process rather than ending it. That was the source of huge problems.
(I never thought that would ever be my argument, but there it is).
Either that, or the “common oil&gas policy”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWu9GeyTU5w
If you want to test the point, go and steal a Mars Bar and, when you are up before the magistrate, try arguing that the Theft Act is non-binding as it could be repealed later.
1. The status quo. Abortion legal but subject to controls and prohibitions in middle and late pregnancy. Competing rights balanced.
2. The 'red states' plan. Abortion banned. The woman's rights placed firmly below those of the foetus/child she carries.
It is extremism (2) versus a middle way (1).
It may avert the Republican landslide.
(I’m still surprised we haven’t seen at least two Supreme Court resignations. Maybe they wait until Brandon is back in town).
Edit, LOL my autocorrect changed Biden to Brandon. Which means millions of people are training the AI to change common misspellings of Biden to Brandon.
I am not saying they should of course, nor that they would, just that this seems the sort of trick they might play if committed enough.
If the anti abortion states (who align pretty well with the states of the Confederacy) succeed in extending their policies beyond their borders then I think we could see a repeat of the Dred Scott dynamic.