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.
Of course it is "pointless" for you to talk further. Perhaps a better word would be embarrassing. You know the issues. But you are smart enough to know that talking about things with scary possible outcomes doesn't exactly help sell independence.
Look, from a selfish point of view, I want you to get independence. I have a Scottish wife. We could get passports that allows us speedy access to our EU holiday destinations. But you look to be making no progress to answering the issues that might deliver it. Paint your face with a Saltire and scream "FREEEEEDOM!" instead. Knock yourself out.
But the Scots are canny enough to know when they are taking a leap into the unknown.
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.
Who do you have down as SC resignations? And for what reason?
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.
Wire fraud. That’s the usual one. It means sending or receiving money to intentionally facilitate a crime. The crime being the abortion that is illegal in the state where the money was received, irrespective of where the abortion itself takes place.
It could tie up lawyers for years, on each individual case against someone like Melinda Gates, who’s clearly worth suing.
It’s also why the legal cannabis stores in various states are unbanked and have to deal in cash. Because no bank will give them an account.
Kruger's position is entirely consonant with English law as regards abortion. It remains absolutely forbidden and a crime unless a statutory exception applies. Even then no final decision can be made by the woman herself; it has to be authorised by a medic, and conducted by someone licensed to do so.
All other actions of bodily autonomy with the intention of abortion are crimes.
FWIW I have no problem with a law which tries to balance the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. But it is social policy, not law which will maximise human happiness and minimise unhappiness in this field.
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.
Have you seen the polling in Scotland for the Tories coming out with that old bollocks? If the SNP want to emulate 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?
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.
I would have thought that is very unlikely. The Supreme Court simply decided to return that decision on abortion to the individual states.
Any anti-abortion state's politicians will have to run off against pro-choicers in the future.
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.
Who do you have down as SC resignations? And for what reason?
The dissenters. Because two of them are well past retirement age, and they might only have a few months left when a Democrat Senate can confirm their replacements.
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.
Of course it is "pointless" for you to talk further. Perhaps a better word would be embarrassing. You know the issues. But you are smart enough to know that talking about things with scary possible outcomes doesn't exactly help sell independence.
Look, from a selfish point of view, I want you to get independence. I have a Scottish wife. We could get passports that allows us speedy access to our EU holiday destinations. But you look to be making no progress to answering the issues that might deliver it. Paint your face with a Saltire and scream "FREEEEEDOM!" instead. Knock yourself out.
But the Scots are canny enough to know when they are taking a leap into the unknown.
And canny enough not to do it.
As we have seen.
Of course it has to be negotiated. We have to see what they offer. But you are demanding this information right now. And everything else. As happened in 2014.
THese things develop - on both sides. Pieces are moved and reactions happen. Which is why it will be very interesting to see what happens. For instance, I've often thought that EEA/EFTA is another option.
Meanwhile, that is your view of what will happen with the EU - but you are a Brexiter who has to justify a decision which is increasingly regarded with discontent.
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.
And was the case in practice until the SC barrelled in.
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.
Have you seen the polling in Scotland for the Tories coming out with that old bollocks? If the SNP want to emulate that....
Maybe the Scots are cannier than the rest of us. Nonetheless, we seem to have swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
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).
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!"
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.
Who do you have down as SC resignations? And for what reason?
A republican controlled senate won't vote to install any new democrat/liberal SCs and with a likely republican '24 in the WH, Sotomayor, Kagan have to decide if they feel fit to run through 2028 as any departure after November means its unlikely they will be replaced by a liberal justice. Thomas (definitely) and Roberts will retire i think next time you have a republican WH and senate. Breyer obviously is already going
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.
I think quite a few UK people would be happy if the freedom to terminate existed, subject to restrictions, and was used quite a bit less often than well over 200,000 times a year, by the greater use of common sense.
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).
You may not be...
TBF it's hard to compare a marsupial embryo with a placentasl one. The marsupial is 'born' much earlier, but really it's only transferred to womb no 2. It's no good for anything except that transfer, and of course for drinking lots of milk.
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.
Helping someone get an abortion is a crime under the laws being passed in many states.
So there is the possibility they could be prosecuted/sued (depending on the exact law) if they ever enter the state after helping someone.
Kruger's position is entirely consonant with English law as regards abortion. It remains absolutely forbidden and a crime unless a statutory exception applies. Even then no final decision can be made by the woman herself; it has to be authorised by a medic, and conducted by someone licensed to do so.
All other actions of bodily autonomy with the intention of abortion are crimes.
FWIW I have no problem with a law which tries to balance the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. But it is social policy, not law which will maximise human happiness and minimise unhappiness in this field.
What a lovely use of "consonant". I haven't heard it used in that context for years.
More usually witnessed in its "I'll take a "P" Bob" function.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
Kruger's position is entirely consonant with English law as regards abortion. It remains absolutely forbidden and a crime unless a statutory exception applies. Even then no final decision can be made by the woman herself; it has to be authorised by a medic, and conducted by someone licensed to do so.
All other actions of bodily autonomy with the intention of abortion are crimes.
FWIW I have no problem with a law which tries to balance the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. But it is social policy, not law which will maximise human happiness and minimise unhappiness in this field.
I do wonder how long that line can be held. The existence of the Morning After Pill which can be used up to 5 days after sex already blurs the distinction. The development of medical abortions through the use of pills rather than surgery just blurs it even further. At present they can only be administered by trained medical personnel but that is in part due to delivery method and the need to ensure no risk to the mother. But I get the impression that continued medical advances will change this and make the medical abortion pills as common place as the Morning After pills.
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
Would you grudgingly admit malcolm that Sturgeon has played a bit of a cautious blinder here.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
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.)
As we see on a daily basis teh fee of leaving the EU is much much higher than joining it. We are paying big money every day we are out thanks to Westminster, we will be happy to take the massive cut in contributions the EU will take compared to England and as a bonus we will not have to stump up for the crooks borrowing money and squandering / stealing it and making us pay it as happens now.
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.
I would have thought that is very unlikely. The Supreme Court simply decided to return that decision on abortion to the individual states.
Any anti-abortion state's politicians will have to run off against pro-choicers in the future.
That's not quite true though. It would be if they'd gone down the Roberts route, affirmed a ban above 15 as being constitutional but kept the rest of Roe and Casey intact. Instead they have said that seemingly any ban is constitutional. In doing this they have attacked the rights to bodily autonomy and freedom from state interference as interpreted by 14th Amendment's due process clause, particularly the guarantee of Liberty. For women, this ruling removes from them these constitutional protections. The ability to criminalise women and accomplices crossing state lines to seek an abortion is likely the next word of the Court.
Although we arrived at abortion through different processes, and many other countries arrived at it through different processes, I argue that the recognition of access to abortion is predicated pretty much entirely on these rights. In the UK context legislation articulated the right, but its foundations go deeper into concepts such as bodily autonomy.
The idea that the Court has simply kicked abortion back to the states doesn't hold up in my view, nor, it seems, in the view of at least on Justice of the Supreme Court.
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.
Of course it is "pointless" for you to talk further. Perhaps a better word would be embarrassing. You know the issues. But you are smart enough to know that talking about things with scary possible outcomes doesn't exactly help sell independence.
Look, from a selfish point of view, I want you to get independence. I have a Scottish wife. We could get passports that allows us speedy access to our EU holiday destinations. But you look to be making no progress to answering the issues that might deliver it. Paint your face with a Saltire and scream "FREEEEEDOM!" instead. Knock yourself out.
But the Scots are canny enough to know when they are taking a leap into the unknown.
And canny enough not to do it.
As we have seen.
Of course it has to be negotiated. We have to see what they offer. But you are demanding this information right now. And everything else. As happened in 2014.
THese things develop - on both sides. Pieces are moved and reactions happen. Which is why it will be very interesting to see what happens. For instance, I've often thought that EEA/EFTA is another option.
Meanwhile, that is your view of what will happen with the EU - but you are a Brexiter who has to justify a decision which is increasingly regarded with discontent.
He used to luuurve Boris so that indicates at least the possibility of Damascene flexibility.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
That’s just a decade of constitutional impasse
There's a simple way to resolve constitutional impasses.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
Who gets the Clair oilfield ? Would Shetland chance a go at independence if Scotland broke away ? Clair's in their waters if they're independent I think. They're more than viable with that.
That old bollox, away and bile your heid you numpty
Demographic changes have probably killed Quebec independence for decades, maybe permanently. Most immigrants to Canada are Anglophones, or wish to be, and so they are steadily reducing the French proportion of the population, even, so far as I can tell, in Quebec.
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?
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
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
Yes but the standard UNionist response is "Yes but the voters voted for trans rights or Gaelic lessons or because they didn't like Mr Johnson not for indy".
It's also difficult for the Tories to respond, after many years of being the single-issue "Ruth Davidson Says No to Indyref/Independence" party, and their Cato the Censor-like speeches in the Curia at Holyrood.
@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...
Kruger's position is entirely consonant with English law as regards abortion. It remains absolutely forbidden and a crime unless a statutory exception applies. Even then no final decision can be made by the woman herself; it has to be authorised by a medic, and conducted by someone licensed to do so.
All other actions of bodily autonomy with the intention of abortion are crimes.
FWIW I have no problem with a law which tries to balance the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. But it is social policy, not law which will maximise human happiness and minimise unhappiness in this field.
Labour were looking at reversing our formulation pre GE19 as a policy as I recall.
Currently (as you say) it's abortion is illegal unless - define where it's ok. The proposal was to change this to abortion is legal unless - define where it's not ok.
Same effect in practice but with a different symbolism. The current formulation kind of implies the government default owns a woman's body and they're doing her a favour with the exceptions. The proposed change says the opposite - that she default owns her own body but is making these exceptions for middle and late pregnancy.
I remember discussing it with cyclefree. Not sure where they went with it.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
That’s just a decade of constitutional impasse
There's a simple way to resolve constitutional impasses.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
There was a vote in 2014 and one side didn't respect what the public voted for. What makes you think Scottish Nationalists will take No for an answer the second time?
The demographic breakdown of that poll is quite interesting. 18-25 year olds are less likely to say it's going badly than 25-64 year olds, and Labour and Lib Dem voters are now Remainier than 2016 Remainers. Saying Brexit is going badly is at least in part a proxy for dissatisfaction with the government.
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.
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
Would you grudgingly admit malcolm that Sturgeon has played a bit of a cautious blinder here.
Well I am hopeful , but still to be 100% convinced, they do have an escape hatch that minister's can change it if really required so potentially there coudl be another bollox claim that it has to be delayed because she broke a nail or suchlike.
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
Utter tripe
@HYUFD is right. It’s time to send the tanks in. Crush the revolting, smelly Jocks. Again
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
Utter tripe
What's utter tripe malcy is your refusal to ever engage with reality. Scotland MIGHT be OK - eventually. But the turmoil of independence would make Brexit look like an oven ready turnip in comparison.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
That’s just a decade of constitutional impasse
There's a simple way to resolve constitutional impasses.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
There was a vote in 2014 and one side didn't respect what the public voted for. What makes you think Scottish Nationalists will take No for an answer the second time?
"didn't respect".
They got a double mandate to *ask the public again*.
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
Well Sturgeon is going to the Supreme Court to ask this question, and if they say no its not "indisputably lawful and constitutional", she has said that it won't go ahead.
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
Happened before. The water referendum. Non binding, much opposed by the Tories in London. Was by a local authority! But it had a huge effect on Scottish politics where privatization was halted.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
That’s just a decade of constitutional impasse
There's a simple way to resolve constitutional impasses.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
There was a vote in 2014 and one side didn't respect what the public voted for. What makes you think Scottish Nationalists will take No for an answer the second time?
"didn't respect".
They got a double mandate to *ask the public again*.
That's a different thing altogether.
Someone ought to have a copy paste ready for this old argument. Bonus points if you can find do compare and contrast for posters' consistency between Brexit & SINDY.
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.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
That’s just a decade of constitutional impasse
There's a simple way to resolve constitutional impasses.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
There was a vote in 2014 and one side didn't respect what the public voted for. What makes you think Scottish Nationalists will take No for an answer the second time?
"didn't respect".
They got a double mandate to *ask the public again*.
That's a different thing altogether.
Someone ought to have a copy paste ready for this old argument. Bonus points if you can find do compare and contrast for posters' consistency between Brexit & SINDY.
Not quite that bad - there have been some interesting points made this time round on PB in recent weeks that I don't recall from last time.
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
Utter tripe
What's utter tripe malcy is your refusal to ever engage with reality. Scotland MIGHT be OK - eventually. But the turmoil of independence would make Brexit look like an oven ready turnip in comparison.
Mark, how could it be worse than what we have now, run by a bunch of actual bona fide crooks, borrowing money constantly , services going down the tubes, isolated from Europe , soon to be a banana republic. It can be no worse than it is being a colony.
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.
But if SCOTUS doesn't play some trick like that, then the new laws look pretty easy to sidestep. Expensive to sidestep sure, but not difficult.
How much does a strong doctrine of state's rights work when people can easily hopscotch between states? Unless you are prepared to go a bit... well... East German on people.
"The Welsh Labour Government has confirmed that it is considering banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates."
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Yes, a similar Yahoo poll showing a 7-point lead too, and another showing a 3-point lead. The actual June swing is tiny (1 point) but there was a big shift in May.
Would be interesting if the SC decision proved a gift to Biden.
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.
But if SCOTUS doesn't play some trick like that, then the new laws look pretty easy to sidestep. Expensive to sidestep sure, but not difficult.
How much does a strong doctrine of state's rights work when people can easily hopscotch between states? Unless you are prepared to go a bit... well... East German on people.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
That’s just a decade of constitutional impasse
There's a simple way to resolve constitutional impasses.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
There was a vote in 2014 and one side didn't respect what the public voted for. What makes you think Scottish Nationalists will take No for an answer the second time?
"didn't respect".
They got a double mandate to *ask the public again*.
That's a different thing altogether.
You misunderstand me. I accept that the Scottish Government has a mandate to hold another Independence referendum. I simply don't agree that if the Union wins a second referendum that it will settle the issue. The Scottish Nationalists aren't ever going to give up.
Unionist parties have to start winning Holyrood elections, with a positive manifesto on how to use Holyrood's powers to improve life in Scotland, if they want to put the constitutional question to bed.
No number of referendum victories will put the issue to bed if the Unionists keep on losing Holyrood elections.
"The Welsh Labour Government has confirmed that it is considering banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates."
I don't think having a cuppa is in the top 100 reasons for a nation becoming a load of fatty fatty bum bums.
THat's about the caffeine content not the calorie content. And it is only a *question* (but an interesting one in view of the need for consistency). Mind, some of those fancy coffees ...
"The Welsh Labour Government has confirmed that it is considering banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates."
“Most of the cabinet have been selected for their loyalty to the PM… there are some people in the cabinet who lets be honest wouldn’t be in anybody else’s cabinet”
"The Welsh Labour Government has confirmed that it is considering banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates."
I don't think having a cuppa is in the top 100 reasons for a nation becoming a load of fatty fatty bum bums.
THat's about the caffeine content not the calorie content. And it is only a *question* (but an interesting one in view of the need for consistency). Mind, some of those fancy coffees ...
"The Welsh Labour Government has confirmed that it is considering banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates."
I don't think having a cuppa is in the top 100 reasons for a nation becoming a load of fatty fatty bum bums.
THat's about the caffeine content not the calorie content. And it is only a *question* (but an interesting one in view of the need for consistency). Mind, some of those fancy coffees ...
"The Welsh Labour Government has confirmed that it is considering banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates."
I don't think having a cuppa is in the top 100 reasons for a nation becoming a load of fatty fatty bum bums.
THat's about the caffeine content not the calorie content. And it is only a *question* (but an interesting one in view of the need for consistency). Mind, some of those fancy coffees ...
"The Welsh Labour Government has confirmed that it is considering banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates."
I don't think having a cuppa is in the top 100 reasons for a nation becoming a load of fatty fatty bum bums.
THat's about the caffeine content not the calorie content. And it is only a *question* (but an interesting one in view of the need for consistency). Mind, some of those fancy coffees ...
Cans of Red Bull and similar are surely more to the point.
I presume the issue is why ban one caffeine laden drink and permit the other?
Well because energy drinks are more than just the caffeine, it is all the other junk they whack in there (plus the masses of sugar in many). I have never had a giant hypo followed by a mega crash from drinking cups of tea (or even espresso), where as a couple of big cans of energy drinks....
Kruger's position is entirely consonant with English law as regards abortion. It remains absolutely forbidden and a crime unless a statutory exception applies. Even then no final decision can be made by the woman herself; it has to be authorised by a medic, and conducted by someone licensed to do so.
All other actions of bodily autonomy with the intention of abortion are crimes.
FWIW I have no problem with a law which tries to balance the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. But it is social policy, not law which will maximise human happiness and minimise unhappiness in this field.
What a lovely use of "consonant". I haven't heard it used in that context for years.
More usually witnessed in its "I'll take a "P" Bob" function.
Thanks. A useful word I think. Weaker than 'agree', or 'same as', neater than 'consistent with' and has a bit of wriggle room. I don't suppose I agree with Kruger, but maybe there is some consonance.
Whenever one of these Scottish/English brawls breaks out here, I am reminded of a song from the musical, Oklahoma!. With some obvious changes in lyrics, "The Farmer and the Cowman", would make an argument better than I could. (For example, you could change "Territory folks should stick together, territory folks should all be pals." to "British folks should stick together, British folks should all be pals." I don't doubt that some of the talented contributors here could come up with revised lyrics, without much effort.
(There are, naturally, Youtube versions of the song available, for those who haven't heard it, or want a refresher. It's a little over five minutes long, and taking that time to hear and see it will probably cheer most of you up.)
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
That’s just a decade of constitutional impasse
There's a simple way to resolve constitutional impasses.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
There was a vote in 2014 and one side didn't respect what the public voted for. What makes you think Scottish Nationalists will take No for an answer the second time?
Democracy doesn't end when people vote once. People regularly get to vote.
Since 2014 there has been multiple further votes. Looking at Scottish votes . . .
2015 - General Election, the SNP won 2016 - Scottish Parliament Election, the SNP won 2016 - EU Referendum, Remain won 2017 - General Election, the SNP won 2019 - General Election, the SNP won 2021 - Scottish Parliament Election, the SNP won
The Scottish voting public have elected the SNP, not just once, but five times since 2014. That's their choice.
After the second Quebecois referendum, the Quebec voting public got fed up with the BQ not taking no for an answer and as a result they're out of power. If the SNP won't take no for an answer, the Scottish public has the right to vote for someone other than the SNP if that's what they'd prefer.
NEW: Nicola Sturgeon proposes a second independence referendum should be held in Scotland on 19th October 2023.
A full generation since the last one then.....
I thought the SNP had found some clever constitutional loophole or something. Seems like they’ll just plod on with it (in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the face of Russian aggression and huge global uncertainty). Dunno - it’s an interesting tactic
Sturgeon has to do it or her @malcolmg types will go mad. She’s just said any vote has to be “lawful” so she has maybe given herself an opt-out when Westminster refuses, which it will
OTOH she might corner herself into a position where she has to call a wildcat non-binding referendum, which will be boycotted by unionists. That would be a disaster for the cause
Tricky for her
Not at all, if refused it goes to Supreme Court and then if the English court bans it the next election is designated as a decision on Independence. Would be nice given the shamble Tories have made, English court shat on us etc, certain YES.
That’s just a decade of constitutional impasse
There's a simple way to resolve constitutional impasses.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
There was a vote in 2014 and one side didn't respect what the public voted for. What makes you think Scottish Nationalists will take No for an answer the second time?
"didn't respect".
They got a double mandate to *ask the public again*.
That's a different thing altogether.
You misunderstand me. I accept that the Scottish Government has a mandate to hold another Independence referendum. I simply don't agree that if the Union wins a second referendum that it will settle the issue. The Scottish Nationalists aren't ever going to give up.
Unionist parties have to start winning Holyrood elections, with a positive manifesto on how to use Holyrood's powers to improve life in Scotland, if they want to put the constitutional question to bed.
No number of referendum victories will put the issue to bed if the Unionists keep on losing Holyrood elections.
I agree. But if there's a Referendum soon and it's again a No, the SNP won't imo win the subsequent Holyrood election (or 2 or 3) on a platform of holding yet another one. So they'd have to change too.
Whenever one of these Scottish/English brawls breaks out here, I am reminded of a song from the musical, Oklahoma!. With some obvious changes in lyrics, "The Farmer and the Cowman", would make an argument better than I could. (For example, you could change "Territory folks should stick together, territory folks should all be pals." to "British folks should stick together, British folks should all be pals." I don't doubt that some of the talented contributors here could come up with revised lyrics, without much effort.
(There are, naturally, Youtube versions of the song available, for those who haven't heard it, or want a refresher. It's a little over five minutes long, and taking that time to hear and see it will probably cheer most of you up.)
Er, not Scottish/English, but Independista/Unionist, please.
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.
Helping someone get an abortion is a crime under the laws being passed in many states.
So there is the possibility they could be prosecuted/sued (depending on the exact law) if they ever enter the state after helping someone.
Airlines, taxi, bus companies, etc. could all be liable for transporting pregnant women.
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
Well Sturgeon is going to the Supreme Court to ask this question, and if they say no its not "indisputably lawful and constitutional", she has said that it won't go ahead.
Sturgeon isn't, the UK Gov is (will).
Holyrood passes the legislation, it is up to the UK gov to challenge as unlawful.
If the UK gov doesn't challenge then it is defacto lawful.
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
I presume she is working on the principle that if (as I think she expects) the courts block her, she will do as Boris did in 2019 and play up this narrative of unelected enemies of the people with full expectation of a similar galvanising effect as Boris managed.
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
Or she'll ensure that the other pro-independence parties (Greens, Alba) step aside and give a free run for the SNP to get the majority, while anti-independence parties (Labour, Tories) will be fighting each other tooth and nail.
Demographic changes have probably killed Quebec independence for decades, maybe permanently. Most immigrants to Canada are Anglophones, or wish to be, and so they are steadily reducing the French proportion of the population, even, so far as I can tell, in Quebec.
In 2003, Quebec accepted some 37,619 immigrants. A large proportion of these immigrants originated from francophone countries and countries that are former French colonies. Countries from which significant numbers of people immigrate include Haiti, Congo-Brazzaville, Lebanon, Morocco, Rwanda, Syria, Algeria, France and Belgium. Under the Canada-Quebec Accord, Quebec has sole responsibility for selecting most immigrants destined to the province. . . .
Interprovincial migration, especially to Ontario, results in a net loss of population in Quebec. The numbers of French-speaking Quebecers leaving the province tend to be similar to the number entering, while immigrants to Quebec are more likely to leave. Outmigration has most affected the English-speaking minority in Quebec, accounting for its population being significantly reduced since the 1970s. . . .
SSI - more stuff of interest in this article, unfortunately most of it appears about 20 years old.
However, note point re: Quebec partial control re: immigration into the province.
As for Stephen Harper, he's so smart that Conservative Party has been out of power thanks in part to the mess he left them, and that got HIM defeated in his last hurrah. Despite split in Canadian center-left is AND Harper playing footsie with Quebec nationalists (an old tradition with Canuck Tories).
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
Well Sturgeon is going to the Supreme Court to ask this question, and if they say no its not "indisputably lawful and constitutional", she has said that it won't go ahead.
Sturgeon isn't, the UK Gov is (will).
Holyrood passes the legislation, it is up to the UK gov to challenge as unlawful.
If the UK gov doesn't challenge then it is defacto lawful.
No, you're wrong, Sturgeon is. Sturgeon has asked the Law Advocate to take the matter to the Supreme Court. That's a part of what she announced today, she has jumped ahead of it and grabbed the initiative.
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.
That was a feature not a bugdeliberately designed that way by Cameron so that he could play the Project Fear card of "you don't know what Brexit actually means". I fear that a UK government that allows a second Scottish referendum would do the same, even though it's clearly not fair on the voters.
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
Well Sturgeon is going to the Supreme Court to ask this question, and if they say no its not "indisputably lawful and constitutional", she has said that it won't go ahead.
Sturgeon isn't, the UK Gov is (will).
Holyrood passes the legislation, it is up to the UK gov to challenge as unlawful.
If the UK gov doesn't challenge then it is defacto lawful.
Not how the BBC report it....they report it as she wanted legal clarity before trying to pass any referendum bill.
Ms Sturgeon said Scotland's top law officer, the Lord Advocate, has referred the case to the UK's highest court, with court papers being served on UK government law officers on Tuesday afternoon.
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
I presume she is working on the principle that if (as I think she expects) the courts block her, she will do as Boris did in 2019 and play up this narrative with full expectation of a similar outcome.
Yes, for sure, that’s her plan
My question is will it work. The SNP does really well in Westminster because of a split opposition and FPTP
If her “this is a vote for independence” shtick gains traction then opposition voters might vote tactically, significantly reducing her MPs = fail
It’s a gamble.
Fortune favours the brave but the polls show Scots don’t want a vote any time soon and NO is still, as it has been for quite some time, marginally ahead
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
I presume she is working on the principle that if (as I think she expects) the courts block her, she will do as Boris did in 2019 and play up this narrative of unelected enemies of the people with full expectation of a similar galvanising effect as Boris managed.
Not the judges but the (equally unelected, in Scotland) Scotland Acts in their current form, I think. She's a lawyer herself.
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
Or she'll ensure that the other pro-independence parties (Greens, Alba) step aside and give a free run for the SNP to get the majority, while anti-independence parties (Labour, Tories) will be fighting each other tooth and nail.
Even if every MP in Scotland was SNP it would be irrelevant if the Tories won a majority or Labour most seats, the UK government would still refuse an official indyref2 and refuse independence.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament but the SNP hold the balance of power will there be an indyref2
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
Or she'll ensure that the other pro-independence parties (Greens, Alba) step aside and give a free run for the SNP to get the majority, while anti-independence parties (Labour, Tories) will be fighting each other tooth and nail.
Even if every MP in Scotland was SNP it would be irrelevant if the Tories won a majority or Labour most seats, the UK government would still refuse an official indyref2 and refuse independence.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament but the SNP hold the balance of power will there be an indyref2
I would absolutely love it if Boris confounds you by agreeing to a referendum next year.
No doubt suddenly it will be the right thing to do, to put the matter to bed. 🤣
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
I presume she is working on the principle that if (as I think she expects) the courts block her, she will do as Boris did in 2019 and play up this narrative of unelected enemies of the people with full expectation of a similar galvanising effect as Boris managed.
Maybe a touch more potent even given it's Westminster not Holyrood doing the blocking. Not 'parliament v the people' but THEIR parliament v the people.
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
It will be a heck of a case. As to the powers of Scottish government to spend money one element is this. Local government in England is in entirety a creature of statute, and can only spend money on that which it either must or may do.
The Scottish government may want to argue either that it has powers to do X under statute. Much more fun would be the argument that it possesses inherent powers revived from the authority Scotland had before both the Act of Union and the union of the crowns in 1603.
For constitution wallahs it might be jackpot popcorn time.
(I live in England and can see Scotland from my road. Nothing in this comment should be taken as a suggestion that Scotland seeking a closer political relationship with Latvia than it does with its major trading partner, England, is anything other than insane. Hands up all those who want to replicate the Ireland border problem at Gretna and Berwick?)
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
Or she'll ensure that the other pro-independence parties (Greens, Alba) step aside and give a free run for the SNP to get the majority, while anti-independence parties (Labour, Tories) will be fighting each other tooth and nail.
Yes quite possibly. The Scottish unionists might need to bury differences and hold noses and accept an electoral pact, too
I’ve grave doubts that they will
That said I am not completely sure the Greens WILL step aside for the Nats? Alba is irrelevant
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
Well Sturgeon is going to the Supreme Court to ask this question, and if they say no its not "indisputably lawful and constitutional", she has said that it won't go ahead.
Sturgeon isn't, the UK Gov is (will).
Holyrood passes the legislation, it is up to the UK gov to challenge as unlawful.
If the UK gov doesn't challenge then it is defacto lawful.
Not how the BBC report it....they report it as she wanted legal clarity before trying to pass any referendum bill.
Ms Sturgeon said Scotland's top law officer, the Lord Advocate, has referred the case to the UK's highest court, with court papers being served on UK government law officers on Tuesday afternoon.
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
I presume she is working on the principle that if (as I think she expects) the courts block her, she will do as Boris did in 2019 and play up this narrative of unelected enemies of the people with full expectation of a similar galvanising effect as Boris managed.
Not the judges but the (equally unelected, in Scotland) Scotland Acts in their current form, I think. She's a lawyer herself.
Well it was also the law that blocked Boris, but it doesn't stop politicians playing the narrative of the enemies of the people, be it judges or Westminster.
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
Or she'll ensure that the other pro-independence parties (Greens, Alba) step aside and give a free run for the SNP to get the majority, while anti-independence parties (Labour, Tories) will be fighting each other tooth and nail.
Even if every MP in Scotland was SNP it would be irrelevant if the Tories won a majority or Labour most seats, the UK government would still refuse an official indyref2 and refuse independence.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament but the SNP hold the balance of power will there be an indyref2
I would absolutely love it if Boris confounds you by agreeing to a referendum next year.
No doubt suddenly it will be the right thing to do, to put the matter to bed. 🤣
He won't as if he lost it as I said earlier he would have to resign the next day or face a VONC that would force him out and would go down in history for all eternity as the worst PM since Lord North
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
Well Sturgeon is going to the Supreme Court to ask this question, and if they say no its not "indisputably lawful and constitutional", she has said that it won't go ahead.
Sturgeon isn't, the UK Gov is (will).
Holyrood passes the legislation, it is up to the UK gov to challenge as unlawful.
If the UK gov doesn't challenge then it is defacto lawful.
No, you're wrong, Sturgeon is. Sturgeon has asked the Law Advocate to take the matter to the Supreme Court. That's a part of what she announced today, she has jumped ahead of it and grabbed the initiative.
That's interesting. It obviates the much-touted Tory plan of waiting for an unofficial indyref2 to be declared and (a) getting some supposedly neutral and public-spirited person with a remarkably deep pocket to bring a SC case and/or (b) telling their councils and Labour chums in the councils to boycott the arrangements. It keeps HMG and Mr Johnson centrally in the sights.
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
Or she'll ensure that the other pro-independence parties (Greens, Alba) step aside and give a free run for the SNP to get the majority, while anti-independence parties (Labour, Tories) will be fighting each other tooth and nail.
Even if every MP in Scotland was SNP it would be irrelevant if the Tories won a majority or Labour most seats, the UK government would still refuse an official indyref2 and refuse independence.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament but the SNP hold the balance of power will there be an indyref2
I would absolutely love it if Boris confounds you by agreeing to a referendum next year.
No doubt suddenly it will be the right thing to do, to put the matter to bed. 🤣
He won't as if he lost it as I said earlier he would have to resign the next day or face a VONC that would force him out and would go down in history for all eternity as the worst PM since Lord North
You'll be delighted to know that October 19 is the day of the fall of Yorktown.
If the court rules that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum, she said the next general election would become a "de facto referendum" with the SNP standing on a single issue of independence.
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
On what is the UK veto actually based? Can the Scottish Government not use its revenue for most purposes, including holding plebiscites? The UK can of course refuse to recognise the result if it doesn't like it, but does the UK Government have the right to actually forbid the Scots (or anyone else) from holding a non-binding vote at their expense, if they wish?
Well Sturgeon is going to the Supreme Court to ask this question, and if they say no its not "indisputably lawful and constitutional", she has said that it won't go ahead.
Sturgeon isn't, the UK Gov is (will).
Holyrood passes the legislation, it is up to the UK gov to challenge as unlawful.
If the UK gov doesn't challenge then it is defacto lawful.
Not how the BBC report it....they report it as she wanted legal clarity before trying to pass any referendum bill.
Ms Sturgeon said Scotland's top law officer, the Lord Advocate, has referred the case to the UK's highest court, with court papers being served on UK government law officers on Tuesday afternoon.
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?
Not sure how much light yours truly can bring upon this rather complex politico-legal issue.
However, note that very similar issues & inter-state conflicts resulted from the federal Fugitive Slave acts, especially that of 1850 which was key part of the Compromise of 1850:
Putting on the natty beret of neutrality for a moment, sturgeon’s statement about the next GE being a “de facto” vote on Sindy is interesting
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
Or she'll ensure that the other pro-independence parties (Greens, Alba) step aside and give a free run for the SNP to get the majority, while anti-independence parties (Labour, Tories) will be fighting each other tooth and nail.
Even if every MP in Scotland was SNP it would be irrelevant if the Tories won a majority or Labour most seats, the UK government would still refuse an official indyref2 and refuse independence.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament but the SNP hold the balance of power will there be an indyref2
I would absolutely love it if Boris confounds you by agreeing to a referendum next year.
No doubt suddenly it will be the right thing to do, to put the matter to bed. 🤣
He won't as if he lost it as I said earlier he would have to resign the next day or face a VONC that would force him out and would go down in history for all eternity as the worst PM since Lord North
That title is wrapped up already. He's smashed it out of the park.
Comments
Look, from a selfish point of view, I want you to get independence. I have a Scottish wife. We could get passports that allows us speedy access to our EU holiday destinations. But you look to be making no progress to answering the issues that might deliver it. Paint your face with a Saltire and scream "FREEEEEDOM!" instead. Knock yourself out.
But the Scots are canny enough to know when they are taking a leap into the unknown.
And canny enough not to do it.
As we have seen.
It could tie up lawyers for years, on each individual case against someone like Melinda Gates, who’s clearly worth suing.
It’s also why the legal cannabis stores in various states are unbanked and have to deal in cash. Because no bank will give them an account.
All other actions of bodily autonomy with the intention of abortion are crimes.
FWIW I have no problem with a law which tries to balance the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. But it is social policy, not law which will maximise human happiness and minimise unhappiness in this field.
Any anti-abortion state's politicians will have to run off against pro-choicers in the future.
THese things develop - on both sides. Pieces are moved and reactions happen. Which is why it will be very interesting to see what happens. For instance, I've often thought that EEA/EFTA is another option.
Meanwhile, that is your view of what will happen with the EU - but you are a Brexiter who has to justify a decision which is increasingly regarded with discontent.
Breyer obviously is already going
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/video/tv/the-incredible-birth-of-a-baby-kangaroo
So there is the possibility they could be prosecuted/sued (depending on the exact law) if they ever enter the state after helping someone.
More usually witnessed in its "I'll take a "P" Bob" function.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61968607
Isn't that what the SNP stands for at every election?
Although we arrived at abortion through different processes, and many other countries arrived at it through different processes, I argue that the recognition of access to abortion is predicated pretty much entirely on these rights. In the UK context legislation articulated the right, but its foundations go deeper into concepts such as bodily autonomy.
The idea that the Court has simply kicked abortion back to the states doesn't hold up in my view, nor, it seems, in the view of at least on Justice of the Supreme Court.
Let the voting public decide. Respect what the public votes for, whether you like it or not.
You can find some numbers in the usual Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
(Did Prime Minister Stephen Harper know this would happen, when he encouraged immigration? Probably, he's a very smart fellow.)
Rejoin the single market, for example.
Ditch BoZo as another example
It's also difficult for the Tories to respond, after many years of being the single-issue "Ruth Davidson Says No to Indyref/Independence" party, and their Cato the Censor-like speeches in the Curia at Holyrood.
Currently (as you say) it's abortion is illegal unless - define where it's ok. The proposal was to change this to abortion is legal unless - define where it's not ok.
Same effect in practice but with a different symbolism. The current formulation kind of implies the government default owns a woman's body and they're doing her a favour with the exceptions. The proposed change says the opposite - that she default owns her own body but is making these exceptions for middle and late pregnancy.
I remember discussing it with cyclefree. Not sure where they went with it.
For a more positive example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_of_the_Good_Shepherd
They got a double mandate to *ask the public again*.
That's a different thing altogether.
Red Wall Voting Intention (26-27 June):
Labour 46% (–)
Conservative 35% (-1)
Reform UK 3% (-3)
Liberal Democrat 8% (+3)
Green 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (-1)
Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 12-13 June
https://t.co/maya4jFd9w https://t.co/JNeVL55Wlb
Bonus points if you can find do compare and contrast for posters' consistency between Brexit & SINDY.
How much does a strong doctrine of state's rights work when people can easily hopscotch between states? Unless you are prepared to go a bit... well... East German on people.
https://twitter.com/llggeorgia/status/1541685855454203905?s=20&t=TbW6n_ND417PpJSQawq74Q
I don't think having a cuppa is in the top 100 reasons for a nation becoming a load of fatty fatty bum bums.
Would be interesting if the SC decision proved a gift to Biden.
Unionist parties have to start winning Holyrood elections, with a positive manifesto on how to use Holyrood's powers to improve life in Scotland, if they want to put the constitutional question to bed.
No number of referendum victories will put the issue to bed if the Unionists keep on losing Holyrood elections.
https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2022-05/consultation-document-energy-drinks_0.pdf
“Most of the cabinet have been selected for their loyalty to the PM… there are some people in the cabinet who lets be honest wouldn’t be in anybody else’s cabinet”
🔥 #NSLive
https://twitter.com/AliFortescue/status/1541815921274228736
Mark Harper tells #NSpoliticslive that events “will shift more people in the (PM) should go camp… I do think he only has a matter of time"
"Even those colleagues that did support him a couple of weeks ago don’t want him to lead us into the next election”
via @AliFortescue
https://twitter.com/LouisDegenhardt/status/1541815627953864704
(There are, naturally, Youtube versions of the song available, for those who haven't heard it, or want a refresher. It's a little over five minutes long, and taking that time to hear and see it will probably cheer most of you up.)
Since 2014 there has been multiple further votes. Looking at Scottish votes . . .
2015 - General Election, the SNP won
2016 - Scottish Parliament Election, the SNP won
2016 - EU Referendum, Remain won
2017 - General Election, the SNP won
2019 - General Election, the SNP won
2021 - Scottish Parliament Election, the SNP won
The Scottish voting public have elected the SNP, not just once, but five times since 2014. That's their choice.
After the second Quebecois referendum, the Quebec voting public got fed up with the BQ not taking no for an answer and as a result they're out of power. If the SNP won't take no for an answer, the Scottish public has the right to vote for someone other than the SNP if that's what they'd prefer.
For it to work - ie exert moral pressure on HMG - she needs to increase her number of MPs and/or get a majority of Scottish votes, in 2024
Is she close to doing that? I dunno the psephology maybe a stat champ can help
The downside risk is that she galvanises tactical votes against the Nats and loses MPs or vote share, this actually diminishing her moral leverage
It's truly bonkers extra-territorialism.
Holyrood passes the legislation, it is up to the UK gov to challenge as unlawful.
If the UK gov doesn't challenge then it is defacto lawful.
In 2003, Quebec accepted some 37,619 immigrants. A large proportion of these immigrants originated from francophone countries and countries that are former French colonies. Countries from which significant numbers of people immigrate include Haiti, Congo-Brazzaville, Lebanon, Morocco, Rwanda, Syria, Algeria, France and Belgium. Under the Canada-Quebec Accord, Quebec has sole responsibility for selecting most immigrants destined to the province. . . .
Interprovincial migration, especially to Ontario, results in a net loss of population in Quebec. The numbers of French-speaking Quebecers leaving the province tend to be similar to the number entering, while immigrants to Quebec are more likely to leave. Outmigration has most affected the English-speaking minority in Quebec, accounting for its population being significantly reduced since the 1970s. . . .
SSI - more stuff of interest in this article, unfortunately most of it appears about 20 years old.
However, note point re: Quebec partial control re: immigration into the province.
As for Stephen Harper, he's so smart that Conservative Party has been out of power thanks in part to the mess he left them, and that got HIM defeated in his last hurrah. Despite split in Canadian center-left is AND Harper playing footsie with Quebec nationalists (an old tradition with Canuck Tories).
a feature not a bugdeliberately designed that way by Cameron so that he could play the Project Fear card of "you don't know what Brexit actually means". I fear that a UK government that allows a second Scottish referendum would do the same, even though it's clearly not fair on the voters.Ms Sturgeon said Scotland's top law officer, the Lord Advocate, has referred the case to the UK's highest court, with court papers being served on UK government law officers on Tuesday afternoon.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61968607
My question is will it work. The SNP does really well in Westminster because of a split opposition and FPTP
If her “this is a vote for independence” shtick gains traction then opposition voters might vote tactically, significantly reducing her MPs = fail
It’s a gamble.
Fortune favours the brave but the polls show Scots don’t want a vote any time soon and NO is still, as it has been for quite some time, marginally ahead
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament but the SNP hold the balance of power will there be an indyref2
No doubt suddenly it will be the right thing to do, to put the matter to bed. 🤣
The Scottish government may want to argue either that it has powers to do X under statute. Much more fun would be the argument that it possesses inherent powers revived from the authority Scotland had before both the Act of Union and the union of the crowns in 1603.
For constitution wallahs it might be jackpot popcorn time.
(I live in England and can see Scotland from my road. Nothing in this comment should be taken as a suggestion that Scotland seeking a closer political relationship with Latvia than it does with its major trading partner, England, is anything other than insane. Hands up all those who want to replicate the Ireland border problem at Gretna and Berwick?)
I’ve grave doubts that they will
That said I am not completely sure the Greens WILL step aside for the Nats? Alba is irrelevant
"Not in the face!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9B_9YeVhsw
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/32A
https://www.reuters.com/technology/russian-parliament-approves-tax-break-issuers-digital-assets-2022-06-28/
However, note that very similar issues & inter-state conflicts resulted from the federal Fugitive Slave acts, especially that of 1850 which was key part of the Compromise of 1850:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850