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
Leon, shouldn't you be renting a mule, pushing inland, and interviewing hardy mountaineers on there views re: Scottish independence?
Note that independence of Montenegro from Serbia is still a burning issue (sometimes literally).
"A rape victim who wants a female sex only counselling group should be able to speak to a female sex only counselling group.
I don't know of anything in law that requires charities to provide that though, which is why I think the case should be lost. Its permitted to do that, and would be the right thing to do morally, but I don't see why it is against the law not to offer that service."
This is not I think quite right. The issue is whether in failing to provide a female only counselling service the charity is directly or indirectly discriminating against the rape victim on the grounds of sex, which would be a breach of the Equality Act.
Service providers must not discriminate against those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Whether such discrimination, direct or indirect, had happened here will be a matter of the facts and the interpretation of equality law, which can be a bit of a minefield. But as a general point, if the inclusion of men (who claim to be transwomen) results in such discrimination then the fact that the charity has announced its policy in advance does not help it.
Personally I think that rape counselling services should bend over backwards to help rape victims. If that means providing female only sessions, they should do this. I do not see why they cannot do this for both women and transwomen, separately if necessary, to accommodate all.
Why are they not seeking to do so here? Is it a lack of resources? Unwillingness? Ideology? Or what?
Having been a rape victim I felt deeply uncomfortable and shameful describing it to anyone, let alone a man, even a doctor, let alone a man claiming to be a woman. It is not possible to overestimate the sense of shame women feel after a rape. A man who thinks he is a woman should have some empathy with that. Why does he want to listen to women describing their trauma knowing that they may be upset by his presence. There is something troubling in that. Equally there is something troubling in a rape counselling service seeming to prioritise inclusivity over helping female rape victims.
I wonder if there is something we have not been told.
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.
But choosing independence just because some of the loudest Brexiteers are irritating to Scottish ears is not a good basis for a decision.
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.
But choosing independence just because some of the loudest Brexiteers are irritating to Scottish ears is not a good basis for a decision.
It’s a good reason to ignore the vapourings of Brexit hypocrites, insofar as anyone was listening to them in the first place
I'm not too au fait with the current arguments for and against Indyref 2, but for the minute, I think the UK Government should just stick to the positon - 'Yes of course you can have a referendum, no, of course it won't be legally binding'. It should welcome it as an exercise in democracy, say that everyone should feel free to vote (or not vote) as they wish, not sponsor an official Unionist campaign, but say that others are free to do so if they wish, and treat the result as an interesting barometer of Scotland's current indy mood. It's for the Scottish public to decide whether they endorse the activity or feel it's a distraction from other priorities.
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.
At least Lord North was a WAY funner comedian than Boris Johnson. (As per two-vol bio by Alan Valentine.)
And LN wrote all his own material, a claim I seriously doubt BJ can credibly make (or visa versa)?
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
Have to disagree with you there. Not entirely irrelevant
This is an obvious move from Sturgeon but it doesn’t mean it is stupid or inane. This is what happened in Ireland. It returned 100% home rule MPs and moral pressure WAS exerted on Westminster
However Scotland is VERY different to Ireland post 1900 in almost all other ways. For a start Scotland has been given a vote already. And they voted No
And of course Scottish public opinion is anti referendum and just about NO
As I said, this is a gamble by Nicola. But not an illogical gamble
I'm not too au fait with the current arguments for and against Indyref 2, but for the minute, I think the UK Government should just stick to the positon - 'Yes of course you can have a referendum, no, of course it won't be legally binding'. It should welcome it as an exercise in democracy, say that everyone should feel free to vote as they wish, not sponsor an official Unionist campaign, but say that others are free to do so if they wish, and treat the result as an interesting barometer of Scotland's current indy mood. It's for the Scottish public to decide whether they endorse the activity or feel it's a distraction from other priorities.
No, they should tell Unionists to boycott it and completely ignore it. Just as the PP government in Spain successfully ignored the unofficial Catalan independence referendum in 2017
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.
A really good friend of mine worked for the CC (in the UK) for a decade, doing some brilliant social work with the local ‘fallen women’, many of them teenagers. She’d turn up at her own parents’ house with a 16-year-old pregnant girl kicked out by her boyfriend, and spend sometimes weeks looking after her, until she could go back to her parents or to another foster carer.
Sadly, the adoption centre work of the CC was shut down by legislation in the UK, and she ended up spending her time dealing mostly with social services and government bureaucracy rather than looking after people.
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
Because hes a branch manager who has just got back from a blue sky thinking course and has decided to adopt the joke example from the first seminar. Or he has a bet on for craziest shit with the other uk leaders.
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:
There could be some interesting unintended consequences. I don’t know if Federal Laws insist that States are obliged to extradite to other States but we could surely see a situation where “pro-choice states” blanket ban extradition to “pro-life states” in order to ensure they can offer abortions to out of staters without risking their own residents being extradited but also as a form of pressure to ensure that aiding abortion out of state is not put into law as an extra-state crime and this extraditable.
So for example NY could ban all extraction to Georgia which would likely then have even further unintended consequences.
Maybe it’s Trump’s genius plan all along, get states to ban extradition and then hole up in a friendly state if NY prosecuted him!
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.
At least Lord North was a WAY funner comedian than Boris Johnson. (As per two-vol bio by Alan Valentine.)
And LN wrote all his own material, a claim I seriously doubt BJ can credibly make (or visa versa)?
And lasted as long in office as the last 3 PMs combined, which hyufd usually thinks a major plus
I'm not too au fait with the current arguments for and against Indyref 2, but for the minute, I think the UK Government should just stick to the positon - 'Yes of course you can have a referendum, no, of course it won't be legally binding'. It should welcome it as an exercise in democracy, say that everyone should feel free to vote as they wish, not sponsor an official Unionist campaign, but say that others are free to do so if they wish, and treat the result as an interesting barometer of Scotland's current indy mood. It's for the Scottish public to decide whether they endorse the activity or feel it's a distraction from other priorities.
No, they should tell Unionists to boycott it and completely ignore it. Just as the PP government in Spain successfully ignored the unofficial Catalan independence referendum in 2017
I don't think the UK Government should be 'telling' Unionists or anyone else what to do here. Just make sure everyone knows that the result will be treated with nothing more than mild interest, and let the chips fall where they may.
I'm not too au fait with the current arguments for and against Indyref 2, but for the minute, I think the UK Government should just stick to the positon - 'Yes of course you can have a referendum, no, of course it won't be legally binding'. It should welcome it as an exercise in democracy, say that everyone should feel free to vote as they wish, not sponsor an official Unionist campaign, but say that others are free to do so if they wish, and treat the result as an interesting barometer of Scotland's current indy mood. It's for the Scottish public to decide whether they endorse the activity or feel it's a distraction from other priorities.
No, they should tell Unionists to boycott it and completely ignore it. Just as the PP government in Spain successfully ignored the unofficial Catalan independence referendum in 2017
'Completely ignore it' is a strange way to describe getting your paramilitary police to beat up grannies going to vote to try and ensure a low turnout. A tactic, as I recall, that you thoroughly approved of.
I'm not too au fait with the current arguments for and against Indyref 2, but for the minute, I think the UK Government should just stick to the positon - 'Yes of course you can have a referendum, no, of course it won't be legally binding'. It should welcome it as an exercise in democracy, say that everyone should feel free to vote as they wish, not sponsor an official Unionist campaign, but say that others are free to do so if they wish, and treat the result as an interesting barometer of Scotland's current indy mood. It's for the Scottish public to decide whether they endorse the activity or feel it's a distraction from other priorities.
No, they should tell Unionists to boycott it and completely ignore it. Just as the PP government in Spain successfully ignored the unofficial Catalan independence referendum in 2017
Successfully ignoring = beating a few grannies over the head does it?
Does anyone have an idea when the SCOTUK will make this referendum ruling? Sturgeon makes it sound like she is going for the decision ASAP. How soon is that!
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
Because he's a petty, small-minded control freak who wants to exercise powers to affect people's lives, but doesn't have much ability or influence to do so otherwise.
See also: Forcing shops that are allowed to be open, to tape up aisles so that people who are allowed to be in those shops, can't buy those specific products.
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
Have to disagree with you there. Not entirely irrelevant
This is an obvious move from Sturgeon but it doesn’t mean it is stupid or inane. This is what happened in Ireland. It returned 100% home rule MPs and moral pressure WAS exerted on Westminster
However Scotland is VERY different to Ireland post 1900 in almost all other ways. For a start Scotland has been given a vote already. And they voted No
And of course Scottish public opinion is anti referendum and just about NO
As I said, this is a gamble by Nicola. But not an illogical gamble
Not quite 100%, just 73 seats for SF versus 22 Unionists and 6 Irish Nationalists; within the future Irish Free State, just 2 Unionists (both for Trinity College Dublin) and 2 Nationalists.
"A rape victim who wants a female sex only counselling group should be able to speak to a female sex only counselling group.
I don't know of anything in law that requires charities to provide that though, which is why I think the case should be lost. Its permitted to do that, and would be the right thing to do morally, but I don't see why it is against the law not to offer that service."
This is not I think quite right. The issue is whether in failing to provide a female only counselling service the charity is directly or indirectly discriminating against the rape victim on the grounds of sex, which would be a breach of the Equality Act.
Service providers must not discriminate against those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Whether such discrimination, direct or indirect, had happened here will be a matter of the facts and the interpretation of equality law, which can be a bit of a minefield. But as a general point, if the inclusion of men (who claim to be transwomen) results in such discrimination then the fact that the charity has announced its policy in advance does not help it.
Personally I think that rape counselling services should bend over backwards to help rape victims. If that means providing female only sessions, they should do this. I do not see why they cannot do this for both women and transwomen, separately if necessary, to accommodate all.
Why are they not seeking to do so here? Is it a lack of resources? Unwillingness? Ideology? Or what?
Having been a rape victim I felt deeply uncomfortable and shameful describing it to anyone, let alone a man, even a doctor, let alone a man claiming to be a woman. It is not possible to overestimate the sense of shame women feel after a rape. A man who thinks he is a woman should have some empathy with that. Why does he want to listen to women describing their trauma knowing that they may be upset by his presence. There is something troubling in that. Equally there is something troubling in a rape counselling service seeming to prioritise inclusivity over helping female rape victims.
I wonder if there is something we have not been told.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and enlightening post Miss Cycle. Women only rape counselling sessions should of course be provided if that's what the victim wants and to be honest it's nuts that it should even be a point of discussion.
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
He's not proposing. He's asking, as part of a wider inquisition into public views on things like energy drinks. I p[osted the relevant inquiry document earlier.
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
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
"A rape victim who wants a female sex only counselling group should be able to speak to a female sex only counselling group.
I don't know of anything in law that requires charities to provide that though, which is why I think the case should be lost. Its permitted to do that, and would be the right thing to do morally, but I don't see why it is against the law not to offer that service."
This is not I think quite right. The issue is whether in failing to provide a female only counselling service the charity is directly or indirectly discriminating against the rape victim on the grounds of sex, which would be a breach of the Equality Act.
Service providers must not discriminate against those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Whether such discrimination, direct or indirect, had happened here will be a matter of the facts and the interpretation of equality law, which can be a bit of a minefield. But as a general point, if the inclusion of men (who claim to be transwomen) results in such discrimination then the fact that the charity has announced its policy in advance does not help it.
Personally I think that rape counselling services should bend over backwards to help rape victims. If that means providing female only sessions, they should do this. I do not see why they cannot do this for both women and transwomen, separately if necessary, to accommodate all.
Why are they not seeking to do so here? Is it a lack of resources? Unwillingness? Ideology? Or what?
Having been a rape victim I felt deeply uncomfortable and shameful describing it to anyone, let alone a man, even a doctor, let alone a man claiming to be a woman. It is not possible to overestimate the sense of shame women feel after a rape. A man who thinks he is a woman should have some empathy with that. Why does he want to listen to women describing their trauma knowing that they may be upset by his presence. There is something troubling in that. Equally there is something troubling in a rape counselling service seeming to prioritise inclusivity over helping female rape victims.
I wonder if there is something we have not been told.
The charity offered her 1-to-1 counselling which she turned down in favour of suing them.
Rather enjoying the England v South Africa women's cricket Test which I've got on in the background. The skill of women's cricket is every bit as good as the mens game.
Rather like the mens game too, England collapsed with 5 wickets rapidly out, only to have a big stand for the sixth wicket with both batters now centurions - one of them a centurion on her debut.
Remarkably the lady who has taken a century on her debut also took a wicket yesterday. Only the second person ever to take a wicket and bat a century for England on their debut - the only other one to do it was W G Grace in 1880.
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?)
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
He's not proposing. He's asking, as part of a wider inquisition into public views on things like energy drinks. I p[osted the relevant inquiry document earlier.
It's almost like he's doing it to make tea 'edgy' again and help the industry. Like George Bush helpfully banned jeans from the Oval Office after Bill Clinton's fondness for Levis nearly killed the jeans industry.
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
Because he's a petty, small-minded control freak who wants to exercise powers to affect people's lives, but doesn't have much ability or influence to do so otherwise.
See also: Forcing shops that are allowed to be open, to tape up aisles so that people who are allowed to be in those shops, can't buy those specific products.
Here is another of his Corbynista ideas to put alongside abolishing all 30mph and replacing them with 20mph
England avoided this and more by binning Corbyn
People set to receive £1,600 per month in Wales in basic income trial
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
Because he's a petty, small-minded control freak who wants to exercise powers to affect people's lives, but doesn't have much ability or influence to do so otherwise.
See also: Forcing shops that are allowed to be open, to tape up aisles so that people who are allowed to be in those shops, can't buy those specific products.
Maybe he can bring in his ladder system for over 16s who can safely consume the deadly drug caffeine. Once a man orders coffee, the next sale must be tea to a woman (or beverage and gender of equal value)
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
"A rape victim who wants a female sex only counselling group should be able to speak to a female sex only counselling group.
I don't know of anything in law that requires charities to provide that though, which is why I think the case should be lost. Its permitted to do that, and would be the right thing to do morally, but I don't see why it is against the law not to offer that service."
This is not I think quite right. The issue is whether in failing to provide a female only counselling service the charity is directly or indirectly discriminating against the rape victim on the grounds of sex, which would be a breach of the Equality Act.
Service providers must not discriminate against those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Whether such discrimination, direct or indirect, had happened here will be a matter of the facts and the interpretation of equality law, which can be a bit of a minefield. But as a general point, if the inclusion of men (who claim to be transwomen) results in such discrimination then the fact that the charity has announced its policy in advance does not help it.
Personally I think that rape counselling services should bend over backwards to help rape victims. If that means providing female only sessions, they should do this. I do not see why they cannot do this for both women and transwomen, separately if necessary, to accommodate all.
Why are they not seeking to do so here? Is it a lack of resources? Unwillingness? Ideology? Or what?
Having been a rape victim I felt deeply uncomfortable and shameful describing it to anyone, let alone a man, even a doctor, let alone a man claiming to be a woman. It is not possible to overestimate the sense of shame women feel after a rape. A man who thinks he is a woman should have some empathy with that. Why does he want to listen to women describing their trauma knowing that they may be upset by his presence. There is something troubling in that. Equally there is something troubling in a rape counselling service seeming to prioritise inclusivity over helping female rape victims.
I wonder if there is something we have not been told.
The charity offered her 1-to-1 counselling which she turned down in favour of suing them.
Isn't group therapy and support part of what is meant to be offered though with that sort of counselling though? 1-to-1 isn't the same thing at all.
Why should she be only offered 1-to-1 counselling, rather than be offered group support?
I don't see how the charity can lose this case, but that doesn't mean they weren't [morally] in the wrong here, even if not legally in the wrong.
My view on IndyRef2 is the same as it was on IndyRef1.
It's a matter for Scotland. I hope they decide to stay as part of the Union but if they choose to leave I shall wish them well and hope we can remain friends and allies.
Given the noises currently coming from the army and government I do wonder whether we might be in the midst of WW3 by October 2023 mind?
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Rather enjoying the England v South Africa women's cricket Test which I've got on in the background. The skill of women's cricket is every bit as good as the mens game.
Rather like the mens game too, England collapsed with 5 wickets rapidly out, only to have a big stand for the sixth wicket with both batters now centurions - one of them a centurion on her debut.
Remarkably the lady who has taken a century on her debut also took a wicket yesterday. Only the second person ever to take a wicket and bat a century for England on their debut - the only other one to do it was W G Grace in 1880.
I am sorry, this is just not true. The standard of women's cricket is very poor.
Put it this way, if your average club player tried to play a top women's tennis player or tried to compete against any international women's elite athletics competitor they would be absolutely rinsed. I could train every day of my life and never get close to elite women athletes.
Saturday reasonable level of amateur club cricket is a better standard than women's international cricket, let alone the semi-pro "premier" leagues. I played in one of these semi-pro leagues and wasn't really quick enough to be a big threat as a bowler, even though I bowled mid 70s mph (which is faster than any woman international bowler). Even at that level, I faced 80+ every week, the spinners were as fast as the women's seam bowlers.
The problem for talented women there isn't any real money in women's cricket, if you are strong, powerful, athletic, coordinated, there is good money to be made in tennis, golf, athletics. Football is still not great, but cricket is not really a sensible career option at all.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
Because hes a branch manager who has just got back from a blue sky thinking course and has decided to adopt the joke example from the first seminar. Or he has a bet on for craziest shit with the other uk leaders.
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
He's not proposing. He's asking, as part of a wider inquisition into public views on things like energy drinks. I p[osted the relevant inquiry document earlier.
Yes, but when you propose something there is supposed to be a reason. One common principle is that the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit intelligent consideration. If inclusion of things is arbitrary how could people intelligently consider? If it would not contribute to the stated aim of reducing obesity then why even ask about it (you are not supposed to just randomly consult either)?
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
Please, PLEASE, don’t draw comparisons between Scotland and 2017 Catalonia.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
"A rape victim who wants a female sex only counselling group should be able to speak to a female sex only counselling group.
I don't know of anything in law that requires charities to provide that though, which is why I think the case should be lost. Its permitted to do that, and would be the right thing to do morally, but I don't see why it is against the law not to offer that service."
This is not I think quite right. The issue is whether in failing to provide a female only counselling service the charity is directly or indirectly discriminating against the rape victim on the grounds of sex, which would be a breach of the Equality Act.
Service providers must not discriminate against those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Whether such discrimination, direct or indirect, had happened here will be a matter of the facts and the interpretation of equality law, which can be a bit of a minefield. But as a general point, if the inclusion of men (who claim to be transwomen) results in such discrimination then the fact that the charity has announced its policy in advance does not help it.
Personally I think that rape counselling services should bend over backwards to help rape victims. If that means providing female only sessions, they should do this. I do not see why they cannot do this for both women and transwomen, separately if necessary, to accommodate all.
Why are they not seeking to do so here? Is it a lack of resources? Unwillingness? Ideology? Or what?
Having been a rape victim I felt deeply uncomfortable and shameful describing it to anyone, let alone a man, even a doctor, let alone a man claiming to be a woman. It is not possible to overestimate the sense of shame women feel after a rape. A man who thinks he is a woman should have some empathy with that. Why does he want to listen to women describing their trauma knowing that they may be upset by his presence. There is something troubling in that. Equally there is something troubling in a rape counselling service seeming to prioritise inclusivity over helping female rape victims.
I wonder if there is something we have not been told.
The charity offered her 1-to-1 counselling which she turned down in favour of suing them.
Isn't group therapy and support part of what is meant to be offered though with that sort of counselling though? 1-to-1 isn't the same thing at all.
Why should she be only offered 1-to-1 counselling, rather than be offered group support?
I don't see how the charity can lose this case, but that doesn't mean they weren't [morally] in the wrong here, even if not legally in the wrong.
They are an intersectional feminist charity who state that trans-women are women and as a result are welcome in all their women only spaces.
What if the charity only had the capacity to run a single group session?
Literally spent the last hour discussing why I think Steve Bray is a dickhead on the last thread only to eventually work out we're over 3 hours and 300 comments into a new one on here. :-/
Can the Justices of the Supreme Court, choose to sit elsewhere (for example, Edinburgh), when they were to deliver a particular judgement?
That might otherwise avoid a judgement being portrayed primarily by the name of the city in which the judges sat.
Would they get out of the city
Would people be threatening them?
IT's happened before - here is an example, I can't recall why though. I have a dim memory from reading the autobiography of Brenda Hale that they do it if it is a matter where it would be simpler for them to come to where the witnesses, evidence, legal eagles etc. are.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
you are always good for a chuckle. I am amazed people like you can walk the streets.
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
Because hes a branch manager who has just got back from a blue sky thinking course and has decided to adopt the joke example from the first seminar. Or he has a bet on for craziest shit with the other uk leaders.
Because childhood obesity apparently.
Lot of fat arsed kids round here scoring tea after dark. Quite frightening. Some of them do a whole flask of typhoo as pre drinks before they hit the cafes.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
Please, PLEASE, don’t draw comparisons between Scotland and 2017 Catalonia.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Doesn't seem like it gains a 'legal' mandate even if 100% of of MPs were SNP (not itself completely impossible given past results), albeit the moral mandate would be pretty inarguable, so presumably any non negotation at that point, given the gauntlet thrown, would have to lead to a unilateral declaration (on the basis that a state can always declare secession illegal and just refuse to recognise, as Spain does, making legal routes impossible).
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
Please, PLEASE, don’t draw comparisons between Scotland and 2017 Catalonia.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
HYUFD, please would you do a thread header series discussing the similarities of Caledonia 2023 and Catalonia 2017? Please, pretty please? About 9 should do it.
Literally spent the last hour discussing why I think Steve Bray is a dickhead on the last thread only to eventually work out we're over 3 hours and 300 comments into a new one on here. :-/
If you slip him some money he might chant "STOP NEW THREADS!!!!" for you.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
Please, PLEASE, don’t draw comparisons between Scotland and 2017 Catalonia.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
Next HY will be threatening to send tanks up to the Scottish border again lol!
Rather enjoying the England v South Africa women's cricket Test which I've got on in the background. The skill of women's cricket is every bit as good as the mens game.
Rather like the mens game too, England collapsed with 5 wickets rapidly out, only to have a big stand for the sixth wicket with both batters now centurions - one of them a centurion on her debut.
Remarkably the lady who has taken a century on her debut also took a wicket yesterday. Only the second person ever to take a wicket and bat a century for England on their debut - the only other one to do it was W G Grace in 1880.
I am sorry, this is just not true. The standard of women's cricket is very poor.
Put it this way, if your average club player tried to play a top women's tennis player or tried to compete against any international women's elite athletics competitor they would be absolutely rinsed. I could train every day of my life and never get close to elite women athletes.
Saturday reasonable level of amateur club cricket is a better standard than women's international cricket, let alone the semi-pro "premier" leagues. I played in one of these semi-pro leagues and wasn't really quick enough to be a big threat as a bowler, even though I bowled mid 70s mph (which is faster than any woman international bowler). Even at that level, I faced 80+ every week, the spinners were as fast as the women's seam bowlers.
The problem for talented women there isn't any real money in women's cricket, if you are strong, powerful, athletic, coordinated, there is good money to be made in tennis, golf, athletics. Football is still not great, but cricket is not really a sensible career option at all.
Feels like a few women at least should be able to get up to the standard of a good medium pacer or spinner, but sounds like that is not yet the case.
BTW why is Drakeford proposing to stop those under 16 buying tea and coffee?
Is this some sort of joke?
He's not proposing. He's asking, as part of a wider inquisition into public views on things like energy drinks. I p[osted the relevant inquiry document earlier.
Yes, but when you propose something there is supposed to be a reason. One common principle is that the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit intelligent consideration. If inclusion of things is arbitrary how could people intelligently consider? If it would not contribute to the stated aim of reducing obesity then why even ask about it (you are not supposed to just randomly consult either)?
It's not about obesity only, but caffeine too. I imagine the concern is that Red Bull sellers will complain 'look at all those *****s in the coffee shop!" Or maybe they have tried that argument.
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
Have to disagree with you there. Not entirely irrelevant
This is an obvious move from Sturgeon but it doesn’t mean it is stupid or inane. This is what happened in Ireland. It returned 100% home rule MPs and moral pressure WAS exerted on Westminster
However Scotland is VERY different to Ireland post 1900 in almost all other ways. For a start Scotland has been given a vote already. And they voted No
And of course Scottish public opinion is anti referendum and just about NO
As I said, this is a gamble by Nicola. But not an illogical gamble
Ireland had to fight a War of Independence from 1919 to 1921 before Westminster gave most of it excluding the North Independence and that was despite SF getting a majority of Irish seats and Nationalists 66% of the Irish vote in the 1918 general election
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
You are always confrontational and arrogant on this subject, but you have no idea how this will play out in the courts and in the politics to the point Westminster may yet decide to take the SNP on in the wider interest of the UK, not least as the union would have a very strong case
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
You are always confrontational and arrogant on this subject, but you have no idea how this will play out in the courts and in the politics to the point Westminster may yet decide to take the SNP on in the wider interest of the UK, not least as the union would have a very strong case
If the SNP declared UDI from the UK government, the UK SC or both then direct rule would be inevitable
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Doesn't seem like it gains a 'legal' mandate even if 100% of of MPs were SNP (not itself completely impossible given past results), albeit the moral mandate would be pretty inarguable, so presumably any non negotation at that point, given the gauntlet thrown, would have to lead to a unilateral declaration (on the basis that a state can always declare secession illegal and just refuse to recognise, as Spain does, making legal routes impossible).
It is not illegal in International law if a country votes for independence. People can not be legally held hostage.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Yep. If they stand at the GE with just one policy (independence) and win most seats in Scotland they have a mandate to implement that policy. I think Sturgeon’s plan is pretty good, inc the step1 of referral to the courts.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
Please, PLEASE, don’t draw comparisons between Scotland and 2017 Catalonia.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
The average Scottish swing voter does not read PB and Spain has successfully kept Catalonia as part of Spain, it effectively crushed the Catalan Nationalist defiance
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
Please, PLEASE, don’t draw comparisons between Scotland and 2017 Catalonia.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
Next HY will be threatening to send tanks up to the Scottish border again lol!
What tanks? Vide rather shocking discussion on the past thread.
Rather enjoying the England v South Africa women's cricket Test which I've got on in the background. The skill of women's cricket is every bit as good as the mens game.
Rather like the mens game too, England collapsed with 5 wickets rapidly out, only to have a big stand for the sixth wicket with both batters now centurions - one of them a centurion on her debut.
Remarkably the lady who has taken a century on her debut also took a wicket yesterday. Only the second person ever to take a wicket and bat a century for England on their debut - the only other one to do it was W G Grace in 1880.
I am sorry, this is just not true. The standard of women's cricket is very poor.
Put it this way, if your average club player tried to play a top women's tennis player or tried to compete against any international women's elite athletics competitor they would be absolutely rinsed. I could train every day of my life and never get close to elite women athletes.
Saturday reasonable level of amateur club cricket is a better standard than women's international cricket, let alone the semi-pro "premier" leagues. I played in one of these semi-pro leagues and wasn't really quick enough to be a big threat as a bowler, even though I bowled mid 70s mph (which is faster than any woman international bowler). Even at that level, I faced 80+ every week, the spinners were as fast as the women's seam bowlers.
The problem for talented women there isn't any real money in women's cricket, if you are strong, powerful, athletic, coordinated, there is good money to be made in tennis, golf, athletics. Football is still not great, but cricket is not really a sensible career option at all.
Feels like a few women at least should be able to get up to the standard of a good medium pacer or spinner, but sounds like that is not yet the case.
When I was coming up I faced an England ladies seam bowler and it was relevantly very slow and very easy. In comparison, I faced the likes of Mushtaq Ahmed and Imran Tahir who despite being spin bowlers, sent it down just as fast and it these things were like hand grenades coming down....then I also faced a number of international quicks, likes of Alex Tudor, and it was shit you pants stuff if you got the length wrong (and he wasn't even 95 mph Archer / Wood / Brett Lee pace). 85mph was plenty for me, another 5-10 mph on top, how Jos Butler just reverse scoops them I have no idea.
The batters in women cricket also don't have the sort of hitting ability we are now seeing where the men commonly launch it just incredible distances.
My guess would be if you are a lady who clearly very powerful upper body, the likes of discus, shot, javelin are all calling. As is tennis, as being able to whip down a 100+ mph serve is very well paid.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Doesn't seem like it gains a 'legal' mandate even if 100% of of MPs were SNP (not itself completely impossible given past results), albeit the moral mandate would be pretty inarguable, so presumably any non negotation at that point, given the gauntlet thrown, would have to lead to a unilateral declaration (on the basis that a state can always declare secession illegal and just refuse to recognise, as Spain does, making legal routes impossible).
It is not illegal in International law if a country votes for independence. People can not be legally held hostage.
That wasn't my point. The plan today was about seeking domestic legal mandate even if Westminster does not consent, and a GE win wouldn't seem to gain that so despite the reference to it I assume the actual plan is, as you elude, that if the court goes against them to ignore it (assuming continued electoral success).
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Yep. If they stand at the GE with just one policy (independence) and win most seats in Scotland they have a mandate to implement that policy. I think Sturgeon’s plan is pretty good, inc the step1 of referral to the courts.
They really don’t have a mandate to “implement independence” if they win a majority of seats under FPTP
The Nats got nearly alll the seats in 2019 yet they got 45% of the popular vote. Less than half
That is not a “mandate” for anything, certainly not tearing Scotland out of the UK
For that they need a referendum, and they need to win it
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
You are always confrontational and arrogant on this subject, but you have no idea how this will play out in the courts and in the politics to the point Westminster may yet decide to take the SNP on in the wider interest of the UK, not least as the union would have a very strong case
If the SNP declared UDI from the UK government, the UK SC or both then direct rule would be inevitable
You have not even read my comment have you, as you have a one track confrontational mind that is embarrassing and utterly ridiculous
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Yep. If they stand at the GE with just one policy (independence) and win most seats in Scotland they have a mandate to implement that policy. I think Sturgeon’s plan is pretty good, inc the step1 of referral to the courts.
Leon's comment is worth noting: but that will still be the effect.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Yep. If they stand at the GE with just one policy (independence) and win most seats in Scotland they have a mandate to implement that policy. I think Sturgeon’s plan is pretty good, inc the step1 of referral to the courts.
Leon's comment is worth noting: but that will still be the effect.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Yep. If they stand at the GE with just one policy (independence) and win most seats in Scotland they have a mandate to implement that policy. I think Sturgeon’s plan is pretty good, inc the step1 of referral to the courts.
They really don’t have a mandate to “implement independence” if they win a majority of seats under FPTP
The Nats got nearly alll the seats in 2019 yet they got 45% of the popular vote. Less than half
That is not a “mandate” for anything, certainly not tearing Scotland out of the UK
For that they need a referendum, and they need to win it
Not only that but for Westminster to grant it and implement the result too
Rather enjoying the England v South Africa women's cricket Test which I've got on in the background. The skill of women's cricket is every bit as good as the mens game.
Rather like the mens game too, England collapsed with 5 wickets rapidly out, only to have a big stand for the sixth wicket with both batters now centurions - one of them a centurion on her debut.
Remarkably the lady who has taken a century on her debut also took a wicket yesterday. Only the second person ever to take a wicket and bat a century for England on their debut - the only other one to do it was W G Grace in 1880.
I am sorry, this is just not true. The standard of women's cricket is very poor.
Put it this way, if your average club player tried to play a top women's tennis player or tried to compete against any international women's elite athletics competitor they would be absolutely rinsed. I could train every day of my life and never get close to elite women athletes.
Saturday reasonable level of amateur club cricket is a better standard than women's international cricket, let alone the semi-pro "premier" leagues. I played in one of these semi-pro leagues and wasn't really quick enough to be a big threat as a bowler, even though I bowled mid 70s mph (which is faster than any woman international bowler). Even at that level, I faced 80+ every week, the spinners were as fast as the women's seam bowlers.
The problem for talented women there isn't any real money in women's cricket, if you are strong, powerful, athletic, coordinated, there is good money to be made in tennis, golf, athletics. Football is still not great, but cricket is not really a sensible career option at all.
Feels like a few women at least should be able to get up to the standard of a good medium pacer or spinner, but sounds like that is not yet the case.
When I was coming up I faced an England ladies seam bowler and it was relevantly very slow and very easy. In comparison, I faced the likes of Mushtaq Ahmed and Imran Tahir who despite being spin bowlers, sent it down quicker and it these things were like hand grenades coming down....then I also faced a number of international quicks, likes of Alex Tudor, and it was shit you pants stuff (and he wasn't even 95 mph Archer / Wood / Brett Lee pace).
The batters in women cricket also don't have the sort of hitting ability we are now seeing where the men commonly launch it just incredible distances.
My guess would be if you are a lady who clearly very powerful upper body, the likes of discus, shot, javelin are all calling. As is tennis, as being able to whip down a 100+ mph serve is very well paid.
Men today are hitting incredible distances, but it was not traditionally done that way, so I'd assume that the physicality of batting might be easier to achieve than bowling? Though it would rely on being a more traditional, timing and keeping it on the deck kind of batter.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Yep. If they stand at the GE with just one policy (independence) and win most seats in Scotland they have a mandate to implement that policy. I think Sturgeon’s plan is pretty good, inc the step1 of referral to the courts.
They really don’t have a mandate to “implement independence” if they win a majority of seats under FPTP
The Nats got nearly alll the seats in 2019 yet they got 45% of the popular vote. Less than half
That is not a “mandate” for anything, certainly not tearing Scotland out of the UK
For that they need a referendum, and they need to win it
This is a GE, you know. Bums on seats is where it's at. Good enough for Mrs T, it should be good enough for you.
Anything else and you obviate the entire basis of the Westminster Parliament.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
Please, PLEASE, don’t draw comparisons between Scotland and 2017 Catalonia.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
Next HY will be threatening to send tanks up to the Scottish border again lol!
Don’t.
I never make personal comments about other posters on here. I even try to avoid liking posts that mention other posters in a derogatory manner.
I’ve “lost it” twice in a decade of posting here. Once was telling Meeks to F off, for suggesting again that Brexit was going to kill people like his partner and that we who voted to leave the EU were all to blame. The other was when @HYUFD suggested sending tanks into Scotland.
I’m Scottish by parentage, although I grew up in England. My wife is Ukranian, and I now know all about what it actually means to roll tanks into opposition territory.
Literally spent the last hour discussing why I think Steve Bray is a dickhead on the last thread only to eventually work out we're over 3 hours and 300 comments into a new one on here. :-/
If you slip him some money he might chant "STOP NEW THREADS!!!!" for you.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Doesn't seem like it gains a 'legal' mandate even if 100% of of MPs were SNP (not itself completely impossible given past results), albeit the moral mandate would be pretty inarguable, so presumably any non negotation at that point, given the gauntlet thrown, would have to lead to a unilateral declaration (on the basis that a state can always declare secession illegal and just refuse to recognise, as Spain does, making legal routes impossible).
It is not illegal in International law if a country votes for independence. People can not be legally held hostage.
No they can’t and if the govt had any sense they’d call her bluff and agree to it. The issue is not going to go away.
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Sturgeon has wisely and carefully NOT said that. Because that would be UDI
Indeed as it would lead to temporary imposition of direct rule as Madrid did with Catalonia in 2017
Please, PLEASE, don’t draw comparisons between Scotland and 2017 Catalonia.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
The average Scottish swing voter does not read PB and Spain has successfully kept Catalonia as part of Spain, it effectively crushed the Catalan Nationalist defiance
I'm sure this point will have been answered somewhere as I work through the thread, but on this Sindy business what does the next GE being a 'de facto referendum' mean?
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
AIUI, to treat it as an explicitly and formally designated mandate to negotiate indepndence in the event of a victory, on the ground that all other legal routes to the present mandate to have a referendum as such have been blocked.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
Yep. If they stand at the GE with just one policy (independence) and win most seats in Scotland they have a mandate to implement that policy. I think Sturgeon’s plan is pretty good, inc the step1 of referral to the courts.
They really don’t have a mandate to “implement independence” if they win a majority of seats under FPTP
The Nats got nearly alll the seats in 2019 yet they got 45% of the popular vote. Less than half
That is not a “mandate” for anything, certainly not tearing Scotland out of the UK
For that they need a referendum, and they need to win it
This is a GE, you know. Bums on seats is where it's at. Good enough for Mrs T, it should be good enough for you.
Anything else and you obviate the entire basis of the Westminster Parliament.
Blah de blah. You need a referendum. And you need to win it. That is all
Rather enjoying the England v South Africa women's cricket Test which I've got on in the background. The skill of women's cricket is every bit as good as the mens game.
Rather like the mens game too, England collapsed with 5 wickets rapidly out, only to have a big stand for the sixth wicket with both batters now centurions - one of them a centurion on her debut.
Remarkably the lady who has taken a century on her debut also took a wicket yesterday. Only the second person ever to take a wicket and bat a century for England on their debut - the only other one to do it was W G Grace in 1880.
I am sorry, this is just not true. The standard of women's cricket is very poor.
Put it this way, if your average club player tried to play a top women's tennis player or tried to compete against any international women's elite athletics competitor they would be absolutely rinsed. I could train every day of my life and never get close to elite women athletes.
Saturday reasonable level of amateur club cricket is a better standard than women's international cricket, let alone the semi-pro "premier" leagues. I played in one of these semi-pro leagues and wasn't really quick enough to be a big threat as a bowler, even though I bowled mid 70s mph (which is faster than any woman international bowler). Even at that level, I faced 80+ every week, the spinners were as fast as the women's seam bowlers.
The problem for talented women there isn't any real money in women's cricket, if you are strong, powerful, athletic, coordinated, there is good money to be made in tennis, golf, athletics. Football is still not great, but cricket is not really a sensible career option at all.
Feels like a few women at least should be able to get up to the standard of a good medium pacer or spinner, but sounds like that is not yet the case.
When I was coming up I faced an England ladies seam bowler and it was relevantly very slow and very easy. In comparison, I faced the likes of Mushtaq Ahmed and Imran Tahir who despite being spin bowlers, sent it down quicker and it these things were like hand grenades coming down....then I also faced a number of international quicks, likes of Alex Tudor, and it was shit you pants stuff (and he wasn't even 95 mph Archer / Wood / Brett Lee pace).
The batters in women cricket also don't have the sort of hitting ability we are now seeing where the men commonly launch it just incredible distances.
My guess would be if you are a lady who clearly very powerful upper body, the likes of discus, shot, javelin are all calling. As is tennis, as being able to whip down a 100+ mph serve is very well paid.
Men today are hitting incredible distances, but it was not traditionally done that way, so I'd assume that the physicality of batting might be easier to achieve than bowling? Though it would rely on being a more traditional, timing and keeping it on the deck kind of batter.
My understanding listening to Livingstone and Bairstow is yes strength, but also they changed their technique. All the traditional lessons of how to hit it are basically "wrong". There was a great video of Flintoff (who was thought of a meaty hitter in his day) and Buttler doing range hitting and Flintoff looked like some weak OAP in comparison despite being a much larger human being. Buttler basically explained to him his technique is all wrong. The straight bat, the solid hands straight through the ball keeping the body still, its much more like baseball or golf now, getting hips and wrists through the ball.
Sturgeon has calculated (correctly) that Boris Johnson is a huge recruiter for her cause and she wants him to crassly reject this whilst he's still in office - which he's probably odds-on to do.
She knows she'll "lose" but it's great grievance farming and she's playing the long game.
Comments
Note that independence of Montenegro from Serbia is still a burning issue (sometimes literally).
"A rape victim who wants a female sex only counselling group should be able to speak to a female sex only counselling group.
I don't know of anything in law that requires charities to provide that though, which is why I think the case should be lost. Its permitted to do that, and would be the right thing to do morally, but I don't see why it is against the law not to offer that service."
This is not I think quite right. The issue is whether in failing to provide a female only counselling service the charity is directly or indirectly discriminating against the rape victim on the grounds of sex, which would be a breach of the Equality Act.
Service providers must not discriminate against those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Whether such discrimination, direct or indirect, had happened here will be a matter of the facts and the interpretation of equality law, which can be a bit of a minefield. But as a general point, if the inclusion of men (who claim to be transwomen) results in such discrimination then the fact that the charity has announced its policy in advance does not help it.
Personally I think that rape counselling services should bend over backwards to help rape victims. If that means providing female only sessions, they should do this. I do not see why they cannot do this for both women and transwomen, separately if necessary, to accommodate all.
Why are they not seeking to do so here? Is it a lack of resources? Unwillingness? Ideology? Or what?
Having been a rape victim I felt deeply uncomfortable and shameful describing it to anyone, let alone a man, even a doctor, let alone a man claiming to be a woman. It is not possible to overestimate the sense of shame women feel after a rape. A man who thinks he is a woman should have some empathy with that. Why does he want to listen to women describing their trauma knowing that they may be upset by his presence. There is something troubling in that. Equally there is something troubling in a rape counselling service seeming to prioritise inclusivity over helping female rape victims.
I wonder if there is something we have not been told.
Is this some sort of joke?
And LN wrote all his own material, a claim I seriously doubt BJ can credibly make (or visa versa)?
This is an obvious move from Sturgeon but it doesn’t mean it is stupid or inane. This is what happened in Ireland. It returned 100% home rule MPs and moral pressure WAS exerted on Westminster
However Scotland is VERY different to Ireland post 1900 in almost all other ways. For a start Scotland has been given a vote already. And they voted No
And of course Scottish public opinion is anti referendum and just about NO
As I said, this is a gamble by Nicola. But not an illogical gamble
successfully ignored the unofficial Catalan independence referendum in 2017
Sadly, the adoption centre work of the CC was shut down by legislation in the UK, and she ended up spending her time dealing mostly with social services and government bureaucracy rather than looking after people.
Or he has a bet on for craziest shit with the other uk leaders.
So for example NY could ban all extraction to Georgia which would likely then have even further unintended consequences.
Maybe it’s Trump’s genius plan all along, get states to ban extradition and then hole up in a friendly state if NY prosecuted him!
And that is some sort of joke.
See also: Forcing shops that are allowed to be open, to tape up aisles so that people who are allowed to be in those shops, can't buy those specific products.
However, your basic point is well taken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Dáil
Election of 1918 in Ireland inspired perhaps the greatest election poster of all time:
Put Him In to Get Him Out - Vote for McGuinness - The Man In Jail for Ireland
https://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/concern/works/rr171z68z?locale=en
That might otherwise avoid a judgement being portrayed primarily by the name of the city in which the judges sat.
Only in 2022 eh? 🙄
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/voters/
I'm technically if unhappily on the side of those saying a referendum should be held given the electoral results, but I genuinely don't get what the above means give nit is in the event the SC rules Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum.
Rather like the mens game too, England collapsed with 5 wickets rapidly out, only to have a big stand for the sixth wicket with both batters now centurions - one of them a centurion on her debut.
Remarkably the lady who has taken a century on her debut also took a wicket yesterday. Only the second person ever to take a wicket and bat a century for England on their debut - the only other one to do it was W G Grace in 1880.
After all, even Mrs T regarded the result of a majority of MPs within Scotland as being sufficient to trigger independence.
England avoided this and more by binning Corbyn
People set to receive £1,600 per month in Wales in basic income trial
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/people-set-receive-1600-month-24338442#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
Then again I moan about people using semi skimmed milk on the same basis of how much difference would it really make. No, that's me.
Why should she be only offered 1-to-1 counselling, rather than be offered group support?
I don't see how the charity can lose this case, but that doesn't mean they weren't [morally] in the wrong here, even if not legally in the wrong.
It's a matter for Scotland. I hope they decide to stay as part of the Union but if they choose to leave I shall wish them well and hope we can remain friends and allies.
Given the noises currently coming from the army and government I do wonder whether we might be in the midst of WW3 by October 2023 mind?
He’ll be hoping that Democrat voters in general are more likely to turn out, as a result of the Supreme Court decisions last week.
But, the underlying story in the US at the moment, is that it’s driving season, and gas is five bucks a gallon.
Put it this way, if your average club player tried to play a top women's tennis player or tried to compete against any international women's elite athletics competitor they would be absolutely rinsed. I could train every day of my life and never get close to elite women athletes.
Saturday reasonable level of amateur club cricket is a better standard than women's international cricket, let alone the semi-pro "premier" leagues. I played in one of these semi-pro leagues and wasn't really quick enough to be a big threat as a bowler, even though I bowled mid 70s mph (which is faster than any woman international bowler). Even at that level, I faced 80+ every week, the spinners were as fast as the women's seam bowlers.
The problem for talented women there isn't any real money in women's cricket, if you are strong, powerful, athletic, coordinated, there is good money to be made in tennis, golf, athletics. Football is still not great, but cricket is not really a sensible career option at all.
Every time you do it, a few more votes go towards Scottish independence.
What if the charity only had the capacity to run a single group session?
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,uk-supreme-court-to-sit-in-edinburgh_13180.htm
Some of them do a whole flask of typhoo as pre drinks before they hit the cafes.
Gratitude. I shall try again
This is good. Today it hit 40C I reckon. The entire valley WILTS
The batters in women cricket also don't have the sort of hitting ability we are now seeing where the men commonly launch it just incredible distances.
My guess would be if you are a lady who clearly very powerful upper body, the likes of discus, shot, javelin are all calling. As is tennis, as being able to whip down a 100+ mph serve is very well paid.
The Nats got nearly alll the seats in 2019 yet they got 45% of the popular vote. Less than half
That is not a “mandate” for anything, certainly not tearing Scotland out of the UK
For that they need a referendum, and they need to win it
No, it won’t be the effect
Anything else and you obviate the entire basis of the Westminster Parliament.
I never make personal comments about other posters on here. I even try to avoid liking posts that mention other posters in a derogatory manner.
I’ve “lost it” twice in a decade of posting here. Once was telling Meeks to F off, for suggesting again that Brexit was going to kill people like his partner and that we who voted to leave the EU were all to blame. The other was when @HYUFD suggested sending tanks into Scotland.
I’m Scottish by parentage, although I grew up in England. My wife is Ukranian, and I now know all about what it actually means to roll tanks into opposition territory.
She knows she'll "lose" but it's great grievance farming and she's playing the long game.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/28/hillary-clinton-blasts-clarence-thomas-as-person-of-grievance-after-roe-reversal/amp/