So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
I bet it will be agreed before you get to 100,000 posts*
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
Boris Johnson hints he could AGREE to Nicola Sturgeon's IndyRef2 after SNP's latest push
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
Is it possible some of the Hunt-ites might be sympathetic to another Scottish referendum?
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
Is it possible some of the Hunt-ites might be sympathetic to another Scottish referendum?
It may well see a consensus in Westminster decide to call Sturgeon's bluff and wrong foot her, as she does not want it but has to play to her core
Hmmm,
Johnson playing fast and loose with the Union. What could possibly go wrong?
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
You really know how to inflame opinion but fortunately even Boris is talking in conciliatory terms and this has along way to run
Cunning plans in politics can have a habit of blowing up, Lib Dems support coalition for an AV ref, Call me Dave cunning plan to neutralise UKIP with a Brexit ref, Boris basically every plan, possibly Starmer's beergate stunt.
You'll have to run Beergate as a "cunning plan" past me again.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
Boris Johnson hints he could AGREE to Nicola Sturgeon's IndyRef2 after SNP's latest push
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
Is it possible some of the Hunt-ites might be sympathetic to another Scottish referendum?
It may well see a consensus in Westminster decide to call Sturgeon's bluff and wrong foot her, as she does not want it but has to play to her core
Hmmm,
Johnson playing fast and loose with the Union. What could possibly go wrong?
It would be extremely decadent to have another sindy referendum.
For one, the last one was a mere 8 years ago. Twenty years - once in a generation if you prefer - is reasonable for something this profound.
Second, pro-indy parties scraped only the very barest majority (by votes tallied, not the gerrymandered local political system), which is not a safe mandate to launch a referendum.
Third, Brexit should have taught us that a yes/no referendum is completely inappropriate to settle such a matter, especially when polling suggests that the population is split down the middle.
Finally, Scotland is not just a matter for those living in Scotland. What about the rights of those Scots now living in the UK or elsewhere? The system as it is completely disenfranchises them and even risks removing a latent but undeniable component of their citizenship.
If there is to be another referendum, it should be no earlier than 2034, the referendum process should be governed by the electoral commission informed by a royal commission, and native-born Scots should be given the franchise.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
I read further that Sturgeon’s plan is to essentially run an advisory vote only.
In that case, perhaps it should go ahead, albeit boycotted by unionist voters.
I don’t think there ought to be any constitutional bar to the Scottish government running a vote on whether the moon is made of green cheese, or any subject of their choosing.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
I don't agree with the government approach, but I do understand it.
Even if they think they would probably win a vote, they would be stupid not to be at least wary of one. As such, whilst doing nothing but play for time might make things worse, it wouldn't be as catastrophic as permitting it and calling it wrong, and at least there's the possibility something will come up.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
Is it possible some of the Hunt-ites might be sympathetic to another Scottish referendum?
It may well see a consensus in Westminster decide to call Sturgeon's bluff and wrong foot her, as she does not want it but has to play to her core
Hmmm,
Johnson playing fast and loose with the Union. What could possibly go wrong?
Refusing may actually be worse, a lot worse
I don't dispute that. Sturgeon has played a blinder today. Initially I thought what opportunist nonsense, but with Johnson as the backdrop she may never have a better opportunity.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
I don't agree with the government approach, but I do understand it.
Even if they think they would probably win a vote, they would be stupid not to be at least wary of one. As such, whilst doing nothing but play for time might make things worse, it wouldn't be as catastrophic as permitting it and calling it wrong, and at least there's the possibility something will come up.
Something? Like an oven- ready Brexit deal.
I wood be very wary, but Johnson ( whichever way he jumps) has a tendency to rush in where angels fear to tread.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
Is it possible some of the Hunt-ites might be sympathetic to another Scottish referendum?
It may well see a consensus in Westminster decide to call Sturgeon's bluff and wrong foot her, as she does not want it but has to play to her core
Hmmm,
Johnson playing fast and loose with the Union. What could possibly go wrong?
Refusing may actually be worse, a lot worse
No it won't, allow a referendum before a generation is up since the last one and even if you win it the SNP will demand another in due course and if you lose it the Union is lost forever.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
Boris Johnson hints he could AGREE to Nicola Sturgeon's IndyRef2 after SNP's latest push
Where does that say Johnson would agree to indyref2? NOWHERE
Read it - 'hints' is the word used
Fortunately for all his faults Boris is not listening to your hyperbolic comments but for once acting sensibly
In the government quote there is no hint whatsoever, the message is still clearly now is not the time and a decision awaited as to whether the SC will hear the Scottish government case
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
Early in the Trump presidency, I came to this tentative conclusion about working for Trump: That it was possible, and even desirable, for honorable, competent people to work in his administration. They could, and often did, keep the ship sailing, in spite of its nutty captain. (In a few cases, honor required good people to resign, but mostly the nation was better off if they stayed in place.)
Except, and this is an enormous exception, no honorable person should have spoken for him, or should speak for him now. It is simply impossible to speak for Trump regularly, without having to lie on a grand scale.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
Can you think of any parallels in recent British history that contributed to the loss of parts of Great Britain in 1921?
Would engagement with Parnell have resulted in a different outcome?
Your polarising approach will be the death knell of the Union. We should be making a positive case for a continued journey together.
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
It looks like someone told her a story that she believed even though it was most likely untrue.
“The United States Secret Service has been cooperating with the Select Committee since its inception in spring 2021, and will continue to do so, including by responding on the record to the Committee regarding the new allegations surfaced in today’s testimony."
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
Can you think of any parallels in recent British history that contributed to the loss of parts of Great Britain in 1921?
Would engagement with Parnell have resulted in a different outcome?
Your polarising approach will be the death knell of the Union. We should be making a positive case for a continued journey together.
We cannot maintain the Union by force.
Scotland already has Home Rule as Parnell for Ireland wanted via devolution.
We can and must continue to refuse another official independence referendum however as Madrid has done in Catalonia, no concessions whatsoever to the SNP.
There was a once in a generation referendum in 2014 the Union won, the SNP refused to respect it, we must now get tough with the SNP.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
Can you think of any parallels in recent British history that contributed to the loss of parts of Great Britain in 1921?
Would engagement with Parnell have resulted in a different outcome?
Your polarising approach will be the death knell of the Union. We should be making a positive case for a continued journey together.
We cannot maintain the Union by force.
The optics of Boris Johnson lecturing the Scottish national party /independence movement about the legality/legitimacy of their actions wouldnt go down well either side of the border.....
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
This doesn't have the same catastrophic electoral effect it once did. Falling off a bicycle is one thing, demanding Theresa May hold an incumbent President's hand so he can descend a shallow flight of stairs is quite another.
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
She didn't lie, but her entire testimony was hearsay.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there *was* a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
As one of PB’s pre-eminent conspiracy theorists, how disappointing that when a real conspiracy comes along you fail to identify it.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
The plan was to threaten and bully the election officials into not certifying Biden's victory. It nearly worked.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
To add to this, it's a shame for Trump's opponents, because the attack on the Capitol was certainly a riot, and very arguably a terror attack, which Trump arguably incited. If they repeated 'Terror attack' all over the news it would have had a lot more impact than what they went with. Trump invariably riles his opponents to overegg the pudding.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
To add to this, it's a shame for Trump's opponents, because the attack on the Capitol was certainly a riot, and very arguably a terror attack, which Trump arguably incited. If they repeated 'Terror attack' all over the news it would have had a lot more impact than what they went with. Trump invariably riles his opponents to overegg the pudding.
Trump “arguably” incited the terror attacked, and according to today’s testimony was completely aware that the attackers were armed and hoped to prevent officials - including the VP - from doing their job to support the handover of power.
It also appears that such a manoeuvre was actively anticipated by Trump and his cronies.
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
She didn't lie, but her entire testimony was hearsay.
And hearsay of hyperbole in the case of lunging for the steering wheel from the back of a stretch limo through a partition. Any lunge would be so far from success as to be deniable and probably unnoticed by those at the front.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
To add to this, it's a shame for Trump's opponents, because the attack on the Capitol was certainly a riot, and very arguably a terror attack, which Trump arguably incited. If they repeated 'Terror attack' all over the news it would have had a lot more impact than what they went with. Trump invariably riles his opponents to overegg the pudding.
Trump “arguably” incited the terror attacked, and according to today’s testimony was completely aware that the attackers were armed and hoped to prevent officials - including the VP - from doing their job to support the handover of power.
It also appears that such a manoeuvre was actively anticipated by Trump and his cronies.
Much of this is dancing round the definition of "coup". If a coup means overturning the election result, it was an attempted coup. If a coup involves the army taking over government, imposing martial law and shutting down broadcast media, it was not a coup.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
To add to this, it's a shame for Trump's opponents, because the attack on the Capitol was certainly a riot, and very arguably a terror attack, which Trump arguably incited. If they repeated 'Terror attack' all over the news it would have had a lot more impact than what they went with. Trump invariably riles his opponents to overegg the pudding.
Trump “arguably” incited the terror attacked, and according to today’s testimony was completely aware that the attackers were armed and hoped to prevent officials - including the VP - from doing their job to support the handover of power.
It also appears that such a manoeuvre was actively anticipated by Trump and his cronies.
Much of this is dancing round the definition of "coup". If a coup means overturning the election result, it was an attempted coup. If a coup involves the army taking over government, imposing martial law and shutting down broadcast media, it was not a coup.
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
here is a very clear attack line for Labour, about how the Tories say one thing "party of defence" but do the other with a significant hollowing out of armour, infantry, aircraft and ships. Tony Blair was the last PM to increase the size of the Army (not that I suspect KS would want to push that line....) - this is one where Tobias Ellwood and Tom Tugendhadt (both former officers and influential Tory backbenchers c(and wannabee PMs?) could really rally against the PM
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
Can you think of any parallels in recent British history that contributed to the loss of parts of Great Britain in 1921?
Would engagement with Parnell have resulted in a different outcome?
Your polarising approach will be the death knell of the Union. We should be making a positive case for a continued journey together.
We cannot maintain the Union by force.
The optics of Boris Johnson lecturing the Scottish national party /independence movement about the legality/legitimacy of their actions wouldnt go down well either side of the border.....
Exactly. What legitimacy does Boris Johnson have to lecture anyone about legality and due process?
There is a very clear and unambiguous mandate for a new referendum. And I post as someone who campaigned against that mandate. But it IS there. The people who say "no there isn't" are frankly working for the SNP.
Independence as the singular issue is divisive and utterly negates all the things we need to do up here. But it *is* that singular issue. It isn't going away. And it can't be ignored.
The simple reality is this: the United Kingdom in its current form is no longer fit for purpose. We either restructure so that the component nations have all the autonomy they wish AND strengthen the basic framework such as the rule of law, or the UK will fall apart.
Let's assume the SC rule in Sturgeon's favour and we do have a referendum. A narrow win for No does not resolve the issue. Only constitutional reform can do that - address the issues that make independence *the* issue. Or it keeps coming back.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
Can you think of any parallels in recent British history that contributed to the loss of parts of Great Britain in 1921?
Would engagement with Parnell have resulted in a different outcome?
Your polarising approach will be the death knell of the Union. We should be making a positive case for a continued journey together.
We cannot maintain the Union by force.
Scotland already has Home Rule as Parnell for Ireland wanted via devolution.
We can and must continue to refuse another official independence referendum however as Madrid has done in Catalonia, no concessions whatsoever to the SNP.
There was a once in a generation referendum in 2014 the Union won, the SNP refused to respect it, we must now get tough with the SNP.
One of the strengths of the UK was that different nationalities could come together in a shared enterprise.
The people were united by common institutions (Monarchy, Armed Forces and Empire - to which you could add the Welfare State, NHS and BBC since the 1940s).
Once that sense of common purpose is gone, the formal constitutional arrangements come under pressure. A loveless marriage relying on its vows.
And so it becomes very difficult to argue against emotional 'grass is greener' arguments.
It's nonsense - but as we saw during the Brexit debate, a compelling vision can beat any number of dry technocratic arguments.
Particularly when the government making the arguments looks so unappealing to Scottish eyes.
Finally - as a keen student of history, you will know that Catalonia's relationship with Spain (or Castile) has been pretty volatile - even before Franco and the Civil War.
Madrid's actions have merely postponed an almighty confrontation. But at the cost of national economic and political deadlock. Not a model to aspire to, at all.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
It was a coup attempt, but fortunately, an incompetent one.
A proper coup is usually almost bloodless at the point of overthrow, because all the pieces have already been played.
Of course, it’s bullshit. But no one is particularly offended so it’ll pass without comment.
Catherine II and Elizaveta say "hello." However, they would have planned the invasion a good deal more effectively.
Given the nature of Russian society, any woman who rises to the top would have to be a hell of a lot more competent than Putin is, so it's just as well he isn't a woman.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
Can you think of any parallels in recent British history that contributed to the loss of parts of Great Britain in 1921?
Would engagement with Parnell have resulted in a different outcome?
Your polarising approach will be the death knell of the Union. We should be making a positive case for a continued journey together.
We cannot maintain the Union by force.
Scotland already has Home Rule as Parnell for Ireland wanted via devolution.
We can and must continue to refuse another official independence referendum however as Madrid has done in Catalonia, no concessions whatsoever to the SNP.
There was a once in a generation referendum in 2014 the Union won, the SNP refused to respect it, we must now get tough with the SNP.
One of the strengths of the UK was that different nationalities could come together in a shared enterprise.
The people were united by common institutions (Monarchy, Armed Forces and Empire - to which you could add the Welfare State, NHS and BBC since the 1940s).
Once that sense of common purpose is gone, the formal constitutional arrangements come under pressure. A loveless marriage relying on its vows.
And so it becomes very difficult to argue against emotional 'grass is greener' arguments.
It's nonsense - but as we saw during the Brexit debate, a compelling vision can beat any number of dry technocratic arguments.
Particularly when the government making the arguments looks so unappealing to Scottish eyes.
Finally - as a keen student of history, you will know that Catalonia's relationship with Spain (or Castile) has been pretty volatile - even before Franco and the Civil War.
Madrid's actions have merely postponed an almighty confrontation. But at the cost of national economic and political deadlock. Not a model to aspire to, at all.
Are you able to make a compelling aspirational vision of why the union matters, without invoking dry technocratic arguments? One that is relevant in the 21st century I mean. I’m not sure I can.
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
“A source close to”… No one is saying anything, on the record - still less under oath. If they do, you can start to take it seriously.
Though in any event, it doesn’t invalidate her testimony.
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
She didn't lie, but her entire testimony was hearsay.
No, it’s wasn’t - just this particular part. The bulk of her evidence concerned events she had directly witnessed.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
We’re never far from HYUFD having a rod of iron when it comes to dealing with the SNP.
Wee Jimmy's cunning plan looks to be putting something to the Supreme Court that "reflects the will of the Scottish people." If it succeeds, it's a win. If it fails, it's lawyers in the pay of the British Government showing they're frit of Scottish public opinion.
It's all PR, a game for seven-year-olds. Shouldn't she be sent to her room without any dinner?
PS I'm not against a referendum if it's what the Jocks want. The SNP have nothing else to say and it keeps them off street corners, but can prove somewhat boring.
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
She didn't lie, but her entire testimony was hearsay.
No, it’s wasn’t - just this particular part. The bulk of her evidence concerned events she had directly witnessed.
Well this was the particular part clipped up for twitter.
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
The steering wheel story was hearsay. She didn't see it, she just said people told her (and named the people who told her)
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Your lying buffoon in Downing Street doesn’t have the political capital to do anything like that and is already the principal recruiting sergeant for the nationalist cause. This is yet a further reason why, in the national interest, he needs to go asap.
It would be extremely decadent to have another sindy referendum.
For one, the last one was a mere 8 years ago. Twenty years - once in a generation if you prefer - is reasonable for something this profound.
Second, pro-indy parties scraped only the very barest majority (by votes tallied, not the gerrymandered local political system), which is not a safe mandate to launch a referendum.
Third, Brexit should have taught us that a yes/no referendum is completely inappropriate to settle such a matter, especially when polling suggests that the population is split down the middle.
Finally, Scotland is not just a matter for those living in Scotland. What about the rights of those Scots now living in the UK or elsewhere? The system as it is completely disenfranchises them and even risks removing a latent but undeniable component of their citizenship.
If there is to be another referendum, it should be no earlier than 2034, the referendum process should be governed by the electoral commission informed by a royal commission, and native-born Scots should be given the franchise.
F off, foreigners have no say in the matter. It is for residents of Scotland, not Baptists in the USA who would not be able to place it on a map.
I've got it. Clearly it is not a coup unless it comes from the Cóup region of France. Otherwise it is just a sparkling attempt to illegally seize power using a terror attack.
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Wee Jimmy's cunning plan looks to be putting something to the Supreme Court that "reflects the will of the Scottish people." If it succeeds, it's a win. If it fails, it's lawyers in the pay of the British Government showing they're frit of Scottish public opinion.
It's all PR, a game for seven-year-olds. Shouldn't she be sent to her room without any dinner?
PS I'm not against a referendum if it's what the Jocks want. The SNP have nothing else to say and it keeps them off street corners, but can prove somewhat boring.
We know who act like 7 year olds. You got the bill perfectly, just your average smart arse unionist comment.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
BTW, is the SNP still anti-NATO? We don't hear much about that lately.
Not if you have been listening to the news
Quite. Remember the MSPs who moved to indy or green because of SNP support for NATO. And that was years ago. Though PB Unionists don't seem to know about that.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
You may be right, but I was thinking about the more reductive identity politics in which BJ specialises, Us (proud, freedom loving English..oops..Brits) v. Them (moaning, subsidised Jocks).
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
It would be too funny if the Indy parties won over 50% of votes, but split it in such a way that they actually lost their majority in the Scottish parliament.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
*looks in* Morning. I see some people are getting very excited this morning (not you, just to be clear). Personally, I recommend carpet tiles (easily replaced) or laminate flooring + a rugger bugger's gum shield.
Yes, a lot of truth to it, but Glasto has other stages, and the headliners have grown old with their audiences. Festival crowds weren't full of the middle aged 40 or 50 years ago, but those same people (including me!) are still going.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
It would be too funny if the Indy parties won over 50% of votes, but split it in such a way that they actually lost their majority in the Scottish parliament.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
You may be right, but I was thinking about the more reductive identity politics in which BJ specialises, Us (proud, freedom loving English..oops..Brits) v. Them (moaning, subsidised Jocks).
There is certainly a strand in English politics that sees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as the archipelago of overseas territories as the last bits of a worldwide empire to be defended at all costs. Most though aren't bothered.
We have a recently recruited member of staff from a small town in Northern Ireland who had quite the culture shock in Leicester. No flags, murals or even knowledge of who was Catholic and who Protestant. A whole different world to what she had known in another part of the same country.
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
You may be right, but I was thinking about the more reductive identity politics in which BJ specialises, Us (proud, freedom loving English..oops..Brits) v. Them (moaning, subsidised Jocks).
There is certainly a strand in English politics that sees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as the archipelago of overseas territories as the last bits of a worldwide empire to be defended at all costs. Most though aren't bothered.
We have a recently recruited member of staff from a small town in Northern Ireland who had quite the culture shock in Leicester. No flags, murals or even knowledge of who was Catholic and who Protestant. A whole different world to what she had known in another part of the same country.
We used to get that *within* Scotland - the West Central Belt vs the rest ...
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
How is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
It would be too funny if the Indy parties won over 50% of votes, but split it in such a way that they actually lost their majority in the Scottish parliament.
How did the new job turn out?
The chap at the cleaning company had got yesterday covered before I met up with him on Monday, but said he'd probably have some work for me this week. On the other job (which I actually want), I should hear today if I've got a second interview.
With spectacularly bad timing, one of my front teeth which has been wobbly since a car crash 25 years ago finally gave up and fell out yesterday. It's really not a good look. I've been sat in front of the mirror practising speaking and smiling without showing my top teeth.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
You may be right, but I was thinking about the more reductive identity politics in which BJ specialises, Us (proud, freedom loving English..oops..Brits) v. Them (moaning, subsidised Jocks).
There is certainly a strand in English politics that sees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as the archipelago of overseas territories as the last bits of a worldwide empire to be defended at all costs. Most though aren't bothered.
We have a recently recruited member of staff from a small town in Northern Ireland who had quite the culture shock in Leicester. No flags, murals or even knowledge of who was Catholic and who Protestant. A whole different world to what she had known in another part of the same country.
Yep, one of the failures of Unionism (such as it is) was its inability to acknowledge the variety of ways it expressed itself in these islands, leaving us all in our silos. Too late now..
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
Nobody can seriously disagree with "attempted self-coup"
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
OK why does 18 Brumaire usually regarded as a paradigm case count as a coup but 6 January not? Small bunch of arseholes bloodlessly messing about in government buildings frightening people?
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
With all due respect to yours, let me know where I can purchase your political analyses online.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
How is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
LG's Russian dictionary probably has a different definition...
Comments
*no inducement to bet implied or intended, DYOR 👍
Johnson playing fast and loose with the Union. What could possibly go wrong?
Democracy or tyranny.
It is now black and white.
Fortunately for all his faults Boris is not listening to your hyperbolic comments but for once acting sensibly
For one, the last one was a mere 8 years ago. Twenty years - once in a generation if you prefer - is reasonable for something this profound.
Second, pro-indy parties scraped only the very barest majority (by votes tallied, not the gerrymandered local political system), which is not a safe mandate to launch a referendum.
Third, Brexit should have taught us that a yes/no referendum is completely inappropriate to settle such a matter, especially when polling suggests that the population is split down the middle.
Finally, Scotland is not just a matter for those living in Scotland. What about the rights of those Scots now living in the UK or elsewhere? The system as it is completely disenfranchises them and even risks removing a latent but undeniable component of their citizenship.
If there is to be another referendum, it should be no earlier than 2034, the referendum process should be governed by the electoral commission informed by a royal commission, and native-born Scots should be given the franchise.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
In that case, perhaps it should go ahead, albeit boycotted by unionist voters.
I don’t think there ought to be any constitutional bar to the Scottish government running a vote on whether the moon is made of green cheese, or any subject of their choosing.
Even if they think they would probably win a vote, they would be stupid not to be at least wary of one. As such, whilst doing nothing but play for time might make things worse, it wouldn't be as catastrophic as permitting it and calling it wrong, and at least there's the possibility something will come up.
I wood be very wary, but Johnson ( whichever way he jumps) has a tendency to rush in where angels fear to tread.
No, no, no. No concessions to the SNP whatsoever
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
Except, and this is an enormous exception, no honorable person should have spoken for him, or should speak for him now. It is simply impossible to speak for Trump regularly, without having to lie on a grand scale.
Would engagement with Parnell have resulted in a different outcome?
Your polarising approach will be the death knell of the Union. We should be making a positive case for a continued journey together.
We cannot maintain the Union by force.
@ShimonPro
Secret Service:
“The United States Secret Service has been cooperating with the Select Committee since its inception in spring 2021, and will continue to do so, including by responding on the record to the Committee regarding the new allegations surfaced in today’s testimony."
https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1541910869323517954
We can and must continue to refuse another official independence referendum however as Madrid has done in Catalonia, no concessions whatsoever to the SNP.
There was a once in a generation referendum in 2014 the Union won, the SNP refused to respect it, we must now get tough with the SNP.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
https://www.politico.com/video/2022/06/18/biden-falls-off-bike-after-stopping-for-crowd-in-delaware-615766
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/vmqom8/population_change_across_england_and_wales/
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
🟨🟩⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Tough one today.
https://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/post/new-poll-only-29-support-indyref2-in-2023
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
As one of PB’s pre-eminent conspiracy theorists, how disappointing that when a real conspiracy comes along you fail to identify it.
It also appears that such a manoeuvre was actively anticipated by Trump and his cronies.
The Prime Minister has announced the launch of the coronavirus public inquiry, outlining its terms of reference, following the rising threat of legal action against the Government by bereaved families over extensive delays.
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/boris-johnson-launches-covid-inquiry-in-wake-of-threatened-legal-action/326771
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
He explained: "We have a war going on in Europe, on our doorstep, and we are still as we speak reducing the number of troops, aircraft and ships."
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/ex-armed-forces-minister-explains-damage-of-mod-cuts-to-nigel-farage-its-shockingly-dangerous/326789
It is a shame Labour has not been making this case over the last few years.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nato-summit-2022-madrid-boris-johnson-defence-spending-5hpvk6g5m (£££)
Government clears path for £6bn sale of RAF Typhoon supplier to US
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/28/government-clears-path-6bn-sale-raf-typhoon-supplier-us/ (£££)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61976526
Of course, it’s bullshit. But no one is particularly offended so it’ll pass without comment.
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟩
⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
There is a very clear and unambiguous mandate for a new referendum. And I post as someone who campaigned against that mandate. But it IS there. The people who say "no there isn't" are frankly working for the SNP.
Independence as the singular issue is divisive and utterly negates all the things we need to do up here. But it *is* that singular issue. It isn't going away. And it can't be ignored.
The simple reality is this: the United Kingdom in its current form is no longer fit for purpose. We either restructure so that the component nations have all the autonomy they wish AND strengthen the basic framework such as the rule of law, or the UK will fall apart.
Let's assume the SC rule in Sturgeon's favour and we do have a referendum. A narrow win for No does not resolve the issue. Only constitutional reform can do that - address the issues that make independence *the* issue. Or it keeps coming back.
The people were united by common institutions (Monarchy, Armed Forces and Empire - to which you could add the Welfare State, NHS and BBC since the 1940s).
Once that sense of common purpose is gone, the formal constitutional arrangements come under pressure. A loveless marriage relying on its vows.
And so it becomes very difficult to argue against emotional 'grass is greener' arguments.
It's nonsense - but as we saw during the Brexit debate, a compelling vision can beat any number of dry technocratic arguments.
Particularly when the government making the arguments looks so unappealing to Scottish eyes.
Finally - as a keen student of history, you will know that Catalonia's relationship with Spain (or Castile) has been pretty volatile - even before Franco and the Civil War.
Madrid's actions have merely postponed an almighty confrontation. But at the cost of national economic and political deadlock. Not a model to aspire to, at all.
Slightly surprised by the Piquet news. As commented by others previously, I suspect he won't be having a paddock pass again.
Also, interesting the budget cap is (stupidly) in USD when most teams are based in the UK, with a few in continental Europe.
A proper coup is usually almost bloodless at the point of overthrow, because all the pieces have already been played.
Given the nature of Russian society, any woman who rises to the top would have to be a hell of a lot more competent than Putin is, so it's just as well he isn't a woman.
No one is saying anything, on the record - still less under oath.
If they do, you can start to take it seriously.
Though in any event, it doesn’t invalidate her testimony.
The bulk of her evidence concerned events she had directly witnessed.
It's all PR, a game for seven-year-olds. Shouldn't she be sent to her room without any dinner?
PS I'm not against a referendum if it's what the Jocks want. The SNP have nothing else to say and it keeps them off street corners, but can prove somewhat boring.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I'm surprised they haven't done it. Blair would have.
At this stage I'm just not taking it seriously. It's nothing like the Edinburgh Agreement.
An entertaining piece containing more than a single grain of truth.
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/music/2022/06/paul-mccartney-hyde-park-rolling-stones-glastonbury
There are festivals for younger, urban music too.
We have a recently recruited member of staff from a small town in Northern Ireland who had quite the culture shock in Leicester. No flags, murals or even knowledge of who was Catholic and who Protestant. A whole different world to what she had known in another part of the same country.
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
How is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
With spectacularly bad timing, one of my front teeth which has been wobbly since a car crash 25 years ago finally gave up and fell out yesterday. It's really not a good look. I've been sat in front of the mirror practising speaking and smiling without showing my top teeth.
Imagine them doing a cap in £££.
They might even give Alsace back to the Germans first.
Male MPs find out what it is like to have hot flushes.
Now make them (or at least certain ones) wear skirts and have their genitals photographed up the skirts ...