Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A 33% return in just under two and a half years? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 31 in General
imageA 33% return in just under two and a half years? – politicalbetting.com

I’ve generally avoided betting on all things related to a future Scottish independence referendum because back in 2014 I genuinely expected the issue had been settled for a generation and didn’t fancy tying my money up for decades.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • vikvik Posts: 157
    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    Liz Truss went to primary school in Paisley.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    Betfair next prime minister
    1.28 Liz Truss 78%
    4.7 Rishi Sunak 21%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.26 Liz Truss 79%
    4.8 Rishi Sunak 21%
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Boris won't be coming back.

    If either Truss or Sunak fall before the GE I suspect it will be a coronation of Wallace.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    On topic, not something I'm tempted to bet on at the moment.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682

    Boris won't be coming back.

    If either Truss or Sunak fall before the GE I suspect it will be a coronation of Wallace.

    Not if Wallace has gone off to Nato, which is said to be his ambition.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,426

    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
    TalkTV, given its poor ratings and production values surely cannot have long left.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    Whoa, the debate ended early because the presenter fainted? Not what I expected to be reading this morning!
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,438
    edited July 27
    Lab leak!:

    The China apologists need to explain one thing. First some context.

    By reputable accounts, the CCP had known about this viral outbreak since Oct 2019 (Leon correct my dates?), when data was seized by the lab and participants in the International Military Games in Wuhan described a state of lockdown (some of those participants returned to Europe with what turned out to be covid-19). Let’s be generous to the Chinese government and say instead they didn’t get a proper grasp until Nov 2019, which is when US intelligence reports first started reporting internally that a mass viral outbreak has changed life and business flows in Wuhan.

    In 2020, Chinese New Year fell early, in the final week of Jan. At a time when China was making secret preparations for an unprecedented military lockdown of their entire country and constructing battlefield hospitals to prepare for mass infections of a disease they knew was aerosolised, extreme diplomatic was being applied to maintain air routes to the world not just out of China but out of Wuhan itself.

    I remember that week being stunned to learn that there were still 10 daily flights to my city from Wuhan China and was told by embarrassed locals that nothing could be done because China was too powerful. It was not until a full month later on 25th Feb that the first person to person transmission was formally reported in Italy (though of course it had occurred much earlier). So the question:

    WHY DID THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY INSIST ON MAINTAINING OPEN AIR ROUTES FROM WUHAN TO THE WORLD WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PREPARING MARTIAL
    LAW AT HOME??

    This question needs to be answered whether the virus came from a cave, a lab, a wet market or some combination. Because the answer is plain to me. China knew it was fekked, it had tried to keep a lid on the virus for months and had failed. And because the economic damage was going to be so great, it had to be certain that the rest of the world would suffer to the same level. I consider this to be the greatest act of warfare in history.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,438

    Boris won't be coming back.

    If either Truss or Sunak fall before the GE I suspect it will be a coronation of Wallace.

    Wallace would have taken over in something quickly resembling a coronation now. But he decided he didn’t want to. Something to bear in mind for bettors! Why would he change in his mind?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086
    @moonshine - As you say, that question has nothing to do with whether the virus leaked from a lab, so why do you link it to the question of the origins of the virus yourself, by labelling your post "lab leak"?

    It's possible to believe that the lab was the source of the virus, without believing that China committed an act of biologically warfare. And vice versa.

    Confusing the two issues is what Trump was doing to deflect from his own failures, but it makes discussion of the two separate questions more difficult and complicated.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086
    moonshine said:

    Boris won't be coming back.

    If either Truss or Sunak fall before the GE I suspect it will be a coronation of Wallace.

    Wallace would have taken over in something quickly resembling a coronation now. But he decided he didn’t want to. Something to bear in mind for bettors! Why would he change in his mind?
    If he became convinced he was the only person who would prevent HMG policy changing to abandon Ukraine to Russia, either because the next Tory leader would be weak, or would lose to Labour who were looking weak.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279
    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    The Scotland Act is quite clear on the delineation between devolved and reserved matters, I can’t see how the SC can concoct an argument that somehow a referendum would be legal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    Like Edinburgh City Council, currently run by a Lab/Con/LD coalition to keep the SNP out.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    I guess then that you would compare the number of votes for Independence to the 1.6 million in 2014, and the 2 million against at the same time, on the assumption that there would be at least a partial Unionist boycott.

    If Independence wins with 1.5 million votes to 500k against, a turnout of roughly 47%, where would that lead us?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    I guess then that you would compare the number of votes for Independence to the 1.6 million in 2014, and the 2 million against at the same time, on the assumption that there would be at least a partial Unionist boycott.

    If Independence wins with 1.5 million votes to 500k against, a turnout of roughly 47%, where would that lead us?
    With a large bill to Scottish taxpayers for the exercise?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,584
    Good morning everybody. Bit brighter this morning, although it's by no means as warm as it has been.

    On Covid and China, I think we might be assuming too much competence in the Government of China! Either that or they completely failed to recognise the significance of the outbreak worldwide!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    The Scotland Act is quite clear on the delineation between devolved and reserved matters, I can’t see how the SC can concoct an argument that somehow a referendum would be legal.
    The law is quite clear that you can't take away somebody's passport and leave them stateless. That didn't stop them backing the Home Office over Shamima Begum.

    What bothers me about the Supreme Court is they seem to be more concerned about what people think than about what the law is. Their prorogation ruling was bizarre. Even if you accept their, to put it mildly, novel interpretation of case law, the way they expressed themselves was outrageous. It was simply not true to say 'it was as though the officers were holding a blank piece of paper.' Although they established a new point of law with their ruling, nobody had ever previously disputed that the monarch has the power to prorogue parliament for any length of time, although by convention the periods were short. But because they personally disapproved and so did many influential backers they redid the whole thing, nastily.

    As for Shamima Begum, armed with the Bangladeshi statement that she was not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship they should clearly have struck down the Home Office action but, allegedly because they were unnerved by the backlash to prorogation, they did not.

    And I'm not a big fan of terrorists, or of Dominic Cummings' stupid games which he played for reasons of outsize ego rather than in the national interest. But I'm even more uneasy about courts that think laws are less important than their personal prejudices.

    About the only good thing to say on the Supreme Court is that they're not as bad as SCOTUS.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,438
    edited July 27

    @moonshine - As you say, that question has nothing to do with whether the virus leaked from a lab, so why do you link it to the question of the origins of the virus yourself, by labelling your post "lab leak"?

    It's possible to believe that the lab was the source of the virus, without believing that China committed an act of biologically warfare. And vice versa.

    Confusing the two issues is what Trump was doing to deflect from his own failures, but it makes discussion of the two separate questions more difficult and complicated.

    Labelled as such because I couldn’t be bothered to copy the convo from the last thread.

    Mine is the most serious charge. They are not unrelated because one might help to explain the other. If it was a virus that came from the gain of function research in the lab, it would explain why they were so coy for months and didn’t let on what they knew until it was too late. When really this should have been an international emergency in Oct 2019.

    It’s also a failing of US intelligence / policy making orders of magnitude worse than 9/11. But given how most people brushed aside Trump’s evidence even after the event, just imagine how it would have been treated in Q4 2019? I mean hell, most people in Europe and even on here didn’t believe Joe Biden when he said Russia was going to launch a full invasion of Ukraine.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    The Scotland Act is quite clear on the delineation between devolved and reserved matters, I can’t see how the SC can concoct an argument that somehow a referendum would be legal.
    I think they can take the view that a consultative referendum has as much legal impact as an opinion poll, and therefore doesn't change the constitutional arrangement, and doesn't breach the Act. If the wording was more explicit, and say prohibited spending on matters relating to reserved matters, then it would be clear.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    Taz said:

    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
    TalkTV, given its poor ratings and production values surely cannot have long left.
    They said the same for GBeebies. And yet here it is, offering Farage ranting over a Pint as "News"
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,426

    Taz said:

    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
    TalkTV, given its poor ratings and production values surely cannot have long left.
    They said the same for GBeebies. And yet here it is, offering Farage ranting over a Pint as "News"
    GB News rates significantly higher than TalkTV though. More than ten times the ratings and its ratings are modest.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
    TalkTV, given its poor ratings and production values surely cannot have long left.
    They said the same for GBeebies. And yet here it is, offering Farage ranting over a Pint as "News"
    GB News rates significantly higher than TalkTV though. More than ten times the ratings and its ratings are modest.
    Interestingly, GB News is the only mainstream UK news channel with a live worldwide stream on YouTube. Sky and BBC both pulled their overseas news streams in recent years, in favour of trying to negotiate deals with foreign cable networks.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
    TalkTV, given its poor ratings and production values surely cannot have long left.
    They said the same for GBeebies. And yet here it is, offering Farage ranting over a Pint as "News"
    GB News rates significantly higher than TalkTV though. More than ten times the ratings and its ratings are modest.
    GB News doesn't have Piers Morgan on it.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
    TalkTV, given its poor ratings and production values surely cannot have long left.
    They said the same for GBeebies. And yet here it is, offering Farage ranting over a Pint as "News"
    GB News rates significantly higher than TalkTV though. More than ten times the ratings and its ratings are modest.
    GB News doesn't have Piers Morgan on it.
    But it does have Nigel Farage.

    Imagine a news station that brought Farage and Morgan together? We'd know if they did as the world disappeared into a black hole created by their concentrated ANGER.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,584

    Taz said:

    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
    TalkTV, given its poor ratings and production values surely cannot have long left.
    They said the same for GBeebies. And yet here it is, offering Farage ranting over a Pint as "News"
    What is he burbling about now?
    As a retired person, who has no need to go out and earn a living, I am constantly surprised at the amount of time some of my still working colleagues on here can apparently spend watching TV. Even news programmes!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    edited July 27

    Taz said:

    vik said:

    One has to feel sorry for Sunak. He rushed over to Kate McCann & held her hand, but it wasn't captured on camera.

    If only Talk TV could afford a second camera.

    Liz Truss seemed to look over to Rishi before coming forward. It may be that whoever moved first prompted the other. Is it a good way to choose a prime minister? Probably not.
    TalkTV, given its poor ratings and production values surely cannot have long left.
    They said the same for GBeebies. And yet here it is, offering Farage ranting over a Pint as "News"
    What is he burbling about now?
    As a retired person, who has no need to go out and earn a living, I am constantly surprised at the amount of time some of my still working colleagues on here can apparently spend watching TV. Even news programmes!
    What about those of us who stay in to earn a living? :wink:
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Like Brexit.

    Advisory.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    The more pertinent question is whether Johnson can hope to return to No 10 in the longer term, and that is a prospect less easily dismissed.

    Read more here - free to read 🔓
    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/07/return-boris-johnson-prime-minister
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,948

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    The Scotland Act is quite clear on the delineation between devolved and reserved matters, I can’t see how the SC can concoct an argument that somehow a referendum would be legal.
    I think they can take the view that a consultative referendum has as much legal impact as an opinion poll, and therefore doesn't change the constitutional arrangement, and doesn't breach the Act. If the wording was more explicit, and say prohibited spending on matters relating to reserved matters, then it would be clear.
    Agree, and this is the argument the Lord Advocate made. I think the AV referendum was the only one with legal implications?

    So, there could well be a "legally authorised" referendum, if the Supreme Court take the opinion poll view.

    I'm unclear as to the role of the Electoral Commission, and whether that is a reserved non-ministerial body? Tory LAs could also refuse to cooperate, or voter boycott, but the ref would still be "legally authorised".
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,258
    edited July 27
    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Like Brexit.

    Advisory.
    Given the precedent of Brexit, would the SNP commit to a follow-up confirmatory referendum in the event that they won?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086
    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Like Brexit.

    Advisory.
    I wonder what would have happened if Labour and the Lib Dems had campaigned for a boycott of the 2016 Brexit referendum?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. L, ironic, given Scotland actually has devolution. The democratic deficit is yawning chasm where an English Parliament should be.

    Still, I see Labour's plan to kill nationalism stone dead is going just swimmingly.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,948
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    Isn't there a thing in the Scotland Act that allows the Lord Advocate to ask for a view from the SC without a bill?

    If not, wouldn't giving a view on the substantive matter on a premature reference just encourage more references to the court?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,440
    edited July 27

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    I guess then that you would compare the number of votes for Independence to the 1.6 million in 2014, and the 2 million against at the same time, on the assumption that there would be at least a partial Unionist boycott.

    If Independence wins with 1.5 million votes to 500k against, a turnout of roughly 47%, where would that lead us?
    It would leave Scottish Nationalists going round in exactly the same circles they have been going round in since 2014.

    (Morning all)
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,948

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Like Brexit.

    Advisory.
    Given the precedent of Brexit, would the SNP commit to a follow-up confirmatory referendum in the event that they won?
    Best of three to be safe ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,778
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    The Scotland Act is quite clear on the delineation between devolved and reserved matters, I can’t see how the SC can concoct an argument that somehow a referendum would be legal.
    The law is quite clear that you can't take away somebody's passport and leave them stateless. That didn't stop them backing the Home Office over Shamima Begum.

    What bothers me about the Supreme Court is they seem to be more concerned about what people think than about what the law is. Their prorogation ruling was bizarre. Even if you accept their, to put it mildly, novel interpretation of case law, the way they expressed themselves was outrageous. It was simply not true to say 'it was as though the officers were holding a blank piece of paper.' Although they established a new point of law with their ruling, nobody had ever previously disputed that the monarch has the power to prorogue parliament for any length of time, although by convention the periods were short. But because they personally disapproved and so did many influential backers they redid the whole thing, nastily.

    As for Shamima Begum, armed with the Bangladeshi statement that she was not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship they should clearly have struck down the Home Office action but, allegedly because they were unnerved by the backlash to prorogation, they did not.

    And I'm not a big fan of terrorists, or of Dominic Cummings' stupid games which he played for reasons of outsize ego rather than in the national interest. But I'm even more uneasy about courts that think laws are less important than their personal prejudices.

    About the only good thing to say on the Supreme Court is that they're not as bad as SCOTUS.
    I do not think it was the SC was unnerved by any backlash that they decided the way they did. It was rather because they took a more traditional view of the Supremacy of Parliament. Parliament had passed a law which explicitly gave the HS that power and the Court was not willing to conclude that they should not have done. Whether a Hale led court would have reached the same conclusion is open to question.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,691
    Scott_xP said:

    The more pertinent question is whether Johnson can hope to return to No 10 in the longer term, and that is a prospect less easily dismissed.

    Read more here - free to read 🔓
    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/07/return-boris-johnson-prime-minister

    Meanwhile in Telegraph, senior Tories are pushing for him to be made sec general of NATO next year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    The obvious way out is to grant the referendum but say in order for a leave vote to be valid it must have met a threshold of those entitled to vote - as in 1979 when 40% of those eligible had to vote for a change.

    If that threshold was met, then there could be no dispute that there had been a change of sentiment in Scotland and independence should be granted.

    Sturgeon might accept it too as she could campaign for 'Yes' with a clear conscience knowing it would be most unlikely to happen.
  • Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    The Scotland Act is quite clear on the delineation between devolved and reserved matters, I can’t see how the SC can concoct an argument that somehow a referendum would be legal.
    Because of Miller.

    Since SC precedent in Miller already ruled that referenda are advisory and can not change the constitution or law, only Parliament can do that, a referendum would not by itself be changing anything which is reserved.
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 420
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    I agree with your first paragraph. They could rule on the substance. I recall the famous case of Donoghue V Stevenson, where the House of Lords were not actually making a ruling on the facts of the case but rather the substance of the arguments (in other words, no one knows if there even was a snail!). Others might know better, but it seems that UKSC can rule on the substance of the hypothetical question. Whether they are keen to is another question!

    As to the second point, I'm not so sure. The ability to hold an advisory referendum might fall within Scot Gov's competency.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Unpopular said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    I agree with your first paragraph. They could rule on the substance. I recall the famous case of Donoghue V Stevenson, where the House of Lords were not actually making a ruling on the facts of the case but rather the substance of the arguments (in other words, no one knows if there even was a snail!). Others might know better, but it seems that UKSC can rule on the substance of the hypothetical question. Whether they are keen to is another question!

    As to the second point, I'm not so sure. The ability to hold an advisory referendum might fall within Scot Gov's competency.
    The complicating factor is that in the past the ScotGov has accepted it can't, which is why it got the s30 order for 2014.

    Are the SC to rule that that was wrong and the order wasn't needed?

    They're quite capable of it, but it would be a somewhat novel approach.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?
    That was authorised by the UK Parliament and nobody disputed they had the right to hold it or act on the result.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,127

    Scott_xP said:

    The more pertinent question is whether Johnson can hope to return to No 10 in the longer term, and that is a prospect less easily dismissed.

    Read more here - free to read 🔓
    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/07/return-boris-johnson-prime-minister

    Meanwhile in Telegraph, senior Tories are pushing for him to be made sec general of NATO next year.
    Where can I bet against that happening?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,778
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    Isn't there a thing in the Scotland Act that allows the Lord Advocate to ask for a view from the SC without a bill?

    If not, wouldn't giving a view on the substantive matter on a premature reference just encourage more references to the court?
    No, or at least not explicitly. The Act required the Lord Advocate to certify that the bill was competent. She was not willing to do so and asked advice of the Court. The Act itself is clear that the Court should determine the question of competency on a bill that has been passed so that there is no doubt what its terms are and there is a legal document to be construed.

    What the Court can do now is say that they will not accept such references in future for this reason but also decide the substantive matter. In my limited experience the SC is slightly less worried about procedural nicities than other Courts and wants to avoid the delays in simply ruling questions premature rather than actually dealing with the substance.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    Unpopular said:

    I agree with your first paragraph. They could rule on the substance. I recall the famous case of Donoghue V Stevenson, where the House of Lords were not actually making a ruling on the facts of the case but rather the substance of the arguments (in other words, no one knows if there even was a snail!). Others might know better, but it seems that UKSC can rule on the substance of the hypothetical question. Whether they are keen to is another question!

    As to the second point, I'm not so sure. The ability to hold an advisory referendum might fall within Scot Gov's competency.

    The argument as I understand it is they are being asked to rule whether a hypothetical bill is legal, without the text of the bill.

    The UK Government argued that is impossible. The court have apparently agreed to ponder the question.

    In related news, there is a column in The Times today speculating that this kamikaze scheme is Nippy's retirement plan.

    Eck resigned after losing the Indyref, she can resign after losing this one.
  • ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    But it would have legal force.

    If there is a bill passed through Parliament (or the Scottish Parliament) to hold a referendum then that would have "legal force", it would be the law of the land.

    However a referendum has no more legal force than the mere holding of the referendum. It doesn't change the law, or the constitution, or any reserved matters, it simply asks the question and gets the answer - what politicians in Parliament do about it afterwards remains reserved for them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?
    That was authorised by the UK Parliament and nobody disputed they had the right to hold it or act on the result.
    Hold on, that's a different argument.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?
    That was authorised by the UK Parliament and nobody disputed they had the right to hold it or act on the result.
    Hold on, that's a different argument.
    How?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,691
    "When Sunak and Truss’s names were announced last week, one senior Tory Party campaigner texted me: “FFS! Have we got a Death Wish?” "

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/07/26/tory-party-seems-have-death-wish/

    Pearson thinks - like a few of us on here - that there is likely to be another leadership election soon. The membership didn't want either of them.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,440

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    The Scotland Act is quite clear on the delineation between devolved and reserved matters, I can’t see how the SC can concoct an argument that somehow a referendum would be legal.
    Because of Miller.

    Since SC precedent in Miller already ruled that referenda are advisory and can not change the constitution or law, only Parliament can do that, a referendum would not by itself be changing anything which is reserved.
    That was another peculiar ruling, with a whiff of the late 1940s about it to me.

    I'm not aware of any UK referendum that has not been treated as binding. But there have been so many, that I may have missed one.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279
    edited July 27
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?
    That was authorised by the UK Parliament and nobody disputed they had the right to hold it or act on the result.
    Hold on, that's a different argument.
    How?
    Your argument was about 'Council spending on no legal force' , now you've moved to the authorisation body and lack of dispute.

    Just because there wasn't a dispute from any council about holding the Brexit referendum is irrelevant and the authorising body is a different argument to legal effect.

    My sense is you're simply not keen on the Scottish Parliament getting ideas above it's station.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,896
    Well now it looks like Truss we'll have to find reasons to support Starmer. They're both Leaver converts and neither seem particularly liberal. On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing and on refugees to Rwanda both seem relaxed.

    Patel as Home Secretary would swing the dial to Starmer of course as would Cabinet appearances by Rees Mogg Gonads or Braverman.

    But we're searching for scraps. Nationalisation doesn't score points and when it comes to flying the biggest and most flags I'd call it a dead heat.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    edited July 27
    Not market that I am betting on, but a further Sindyref is inevitable at some point, even if Westminster persists in the current logjam for the rest of this generation. It is for Scotland to decide on when that should be, anything else is a denial of democracy.

    We should learn from Brexit though and know the terms of separation in advance of the vote, rather than interminable discussions afterwards. People need to know what they are voting on, rather than unicorns frolicking on sunlit uplands.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,440

    Scott_xP said:

    The more pertinent question is whether Johnson can hope to return to No 10 in the longer term, and that is a prospect less easily dismissed.

    Read more here - free to read 🔓
    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/07/return-boris-johnson-prime-minister

    Meanwhile in Telegraph, senior Tories are pushing for him to be made sec general of NATO next year.
    Where can I bet against that happening?
    Paris or Brussels? :smile:
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,580

    Scott_xP said:

    The more pertinent question is whether Johnson can hope to return to No 10 in the longer term, and that is a prospect less easily dismissed.

    Read more here - free to read 🔓
    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/07/return-boris-johnson-prime-minister

    Meanwhile in Telegraph, senior Tories are pushing for him to be made sec general of NATO next year.
    Or Prime Minister of another country - apparently there is a petition on Zelensky's website to get him to make Boris the Prime Minister of Ukraine and give him Ukrainian citizenship:

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainians-sign-petition-give-citizenship-pm-role-uks-johnson-2022-07-26/
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 420

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    The Scotland Act is quite clear on the delineation between devolved and reserved matters, I can’t see how the SC can concoct an argument that somehow a referendum would be legal.
    Because of Miller.

    Since SC precedent in Miller already ruled that referenda are advisory and can not change the constitution or law, only Parliament can do that, a referendum would not by itself be changing anything which is reserved.
    I think it ruled that the Brexit Referendum was advisory, rather than all referenda. If Parliament make it explicit that the Government has the power to implement the result, then the Government will have that power. If not, they are advisory (the Brexit Referendum was explicitly so in law, I believe). Of course, even with a 'binding referendum' parliament could choose to revoke the Government's power to implement a result. That's the nature of the system.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The more pertinent question is whether Johnson can hope to return to No 10 in the longer term, and that is a prospect less easily dismissed.

    Read more here - free to read 🔓
    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/07/return-boris-johnson-prime-minister

    Meanwhile in Telegraph, senior Tories are pushing for him to be made sec general of NATO next year.
    Or Prime Minister of another country - apparently there is a petition on Zelensky's website to get him to make Boris the Prime Minister of Ukraine and give him Ukrainian citizenship:

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainians-sign-petition-give-citizenship-pm-role-uks-johnson-2022-07-26/
    As long as they give him a tommy gun and deploy him to the Donbas front that sounds an excellent plan.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    Sturgeon herself has said she wants the “gold standard” of a Westminster-approved, section-30-certified indyref2

    Not sure how she can go from that to saying “oh this isn’t a very good referendum but it will do for breaking up the UK after 300 years”
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,421
    Roger said:

    Well now it looks like Truss we'll have to find reasons to support Starmer. They're both Leaver converts and neither seem particularly liberal. On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing and on refugees to Rwanda both seem relaxed.

    Patel as Home Secretary would swing the dial to Starmer of course as would Cabinet appearances by Rees Mogg Gonads or Braverman.

    But we're searching for scraps. Nationalisation doesn't score points and when it comes to flying the biggest and most flags I'd call it a dead heat.

    "On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing".

    LOL
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?
    That was authorised by the UK Parliament and nobody disputed they had the right to hold it or act on the result.
    Hold on, that's a different argument.
    How?
    Your argument was about 'Council spending on no legal force' , now you've moved to the authorisation body and lack of dispute.

    Just because there wasn't a dispute from any council about holding the Brexit referendum is irrelevant and the authorising body is a different argument to legal effect.

    My sense is you're simply not keen on the Scottish Parliament getting ideas above it's station.
    Well, I'm not, just as I'm not keen on the Supreme Court doing the same. Or for the matter of that Staffordshire County Council. The reason for this is simple - if they start doing things that suit them rather than what they should be doing, what happens when they start making dumb decisions that suit them but cause massive harm? Which would inevitably happen as we all make mistakes.

    But the argument is, does the Scottish Parliament have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on a subject outside its competence and force councils to take part spending money they don't really have on something they don't want to do?

    Whereas nobody disputed Brexit was in the competence of the UK Parliament.

    I don't see a contradiction there.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    Roger said:

    Well now it looks like Truss we'll have to find reasons to support Starmer. They're both Leaver converts and neither seem particularly liberal. On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing and on refugees to Rwanda both seem relaxed.

    Patel as Home Secretary would swing the dial to Starmer of course as would Cabinet appearances by Rees Mogg Gonads or Braverman.

    But we're searching for scraps. Nationalisation doesn't score points and when it comes to flying the biggest and most flags I'd call it a dead heat.

    Praise be that we hear nothing of Palestine! It is none of our business any more.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,284

    "When Sunak and Truss’s names were announced last week, one senior Tory Party campaigner texted me: “FFS! Have we got a Death Wish?” "

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/07/26/tory-party-seems-have-death-wish/

    Pearson thinks - like a few of us on here - that there is likely to be another leadership election soon. The membership didn't want either of them.

    I suspect there is no current Tory party leadership candidate that the membership would accept. Worse there is even less chance of a candidate who both the membership AND Tory MPs will accept.

    That's the problem of having 2 different groups of people voting separately.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,778
    Unpopular said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    I agree with your first paragraph. They could rule on the substance. I recall the famous case of Donoghue V Stevenson, where the House of Lords were not actually making a ruling on the facts of the case but rather the substance of the arguments (in other words, no one knows if there even was a snail!). Others might know better, but it seems that UKSC can rule on the substance of the hypothetical question. Whether they are keen to is another question!

    As to the second point, I'm not so sure. The ability to hold an advisory referendum might fall within Scot Gov's competency.
    Donaghue-v-Stevenson was an example of Scottish procedure which is simply put as the so what test. What the pursuer is offering to prove is fixed by its pleadings. If those pleadings mean that even if all of that was proven they could not win then there is no point in having a proof.

    This is more like a situation where trustees or, say, an arbitrator can refer a question of law to the Court and ask for guidance. It is then up to the court to decide whether they are minded to grant that guidance or not.

    In a fairly recent case the SC held that it was not competent for the Scottish Parliament to adopt a UN Convention relating to children into the law without the consent of the UK government because that Convention imposed obligations on the UK government that they had not agreed to. The Court made it clear that it was not good enough that those obligations might in practice be construed in a narrow way consistent with the existing law. Even the possibility that the Convention might impinge on a reserved matter was sufficient to make it incompetent. That logic seems to me to lead to the conclusion that a consultative vote on a constitutional matter might impinge on a reserved matter but other views are available.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,127
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    Putin is winning, isn’t he?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086
    Roger said:

    Well now it looks like Truss we'll have to find reasons to support Starmer. They're both Leaver converts and neither seem particularly liberal. On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing and on refugees to Rwanda both seem relaxed.

    Patel as Home Secretary would swing the dial to Starmer of course as would Cabinet appearances by Rees Mogg Gonads or Braverman.

    But we're searching for scraps. Nationalisation doesn't score points and when it comes to flying the biggest and most flags I'd call it a dead heat.

    You missed the news on Union rights yesterday then?

    I don't know why you're so determined to convince yourself that Starmer is no different to Truss?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086
    Leon said:

    Putin is winning, isn’t he?

    What makes you say that?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,742
    edited July 27
    Johnson who shoots his mouth off , and who is loathed by most countries in the EU who are currently NATO members will never be supported for that role .

    There’s more chance of Larry the cat getting becoming NATO Chief .
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Well now it looks like Truss we'll have to find reasons to support Starmer. They're both Leaver converts and neither seem particularly liberal. On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing and on refugees to Rwanda both seem relaxed.

    Patel as Home Secretary would swing the dial to Starmer of course as would Cabinet appearances by Rees Mogg Gonads or Braverman.

    But we're searching for scraps. Nationalisation doesn't score points and when it comes to flying the biggest and most flags I'd call it a dead heat.

    Praise be that we hear nothing of Palestine! It is none of our business any more.
    Well, given its unresolved status is a major cause of Islamic terrorism I'm not sure I would entirely agree with that.

    However, since Islamic terrorism would continue even if it were resolved, and since there is no way Britain can either influence any solution or impose one, you are right in practice that we should keep it out of national political debate.
  • ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?
    That was authorised by the UK Parliament and nobody disputed they had the right to hold it or act on the result.
    Hold on, that's a different argument.
    How?
    Your argument was about 'Council spending on no legal force' , now you've moved to the authorisation body and lack of dispute.

    Just because there wasn't a dispute from any council about holding the Brexit referendum is irrelevant and the authorising body is a different argument to legal effect.

    My sense is you're simply not keen on the Scottish Parliament getting ideas above it's station.
    Well, I'm not, just as I'm not keen on the Supreme Court doing the same. Or for the matter of that Staffordshire County Council. The reason for this is simple - if they start doing things that suit them rather than what they should be doing, what happens when they start making dumb decisions that suit them but cause massive harm? Which would inevitably happen as we all make mistakes.

    But the argument is, does the Scottish Parliament have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on a subject outside its competence and force councils to take part spending money they don't really have on something they don't want to do?

    Whereas nobody disputed Brexit was in the competence of the UK Parliament.

    I don't see a contradiction there.
    The Scottish Parliament operates under the principle that everything that is not forbidden, is allowed within its competence.

    So if a referendum is only advisory (which Miller says it is) then would an advisory referendum directly change or affect any reserved matters? Not really, no.

    If it does not affect any reserved matters should it be allowed? Yes.

    Just because the Scottish Parliament doesn't have competence for handling the aftermath of the referendum doesn't mean a referendum itself is verboten.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697

    Pearson thinks - like a few of us on here - that there is likely to be another leadership election soon. The membership didn't want either of them.

    The membership want Truss.

    The MPs don't.

    That is likely to be a problem.

    Meanwhile...

    🧵After the debate entourages had left Stoke yesterday we carried out a focus group to find out what local residents thought about it all. I’ve written for @timesredbox today on why I think some commentators in SW1 have been misreading the race. (1/n) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/from-stoke-voters-see-a-very-different-leadership-race-53kgqlncn
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,902

    Roger said:

    Well now it looks like Truss we'll have to find reasons to support Starmer. They're both Leaver converts and neither seem particularly liberal. On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing and on refugees to Rwanda both seem relaxed.

    Patel as Home Secretary would swing the dial to Starmer of course as would Cabinet appearances by Rees Mogg Gonads or Braverman.

    But we're searching for scraps. Nationalisation doesn't score points and when it comes to flying the biggest and most flags I'd call it a dead heat.

    You missed the news on Union rights yesterday then?

    I don't know why you're so determined to convince yourself that Starmer is no different to Truss?

    Susan Sarandon very performatively and publicly proclaimed that there was no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. Six years later and women no longer have control over their own bodies in the US.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,127
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Well now it looks like Truss we'll have to find reasons to support Starmer. They're both Leaver converts and neither seem particularly liberal. On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing and on refugees to Rwanda both seem relaxed.

    Patel as Home Secretary would swing the dial to Starmer of course as would Cabinet appearances by Rees Mogg Gonads or Braverman.

    But we're searching for scraps. Nationalisation doesn't score points and when it comes to flying the biggest and most flags I'd call it a dead heat.

    Praise be that we hear nothing of Palestine! It is none of our business any more.
    If Palestine is none of our business then why are we arming Ukraine? Surely by the same logic that is none of our business either.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,401
    (FPT_
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Why am I surrounded by intellectual dwarves

    It's because you insist on following their dodgy tweets pal!
    If you had read the Worobey paper, which you have not, you would have noticed that even THEY now admit - in this heavily revised version, after they faced much criticism - that the CDC lab is really close to the market - 277 metres, to be precise - but they hastily move on and say there is no evidence that it was fucking around with bat coronaviruses, even tho the Chinese admitted that they were, early on

    It's farcical
    But the CDC facility was not where they were conducting serial passage experiments.
    The point of the paper is not to demonstrate how the virus arose, but rather a detailed genetic and geographical analysis of the earliest documented cases, which places constraints on hypotheses about how it originated.

    It makes the 'it was evolved in a lab' theory that you were declaring proven look much less likely.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,939
    Foxy said:

    Not market that I am betting on, but a further Sindyref is inevitable at some point, even if Westminster persists in the current logjam for the rest of this generation. It is for Scotland to decide on when that should be, anything else is a denial of democracy.

    We should learn from Brexit though and know the terms of separation in advance of the vote, rather than interminable discussions afterwards. People need to know what they are voting on, rather than unicorns frolicking on sunlit uplands.

    Yes in principle but there is a difficulty. An independent Scotland as such can have complete borderless FoM, trade etc between it and England etc. But a Scotland in the EU can't.

    In the first case the public would notice little day to day difference. In the second case the England Scotland border would have the same exciting status as that between Bulgaria and Turkey or Lithuania and Kaliningrad.

    While Scotland is part of the UK there is no possibility at all of knowing what the EU will require of Scotland for membership. But the island of Ireland situation tells us in advance that situational flexibility is not always the strongest point of the various parties.

    For those, like me, who cross the England/Scotland border all the time and live near it, this matters.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,829
    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Like Brexit.

    Advisory.
    Advisory in law, but the intent was clear from all sides. If remain had won, would the politicians have happily said, 'no, we think we should leave, so we've just triggered A50'?
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 420
    DavidL said:

    Unpopular said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    I agree with your first paragraph. They could rule on the substance. I recall the famous case of Donoghue V Stevenson, where the House of Lords were not actually making a ruling on the facts of the case but rather the substance of the arguments (in other words, no one knows if there even was a snail!). Others might know better, but it seems that UKSC can rule on the substance of the hypothetical question. Whether they are keen to is another question!

    As to the second point, I'm not so sure. The ability to hold an advisory referendum might fall within Scot Gov's competency.
    Donaghue-v-Stevenson was an example of Scottish procedure which is simply put as the so what test. What the pursuer is offering to prove is fixed by its pleadings. If those pleadings mean that even if all of that was proven they could not win then there is no point in having a proof.

    This is more like a situation where trustees or, say, an arbitrator can refer a question of law to the Court and ask for guidance. It is then up to the court to decide whether they are minded to grant that guidance or not.

    In a fairly recent case the SC held that it was not competent for the Scottish Parliament to adopt a UN Convention relating to children into the law without the consent of the UK government because that Convention imposed obligations on the UK government that they had not agreed to. The Court made it clear that it was not good enough that those obligations might in practice be construed in a narrow way consistent with the existing law. Even the possibility that the Convention might impinge on a reserved matter was sufficient to make it incompetent. That logic seems to me to lead to the conclusion that a consultative vote on a constitutional matter might impinge on a reserved matter but other views are available.
    Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,948
    Foxy said:

    Not market that I am betting on, but a further Sindyref is inevitable at some point, even if Westminster persists in the current logjam for the rest of this generation. It is for Scotland to decide on when that should be, anything else is a denial of democracy.

    We should learn from Brexit though and know the terms of separation in advance of the vote, rather than interminable discussions afterwards. People need to know what they are voting on, rather than unicorns frolicking on sunlit uplands.

    Absolutely no chance of that.

    There will be another white paper from SG promising the Unicorns, like last time (they are already doing so, paper by paper), and UK Gov will produce another Brexit-style "end-of-the-world" pamphlet at taxpayer expense.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    edited July 27

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?
    I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?
    That was authorised by the UK Parliament and nobody disputed they had the right to hold it or act on the result.
    Hold on, that's a different argument.
    How?
    Your argument was about 'Council spending on no legal force' , now you've moved to the authorisation body and lack of dispute.

    Just because there wasn't a dispute from any council about holding the Brexit referendum is irrelevant and the authorising body is a different argument to legal effect.

    My sense is you're simply not keen on the Scottish Parliament getting ideas above it's station.
    Well, I'm not, just as I'm not keen on the Supreme Court doing the same. Or for the matter of that Staffordshire County Council. The reason for this is simple - if they start doing things that suit them rather than what they should be doing, what happens when they start making dumb decisions that suit them but cause massive harm? Which would inevitably happen as we all make mistakes.

    But the argument is, does the Scottish Parliament have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on a subject outside its competence and force councils to take part spending money they don't really have on something they don't want to do?

    Whereas nobody disputed Brexit was in the competence of the UK Parliament.

    I don't see a contradiction there.
    The Scottish Parliament operates under the principle that everything that is not forbidden, is allowed within its competence.

    So if a referendum is only advisory (which Miller says it is) then would an advisory referendum directly change or affect any reserved matters? Not really, no.

    If it does not affect any reserved matters should it be allowed? Yes.

    Just because the Scottish Parliament doesn't have competence for handling the aftermath of the referendum doesn't mean a referendum itself is verboten.
    Then as a devolved rather than a federated body it's operating under the wrong principle. It should be operating under the principle that anything not within its competence is forbidden to it. Some explicitly, some implicitly.

    In America, it's the other way around. But rather fortunately for Scotland at this moment, it isn't in America.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.
    But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

    The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

    Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

    It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

    The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279

    Leon said:

    Putin is winning, isn’t he?

    What makes you say that?
    Telegram
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,539
     
    Leon said:

    Putin is winning, isn’t he?

    Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432

    Roger said:

    Well now it looks like Truss we'll have to find reasons to support Starmer. They're both Leaver converts and neither seem particularly liberal. On Palestinian rights we've heard nothing and on refugees to Rwanda both seem relaxed.

    Patel as Home Secretary would swing the dial to Starmer of course as would Cabinet appearances by Rees Mogg Gonads or Braverman.

    But we're searching for scraps. Nationalisation doesn't score points and when it comes to flying the biggest and most flags I'd call it a dead heat.

    You missed the news on Union rights yesterday then?

    I don't know why you're so determined to convince yourself that Starmer is no different to Truss?

    Susan Sarandon very performatively and publicly proclaimed that there was no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. Six years later and women no longer have control over their own bodies in the US.

    To be fair to her, that was a mistake I made as well.

    I spectacularly underestimated just how big a wanker Trump was.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. Tubbs, aye.

    If the pro-EU said had refused to engage that would have made things very weird and difficult if/when Leave won.

    What if it had been 80% Leave on a 35% turnout?

    But, both sides participated and said it mattered and then voted for it in Parliament.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,580
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.
    But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

    The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

    Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

    It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

    The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada
    I think it'll only happen if Starmer needs SNP support in a hung Parliament. Then it would probably be authorised very quickly.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    Conservative party members should be stripped of their power to pick Britain’s next prime minister, a senior MP has said, citing concerns about the increasingly hostile public attacks by the campaigns of Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss on their rival.

    Charles Walker, a former longstanding vice-chair of the 1922 Committee, which oversees the rules for internal party no-confidence votes and leadership elections, said the contest “should have got nowhere near” the 180,000 Tory grassroots activists who will decide Boris Johnson’s replacement in just over a month.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/26/strip-tory-members-of-power-to-pick-prime-minister-demands-senior-mp?CMP=share_btn_tw
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,127
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.
    But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

    The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

    Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

    It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

    The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada
    No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?
    Like Brexit.

    Advisory.
    Advisory in law, but the intent was clear from all sides. If remain had won, would the politicians have happily said, 'no, we think we should leave, so we've just triggered A50'?
    Well half of parliament certainly grasped hold of the "advisory" label shortly after they lost. Parliament could have triggered Art 50 in the event remain won if you follow the hardcore remain logic to it's natural conclusion.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,939
    DavidL said:

    Unpopular said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    I agree with your first paragraph. They could rule on the substance. I recall the famous case of Donoghue V Stevenson, where the House of Lords were not actually making a ruling on the facts of the case but rather the substance of the arguments (in other words, no one knows if there even was a snail!). Others might know better, but it seems that UKSC can rule on the substance of the hypothetical question. Whether they are keen to is another question!

    As to the second point, I'm not so sure. The ability to hold an advisory referendum might fall within Scot Gov's competency.
    Donaghue-v-Stevenson was an example of Scottish procedure which is simply put as the so what test. What the pursuer is offering to prove is fixed by its pleadings. If those pleadings mean that even if all of that was proven they could not win then there is no point in having a proof.

    This is more like a situation where trustees or, say, an arbitrator can refer a question of law to the Court and ask for guidance. It is then up to the court to decide whether they are minded to grant that guidance or not.

    In a fairly recent case the SC held that it was not competent for the Scottish Parliament to adopt a UN Convention relating to children into the law without the consent of the UK government because that Convention imposed obligations on the UK government that they had not agreed to. The Court made it clear that it was not good enough that those obligations might in practice be construed in a narrow way consistent with the existing law. Even the possibility that the Convention might impinge on a reserved matter was sufficient to make it incompetent. That logic seems to me to lead to the conclusion that a consultative vote on a constitutional matter might impinge on a reserved matter but other views are available.
    For information, have we noted this:

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/reference-by-the-lord-advocate-to-the-supreme-court-28-june.html

    FWIW the prospect of success by the Scottish government is zero. This is using courts for a purely political end.

    The whole issue of Scotland and England repeating the EU dilemma of the island of Ireland, now knowing how intractable the EU is is over these things, is too awful to contemplate.


  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,082

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

    It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

    What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

    My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.
    It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.
    As the great men said

    Should I stay or should I go now?
    If I go there will be trouble
    If I stay there will be double
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT_

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Why am I surrounded by intellectual dwarves

    It's because you insist on following their dodgy tweets pal!
    If you had read the Worobey paper, which you have not, you would have noticed that even THEY now admit - in this heavily revised version, after they faced much criticism - that the CDC lab is really close to the market - 277 metres, to be precise - but they hastily move on and say there is no evidence that it was fucking around with bat coronaviruses, even tho the Chinese admitted that they were, early on

    It's farcical
    But the CDC facility was not where they were conducting serial passage experiments.
    The point of the paper is not to demonstrate how the virus arose, but rather a detailed genetic and geographical analysis of the earliest documented cases, which places constraints on hypotheses about how it originated.

    It makes the 'it was evolved in a lab' theory that you were declaring proven look much less likely.
    As far as I can see, their basis for believing these experiments did not take place at the CDC lab 300 metres from the market despite the lab sampling bat coronaviruses etc, is because “this is what the Chinese told us”

    If you can find any other proof they have, do show me

    I have never said lab leak is proven I’ve always said “we will likely never know for sure”. It’s too late. I have said that - to my mind - lab leak is 95% certain thanks to overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but who knows

    The preprint of this over-hyped paper - which you eagerly touted on here - was shredded within 48 hours (hence the huge changes in this new text). Let’s see what happens in the coming days

    If it emerges unscathed then I might reweigh my probabilities. But I am not optimistic for them. The people who co-wrote this paper - Rasmussen, Andersen, etc - are exactly the same people who tried to shoot down lab leak from the beginning as a “racist conspiracy” or “vanishingly unlikely” - from day one

    Andersen is particularly egregious. He wrote the much scorned Nature paper “proximal origins”. A laughable character
This discussion has been closed.