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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
That is not how Texans conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Texas should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Texans would deny that the decision is Texas's to make whenever they choose to. That other Americans don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education North of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Texas are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
Does that work?
If Scots think they're sovereign then that speaks of a failure of civic education North of the border. They're not, the UK is sovereign. Scotland abolished its own sovereignty in 1707.
I would welcome a restoration of Scottish sovereignty, I want it to happen, but it doesn't exist presently. Scotland is not a sovereign country.
Scotland is very unique though - I can't think of anywhere else in the world were a region of a country has a completely separate legal and court system to the rest of the country.
America and the fifty states meet that criteria.
Not really. Federal law governs all the states. Is there an equivalent in the UK? IANAL but isn't all UK-wide legislation separately codified for Scots law and English and Welsh law? I don't think there is a unified UK legal system in the same way that there is overarching federal law and the US constitution in the US.
There is, whatever statutes Westminster passes and the Queen signs for the whole UK
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
"Given the shortage of working trucks...."
David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.
Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,
The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.
And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..
LOL x2
Enjoy the strategy session team.
What's the PB consensus on whether or not Ukraine can hold off Russian forces in Avdeeka ?
Are there any markets on such things? I feel like pb is going to be bad at this kind of thing unless there are actual betting odds to provide discipline.
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.
The electorates for the party leaders are the worst possible size. It's what you'd choose if you were optimizing for maximum madness. They could fix it in either direction: Either make it smaller (just MPs, or MPs and local councillors or whatever) or bigger (open primary).
I think it has been one of the biggest mistakes in British politics to allow Party memberships to choose the leader. Ultimately they wouldn't have to be the leader in parliament but that might mean a messy power struggle.
Isn't it the case that whatever the electorate is, people want a different one.
The PM is the person who holds the confidence of the House of Commons. If the leader of the biggest party didn't, the HoC can act on that.
Basically the argument runs thus: people who comment want four things; a better set of MPs, a better set of party members, a better set of leaders and a better set of voters.
Which is precisely why she feels she can promise a visit for every crime instead of the current situation where victims are just fobbed off with a crime number for insurance.
Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?
Unfortunately there is evidence
Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP
The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged
Putin is winning
And yet they're scraping the barrel in their forces, using decrepit machines kept out in the open for decades, while Ukraine is using new HIMARS equipment with great effect to destroy Russian ammo dumps.
And the movement recently has been to see the Ukrainians encircling Kherson and potentially about to retake Kherson.
This isn't over yet or all one way traffic.
Though its certainly true that in the Russian/Ukrainian war the first country to surrender was France, and the second might be Germany - but that doesn't mean Putin is winning.
Russia has pretty much gone all in. 85% of it troops from across 8 time zones are now committed to the Ukraine Special Operation. It is so Special, it has left its borders to the east wide open. China could take everything east of the Urals right now if it was so inclined (and didn't mind losing a few cities in a nuclear exchange). All for Putin's vanity project, meant to be remembered across the ages. Well, he got that bit right....
The news on the taking out overnight of the Antonovskiy Bridge is interesting. It is no longer a route through which Russian troops can quickly retreat to Crimea. It is a big piece of the jigsaw for an upcoming Ukrainian counter-offensive in the south. Trapping and taking prisoner many thousands of Russian troops is one of the few routes I can see to getting a meaningful round table discussion on ending the war quickly. As well as destroying supply lines, HIMARS delivers Ukraine the capability to cut off Russian escape routes.
The Russians are claiming to be preparing military exercises in the East. Perhaps these will turn out to be a rather Potemkin-style exercise, but Russia's ability to maintain an extended conflict has already been underestimated.
Which is precisely why she feels she can promise a visit for every crime instead of the current situation where victims are just fobbed off with a crime number for insurance.
So visit to crime scene and victim takes x hours.
That's x hours that the police currently spend doing something else
So what do the police cut to make up the time required?
And it doesn't solve anything because 90% of the time the police know who the person currently doing burglaries is - they just haven't been able to find where he is to arrest him.
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
"Given the shortage of working trucks...."
David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.
Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,
The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.
And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..
Russian logistics doctrine is very dependent on using rail transport to hubs close to the front line, with hand loaded trucks shipping shells to the front. This is in stark contrast to NATO / US doctrine which emphasises mechanised goods handling & for a force sized to a Russian BTG would include many more transport vehicles.
The delivery of long ranged missiles to Ukraine has changed the game: Russian transport hubs 30km behind the front lines are now just targets & the rate of Ukrainian losses has dropped tenfold as the Russians struggle to keep their artillery supplied with shells.
It does look as though the bridge to Kherson has been badly damaged in which case the Russian troops there would be cut off.
Leon - I can't access the NYT article but I'd be interested to know why they think an offensive is unlikely to succeed.
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
"Given the shortage of working trucks...."
David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.
Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,
The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.
And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..
LOL x2
Enjoy the strategy session team.
What's the PB consensus on whether or not Ukraine can hold off Russian forces in Avdeeka ?
Are there any markets on such things? I feel like pb is going to be bad at this kind of thing unless there are actual betting odds to provide discipline.
Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?
Unfortunately there is evidence
Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP
The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged
Putin is winning
And yet they're scraping the barrel in their forces, using decrepit machines kept out in the open for decades, while Ukraine is using new HIMARS equipment with great effect to destroy Russian ammo dumps.
And the movement recently has been to see the Ukrainians encircling Kherson and potentially about to retake Kherson.
This isn't over yet or all one way traffic.
Though its certainly true that in the Russian/Ukrainian war the first country to surrender was France, and the second might be Germany - but that doesn't mean Putin is winning.
What is happening reminds me of sanctions on Iraq - selling oil is keeping the Russian economy apparently bouyant for now. Meanwhile the sanctions are turbocharging the resource curse - the Russian economy is steadily becoming more and more dependent on selling oil and gas. Other sectors are being pounded.
So Russia has money, but can’t make tanks, or good replacement barrels for artillery, or tractors.
This is ok for Putin and friends, but the wider Russian economy is still shrinking. Note that this is the reverse of all the other petro states - they are all pushing very hard to diversify out of fossil fuels.
The really impressive thing about that poll is how low Kamala is: Trailing behind Buttigieg, Warren, Newsom, Bernie and Baemy. I think influential Dems will be much more likely to nudge Biden to retire if they're confident the members will pick someone more electable.
The problem for the Democrats is finding someone who is going to appeal to the broad electoral coalition. Biden had it, at least on paper. His period in office is showing how difficult it is to keep that coalition together.
Harris looked like she could have it too, but she’s mired in problems, some of her own making and some not. She has not been given briefs that work to her strengths and they are briefs that generate controversy. But she has not helped herself with her rather abrasive presentation style and some easily avoidable messups.
The Democrats are going to struggle to find a figure who can keep the electoral coalition solid in 2024. Their main strength and hope is who they are not - i.e vote for us because you don’t want Donald Trump back. I’m not sure that’s enough though. I fully expect the GOP to win 2024 if they choose anyone other than Trump. If they choose Trump, it’s 50-50 right now.
Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?
Unfortunately there is evidence
Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP
The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged
Putin is winning
And yet they're scraping the barrel in their forces, using decrepit machines kept out in the open for decades, while Ukraine is using new HIMARS equipment with great effect to destroy Russian ammo dumps.
And the movement recently has been to see the Ukrainians encircling Kherson and potentially about to retake Kherson.
This isn't over yet or all one way traffic.
Though its certainly true that in the Russian/Ukrainian war the first country to surrender was France, and the second might be Germany - but that doesn't mean Putin is winning.
What is happening reminds me of sanctions on Iraq - selling oil is keeping the Russian economy apparently bouyant for now. Meanwhile the sanctions are turbocharging the resource curse - the Russian economy is steadily becoming more and more dependent on selling oil and gas. Other sectors are being pounded.
So Russia has money, but can’t make tanks, or good replacement barrels for artillery, or tractors.
This is ok for Putin and friends, but the wider Russian economy is still shrinking. Note that this is the reverse of all the other petro states - they are all pushing very hard to diversify out of fossil fuels.
WTI Crude is down to $96 and the Indians and Chinese are probably paying Russia 2/3 of this. Leaving aside the difficulty of transportation.
Judging the short term economic performance of a country with such a reputation for lying is not easy. This article rebuffs the idea that Putin is winning the economic war. We talk a lot abut Russian GDP but we rarely talk about unemployment which I would have expected to be a major factor on stability.
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
That is not how Texans conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Texas should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Texans would deny that the decision is Texas's to make whenever they choose to. That other Americans don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education North of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Texas are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
Does that work?
If Scots think they're sovereign then that speaks of a failure of civic education North of the border. They're not, the UK is sovereign. Scotland abolished its own sovereignty in 1707.
I would welcome a restoration of Scottish sovereignty, I want it to happen, but it doesn't exist presently. Scotland is not a sovereign country.
Scotland is very unique though - I can't think of anywhere else in the world were a region of a country has a completely separate legal and court system to the rest of the country.
America and the fifty states meet that criteria.
Not really. Federal law governs all the states. Is there an equivalent in the UK? IANAL but isn't all UK-wide legislation separately codified for Scots law and English and Welsh law? I don't think there is a unified UK legal system in the same way that there is overarching federal law and the US constitution in the US.
There is, whatever statutes Westminster passes and the Queen signs for the whole UK
But as I understand it the laws are all separately implemented in Scots law via secondary legislation. Whereas in the US Federal law applies to all the states directly. So the two situations are different. I stand to be corrected though by one of the PB lawyers as I am not a legal expert.
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
The date of the tide turning against Russia has continually been pushed back, yes. This is likely because Ukrainian losses have been greater than generally acknowledged, the fact that new Western weapons have been to some extent replacing existing Soviet-era equipment as ammunition runs out, and Russia has been more successful in finding volunteers to provide more manpower than anticipated.
There's recent video of more SPGs being transported from Russian storage towards the front line. On the one hand this is evidence of the heavy losses that Russia has suffered so far, but it also indicates that there is a lot more fighting to do until Russian reserves are depleted.
I think that if the West continue to provide support then the Ukrainians are capable of defeating Russia. But I don't expect it to happen quickly.
"There's a recent video of more SPGs being transported..."
is all that is wrong with most of PB's analysis of the war.
I don't see what's wrong with it, provided you don't take it as gospel and look for corroboration.
In the case of the SPGs there are public satellite images of SPG parks that show a declining number of SPGs in "storage", so the information available is consistent.
Video of T-62s on the Russian railway network was the first sign that those tracks were being sent to the front, and they've subsequently been seen and destroyed there.
I don't know why you insist that we can know absolutely nothing, when we can know something, even if we can't know everything.
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
"Given the shortage of working trucks...."
David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.
I am very conscious that you have much more direct experience of these matters than me. My understanding is as follows:
The use of heavy artillery involves lots and lots of large shells every day. These are generally provided in the first instance to stores or depots some distance from the front line. How far from the front line depends on the ability to get shells from the stores to the guns and the safety of those stores. The use of the HIMARS is more than doubling that distance. That means that you need double the number of trucks to deliver the same quantity of shells to the guns.
If the number of trucks is fixed or even diminishing that means less firepower. We have seen this in the Donbas where the volume of fire has been massively reduced since the Ukranians started taking out the depots at the railheads. This has made further advances based on destroying the enemy forces before engaging very difficult. The Russians have not gained further ground in the last couple of weeks as a result.
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
"Given the shortage of working trucks...."
David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.
Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,
The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.
And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..
LOL x2
Enjoy the strategy session team.
The amount of Russian artillery being expended seems to have fallen significantly.
Off topic - Has anyone noted the serious amount of solidarity & friendship between Russian oligarch/spy Lebvedev and friends/family of the Cameron top team with Evening Standard Jobs for the boys and girls that went on a few years back ?
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
That is not how Texans conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Texas should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Texans would deny that the decision is Texas's to make whenever they choose to. That other Americans don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education North of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Texas are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
Does that work?
If Scots think they're sovereign then that speaks of a failure of civic education North of the border. They're not, the UK is sovereign. Scotland abolished its own sovereignty in 1707.
I would welcome a restoration of Scottish sovereignty, I want it to happen, but it doesn't exist presently. Scotland is not a sovereign country.
Scotland is very unique though - I can't think of anywhere else in the world were a region of a country has a completely separate legal and court system to the rest of the country.
America and the fifty states meet that criteria.
Not really. Federal law governs all the states. Is there an equivalent in the UK? IANAL but isn't all UK-wide legislation separately codified for Scots law and English and Welsh law? I don't think there is a unified UK legal system in the same way that there is overarching federal law and the US constitution in the US.
There is, whatever statutes Westminster passes and the Queen signs for the whole UK
But as I understand it the laws are all separately implemented in Scots law via secondary legislation. Whereas in the US Federal law applies to all the states directly. So the two situations are different. I stand to be corrected though by one of the PB lawyers as I am not a legal expert.
No. They don't have to be. Westminster can and does legislate for UK as a whole, which does not mean it always or often does.
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?
The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all. Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.
No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.
Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.
Does Orkney have a separate legal system to the rest of Scotland?
Orkney is only "Scottish" because of the failure to pay a dowry..... Whereupon the Earldom of Orkney was "absorbed" into the Kingdom of Scotland.
THAT Scottish legal system?
All national boundaries are the result of historical accidents. If history had played out differently then Berwick would be in Scotland, but I am not suggesting that we redraw the border. If the people of Orkney choose to secede from an independent Scotland at some point then I wouldn't personally stand in their way. But I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like they did with Ireland. FWIW I am not personally 100% sold on Scottish independence, and I wouldn't have a vote anyway as a non resident. The economic case for remaining is strong, but the political case for leaving grows with every interaction on this issue on PB.
It was not "the English" who partitioned Ireland; it was Britain, including Scotland.
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.
Truly infantile levels of analysis
Why?
I had the same argument with you recently and you came out with the same type of reply i.e. you stop arguing and just throw insults. The analogy is a good one.
The bizarre thing is when we had the discussion before you actually said it mattered not one jot what trauma leaving the EU caused even if massive because we gained independence (it trumped all) and then (as above) gave the trauma of Scotland leaving the union as a reason for not allowing it.
When called out on the inconsistency each time you stop arguing and resort to insults.
No, I give up arguing with people whose argumentation is so clueless or stupid it is waste of my time
And these days I care more about wasted time
But just this once I will indulge you
The differences between the Union of the EU and the Union of the United Kingdom are so vast they barely need explaining. But apparently they do
The UK is 300 years old; the EU is at best 70 years old, more like 30
The UK’s identity has been forged through 300 years of shared endeavour and pooled resources: building an empire, making a great nation, fighting existential wars; not so for the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared and supreme parliament which creates and passes our laws; not so the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared head of state deeply woven into our shared history and shared institutions; not true of the EU
The nations of the UK share one common language; unlike the EU
The nations of the UK share - with variations - a military, a seashore, a health service, a national broadcaster, a culture, a media, a demos, a character, a cuisine, a trade pattern, a climate, an architecture, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe, a sense of humour; not so the EU
All of which makes leaving the UK infinitely and impossibly complex compared to the already-painful process of quitting the EU
And finally, there are two DIFFERENT processes for leaving both. If you want to quit the EU you can trigger Article 50 unilaterally. In the UK it is different, you must get permission from Parliament at Westminster to have a referendum: as sturgeon acknowledges
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
I don't, this isn't 1979.
The notion that Scottish SNP voters think Tories = Bad and Labour = Good and will flock back to Labour if Labour fail is perverse. The SNP have done quite well in convincing their voters that Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same unionist arse.
If the Scottish voters vote for a plebiscite and Labour stands in the way of it and fail bringing the Tories back into power then a case would be made that Labour is no better than the Tories and the only way for the Scots to get away from the Tories and Labour is to vote for independence.
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
That is not how Texans conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Texas should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Texans would deny that the decision is Texas's to make whenever they choose to. That other Americans don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education North of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Texas are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
Does that work?
If Scots think they're sovereign then that speaks of a failure of civic education North of the border. They're not, the UK is sovereign. Scotland abolished its own sovereignty in 1707.
I would welcome a restoration of Scottish sovereignty, I want it to happen, but it doesn't exist presently. Scotland is not a sovereign country.
Scotland is very unique though - I can't think of anywhere else in the world were a region of a country has a completely separate legal and court system to the rest of the country.
America and the fifty states meet that criteria.
Not really. Federal law governs all the states. Is there an equivalent in the UK? IANAL but isn't all UK-wide legislation separately codified for Scots law and English and Welsh law? I don't think there is a unified UK legal system in the same way that there is overarching federal law and the US constitution in the US.
There is, whatever statutes Westminster passes and the Queen signs for the whole UK
But as I understand it the laws are all separately implemented in Scots law via secondary legislation. Whereas in the US Federal law applies to all the states directly. So the two situations are different. I stand to be corrected though by one of the PB lawyers as I am not a legal expert.
No. They don't have to be. Westminster can and does legislate for UK as a whole, which does not mean it always or often does.
Okay. Like I said, I am not a legal expert. According to Wikipedia, "Modern statutes will specify that they apply to Scotland and may also include special wording to take into consideration unique elements of the legal system." I think this is different from US federal law which wouldn't need to specify that "this applies to the state of Texas" because it would apply to all States equally or have special wording for individual states. Because in the US there is a single overarching legal infrastructure at the federal level rather than separate and distinct legal systems as in the UK case.
'Blair and Starmer and Cameron were elected by party members. Hague and May and Brown elected only by MPs.'
But all six were half-decent choices. Johnson was not, and it looks like he is due to be replaced by someone nearly as bad.
It's a poor system and chronically undemocratic.
Truss isn't "nearly as bad" as Johnson -
Her crimes seem to be changing her mind on the EU, adhering to collective cabinet responsibility whilst she privately disagreed with Sunak and being a slightly stilted public speaker; Johnson's crib sheet is somewhat longer and more involved..
Now I know most of this board including myself probably think Sunak a safer pair of hands but pursuing a slightly risky but with potentially more upside than Sunak plan for the economy doesn't make her a bad person.
'Blair and Starmer and Cameron were elected by party members. Hague and May and Brown elected only by MPs.'
But all six were half-decent choices. Johnson was not, and it looks like he is due to be replaced by someone nearly as bad.
It's a poor system and chronically undemocratic.
I’m not sure I can really blame the membership on this one. They’ve been given two flawed candidates to pick from. Is Liz Truss a significantly, substantially worse choice than Rishi? I don’t think either of them have what it takes to solve the economic issues we’re facing, and to be honest I think Truss at least has the potential to surprise on the upside whereas Rishi is a known quantity.
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?
The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all. Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.
No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.
Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.
Does Orkney have a separate legal system to the rest of Scotland?
Orkney is only "Scottish" because of the failure to pay a dowry..... Whereupon the Earldom of Orkney was "absorbed" into the Kingdom of Scotland.
THAT Scottish legal system?
All national boundaries are the result of historical accidents. If history had played out differently then Berwick would be in Scotland, but I am not suggesting that we redraw the border. If the people of Orkney choose to secede from an independent Scotland at some point then I wouldn't personally stand in their way. But I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like they did with Ireland. FWIW I am not personally 100% sold on Scottish independence, and I wouldn't have a vote anyway as a non resident. The economic case for remaining is strong, but the political case for leaving grows with every interaction on this issue on PB.
It was not "the English" who partitioned Ireland; it was Britain, including Scotland.
That's true, apologies. I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like the British did in Ireland.
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
That is not how Texans conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Texas should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Texans would deny that the decision is Texas's to make whenever they choose to. That other Americans don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education North of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Texas are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
Does that work?
If Scots think they're sovereign then that speaks of a failure of civic education North of the border. They're not, the UK is sovereign. Scotland abolished its own sovereignty in 1707.
I would welcome a restoration of Scottish sovereignty, I want it to happen, but it doesn't exist presently. Scotland is not a sovereign country.
Scotland is very unique though - I can't think of anywhere else in the world were a region of a country has a completely separate legal and court system to the rest of the country.
America and the fifty states meet that criteria.
Not really. Federal law governs all the states. Is there an equivalent in the UK? IANAL but isn't all UK-wide legislation separately codified for Scots law and English and Welsh law? I don't think there is a unified UK legal system in the same way that there is overarching federal law and the US constitution in the US.
There is, whatever statutes Westminster passes and the Queen signs for the whole UK
But as I understand it the laws are all separately implemented in Scots law via secondary legislation. Whereas in the US Federal law applies to all the states directly. So the two situations are different. I stand to be corrected though by one of the PB lawyers as I am not a legal expert.
No. They don't have to be. Westminster can and does legislate for UK as a whole, which does not mean it always or often does.
Okay. Like I said, I am not a legal expert. According to Wikipedia, "Modern statutes will specify that they apply to Scotland and may also include special wording to take into consideration unique elements of the legal system." I think this is different from US federal law which wouldn't need to specify that "this applies to the state of Texas" because it would apply to all States equally or have special wording for individual states. Because in the US there is a single overarching legal infrastructure at the federal level rather than separate and distinct legal systems as in the UK case.
The UK case is an anomaly. The terms of the Union were cooked up by a load of phatbois in Edinburgh, probably in the New Club, and a lot of the phatbois were lawyers with a vested interest in the continuation of the system
Mind you converting Scots to English property law on the fly would have been interesting
If the cops cut their own murder, violence and crimes by a fifth it’s a start I guess.
Ah yes, the old telling them to cut murder, violence and crime. I’m not sure why no-ones thought to do that before.
This is big if it happens. It means if Truss becomes PM we'll have 20% less violent crime. Good news generally, of course, but if you're IN that 20% - a victim who now won't be - it's absolutely terrific and in some cases a lifesaver.
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?
The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all. Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.
No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.
Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.
Does Orkney have a separate legal system to the rest of Scotland?
Orkney is only "Scottish" because of the failure to pay a dowry..... Whereupon the Earldom of Orkney was "absorbed" into the Kingdom of Scotland.
THAT Scottish legal system?
All national boundaries are the result of historical accidents. If history had played out differently then Berwick would be in Scotland, but I am not suggesting that we redraw the border. If the people of Orkney choose to secede from an independent Scotland at some point then I wouldn't personally stand in their way. But I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like they did with Ireland. FWIW I am not personally 100% sold on Scottish independence, and I wouldn't have a vote anyway as a non resident. The economic case for remaining is strong, but the political case for leaving grows with every interaction on this issue on PB.
It was not "the English" who partitioned Ireland; it was Britain, including Scotland.
That's true, apologies. I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like the British did in Ireland.
Without partition there would have been decades long civil war, given the armed UVF
If the cops cut their own murder, violence and crimes by a fifth it’s a start I guess.
Ah yes, the old telling them to cut murder, violence and crime. I’m not sure why no-ones thought to do that before.
This is big if it happens. It means if Truss becomes PM we'll have 20% less violent crime. Good news generally, of course, but if you're IN that 20% - a victim who now won't be - it's absolutely terrific and in some cases a lifesaver.
Bit of a shame if you’re in the 79th percentile and get raped
“Sorry love, can’t investigate. Already brought down crime by 20%. That’s it for the year”
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?
The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all. Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.
No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.
Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.
Does Orkney have a separate legal system to the rest of Scotland?
Orkney is only "Scottish" because of the failure to pay a dowry..... Whereupon the Earldom of Orkney was "absorbed" into the Kingdom of Scotland.
THAT Scottish legal system?
All national boundaries are the result of historical accidents. If history had played out differently then Berwick would be in Scotland, but I am not suggesting that we redraw the border. If the people of Orkney choose to secede from an independent Scotland at some point then I wouldn't personally stand in their way. But I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like they did with Ireland. FWIW I am not personally 100% sold on Scottish independence, and I wouldn't have a vote anyway as a non resident. The economic case for remaining is strong, but the political case for leaving grows with every interaction on this issue on PB.
It was not "the English" who partitioned Ireland; it was Britain, including Scotland.
That's true, apologies. I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like the British did in Ireland.
Without partition there would have been decades long civil war, given the armed UVF
There was a decades-long civil war. Maybe it would have been worse without partition, but I have my doubts.
Some in the Conservative Party look at both options before them and despair.
Senior Tory: “The choice isn’t there. She’s trying to impress, but she doesn’t understand the detail. He’s trying to keep the economy going, and doesn’t want the trouble.”
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.
Truly infantile levels of analysis
Why?
I had the same argument with you recently and you came out with the same type of reply i.e. you stop arguing and just throw insults. The analogy is a good one.
The bizarre thing is when we had the discussion before you actually said it mattered not one jot what trauma leaving the EU caused even if massive because we gained independence (it trumped all) and then (as above) gave the trauma of Scotland leaving the union as a reason for not allowing it.
When called out on the inconsistency each time you stop arguing and resort to insults.
No, I give up arguing with people whose argumentation is so clueless or stupid it is waste of my time
And these days I care more about wasted time
But just this once I will indulge you
The differences between the Union of the EU and the Union of the United Kingdom are so vast they barely need explaining. But apparently they do
The UK is 300 years old; the EU is at best 70 years old, more like 30
The UK’s identity has been forged through 300 years of shared endeavour and pooled resources: building an empire, making a great nation, fighting existential wars; not so for the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared and supreme parliament which creates and passes our laws; not so the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared head of state deeply woven into our shared history and shared institutions; not true of the EU
The nations of the UK share one common language; unlike the EU
The nations of the UK share - with variations - a military, a seashore, a health service, a national broadcaster, a culture, a media, a demos, a character, a cuisine, a trade pattern, a climate, an architecture, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe, a sense of humour; not so the EU
All of which makes leaving the UK infinitely and impossibly complex compared to the already-painful process of quitting the EU
And finally, there are two DIFFERENT processes for leaving both. If you want to quit the EU you can trigger Article 50 unilaterally. In the UK it is different, you must get permission from Parliament at Westminster to have a referendum: as sturgeon acknowledges
And there it is. Endex
See how much better it is when you engage rather than insulting people?
Some of these are good arguments. For me the question of whether Scotland should be independent is finely balanced.
The UK in its present form is 100 years old, not 300, of course.
The argument about whether Scotland can legally unilaterally secede is of course different from whether it can morally. We can all read the legislation. My contention is that it is a moral outrage that Scotland's moral right to self determination is not matched by a legal right to do so, as it is in the EU. Even committed unionist Scots like DavidL find this troubling. I think the idea that Scotland is on some deep level "sovereign" regardless of legal status is widely held in Scotland by those on all sides of the independence debate. It is perhaps worrying that it is not shared in England.
One thing about Boris - forget about the lies and so forth - , it strikes me he could have been an objectively shit PM because "He's a big character".
Neither Starmer nor Truss will be able to do that - it'll be much more policy/record focussed, and that's a damn good thing.
The tragedy is that Boris could have been a good or even great prime minister if only he had been a "good chap". Boris was brought down by his own deeply flawed character.
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
Depends on the numbers.
If Labour would only have a majority in the UK with SNP support, but would have a majority in England without it, the SNP would say we are off then...
The tragedy is that Boris could have been a good or even great prime minister if only he had been a "good chap". Boris was brought down by his own deeply flawed character.
If he had been a "good chap" he would never have been PM
Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?
Unfortunately there is evidence
Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP
The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged
Putin is winning
When the war started Russia not winning was Ukraine winning. Now the burden seems to have gone the other way. Russia is not doing what it set out to do and is taking huge losses in terms of personnel, kit and economics. That is not what winning looks like, is it?
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.
Truly infantile levels of analysis
Why?
I had the same argument with you recently and you came out with the same type of reply i.e. you stop arguing and just throw insults. The analogy is a good one.
The bizarre thing is when we had the discussion before you actually said it mattered not one jot what trauma leaving the EU caused even if massive because we gained independence (it trumped all) and then (as above) gave the trauma of Scotland leaving the union as a reason for not allowing it.
When called out on the inconsistency each time you stop arguing and resort to insults.
No, I give up arguing with people whose argumentation is so clueless or stupid it is waste of my time
And these days I care more about wasted time
But just this once I will indulge you
The differences between the Union of the EU and the Union of the United Kingdom are so vast they barely need explaining. But apparently they do
The UK is 300 years old; the EU is at best 70 years old, more like 30
The UK’s identity has been forged through 300 years of shared endeavour and pooled resources: building an empire, making a great nation, fighting existential wars; not so for the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared and supreme parliament which creates and passes our laws; not so the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared head of state deeply woven into our shared history and shared institutions; not true of the EU
The nations of the UK share one common language; unlike the EU
The nations of the UK share - with variations - a military, a seashore, a health service, a national broadcaster, a culture, a media, a demos, a character, a cuisine, a trade pattern, a climate, an architecture, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe, a sense of humour; not so the EU
All of which makes leaving the UK infinitely and impossibly complex compared to the already-painful process of quitting the EU
And finally, there are two DIFFERENT processes for leaving both. If you want to quit the EU you can trigger Article 50 unilaterally. In the UK it is different, you must get permission from Parliament at Westminster to have a referendum: as sturgeon acknowledges
And there it is. Endex
See how much better it is when you engage rather than insulting people?
Some of these are good arguments. For me the question of whether Scotland should be independent is finely balanced.
The UK in its present form is 100 years old, not 300, of course.
The argument about whether Scotland can legally unilaterally secede is of course different from whether it can morally. We can all read the legislation. My contention is that it is a moral outrage that Scotland's moral right to self determination is not matched by a legal right to do so, as it is in the EU. Even committed unionist Scots like DavidL find this troubling. I think the idea that Scotland is on some deep level "sovereign" regardless of legal status is widely held in Scotland by those on all sides of the independence debate. It is perhaps worrying that it is not shared in England.
But everything I said is obvious. If you need it spelled out to you then you are a cretin. I have given up explaining things to individual cretins: life is too short
I will not engage with you again, other than to hurl squalid, excessive and unjustified abuse
One thing about Boris - forget about the lies and so forth - , it strikes me he could have been an objectively shit PM because "He's a big character".
Neither Starmer nor Truss will be able to do that - it'll be much more policy/record focussed, and that's a damn good thing.
The tragedy is that Boris could have been a good or even great prime minister if only he had been a "good chap". Boris was brought down by his own deeply flawed character.
But would he even have been a contender without a long and successful career as a shit? I doubt it.
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
"Given the shortage of working trucks...."
David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.
Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,
The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.
And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..
Something to watch for would be the Chinese selling Russia 50,000 military trucks - with lots of built in cranes…
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
Depends on the numbers.
If Labour would only have a majority in the UK with SNP support, but would have a majority in England without it, the SNP would say we are off then...
The big question is what happens wqhen the other way round happens. Cons majority in England and Lab + SNP (+ LD?) maj in UK. There are inherent issues in that which mean there will be major problems in England alone, nothing to do with the SNP. TSE is not allowing for this.
A rant here but on the topic of stopping burglaries, telling the courts to stop them would do better than telling the Police to do so.
A revolving door of crime where the same people keep committing the same crime, only to sometimes be arrested, sometimes go to court, only to years later be given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way achieves nothing.
Especially when the court's "punishment" is to issue a fine, a fine which will no doubt be paid off by the proceeds of their next burglary if it gets paid at all.
I've three times been the victim of a burglary. First time as a teenager the TV was stolen while I was in the house, I called out to the burglar (thinking it was my mum returning home, I was studying for my exams) and they must have ran off with just the TV. Was never caught who did it.
Second time, 2010, I was woken up by the burglar and went downstairs in my boxers only to see them stood in my kitchen. They ran, I chased after them and got their reg plate they drove off in. They were arrested a week later, they pled guilty and were given a fine and a suspended sentence.
Third time, 2019, they were caught red handed by a Police officer breaking into my place of work not long after I'd locked it up. Police heard the alarm going and literally arrested them red handed. They claimed they were innocent of any crime, that the doors being kicked in was like that when they got there and that the IT they had in their boot they'd picked up because they had the owners permission to remove it. As they were pleading not guilty I had to go to Court to confirm that the doors weren't kicked in when I'd locked them earlier and that I had not given permission to take the goods they'd stolen. Thanks to Covid the Court date was repeatedly postponed and delayed, three separate times I went to Court only to be told it had been postponed, twice because one of the defendants had "tested positive" the night before.
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
After all that messing around, they were issued with a community service order and a fine. No imprisonment. Years of messing around and immediately back on the streets to rob someone else.
Having taken a pause from trashy fiction I thought I’d try some trashy fact - Bower’s book on Harry Meghan & Megxit……and while I didn’t think my opinion of Markle could sink much lower, Harry has joined her in the Marianna Trench…..they want to tell “their” truth, not THE truth….
'Blair and Starmer and Cameron were elected by party members. Hague and May and Brown elected only by MPs.'
But all six were half-decent choices. Johnson was not, and it looks like he is due to be replaced by someone nearly as bad.
It's a poor system and chronically undemocratic.
Johnson won a general election, beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit.
They all lost and delivered little
Oh come on, Hyufd! He beat the worst Labour Leader in my lifetime and delivered a mess of a deal which remains incomplete and which 48% of the electorate didn't want and is even more unpopular now and for good reason.
He has proved the worst PM since WW2, and by some distance.
He's been an embarrassment to country and Party alike.
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.
Truly infantile levels of analysis
Why?
I had the same argument with you recently and you came out with the same type of reply i.e. you stop arguing and just throw insults. The analogy is a good one.
The bizarre thing is when we had the discussion before you actually said it mattered not one jot what trauma leaving the EU caused even if massive because we gained independence (it trumped all) and then (as above) gave the trauma of Scotland leaving the union as a reason for not allowing it.
When called out on the inconsistency each time you stop arguing and resort to insults.
No, I give up arguing with people whose argumentation is so clueless or stupid it is waste of my time
And these days I care more about wasted time
But just this once I will indulge you
The differences between the Union of the EU and the Union of the United Kingdom are so vast they barely need explaining. But apparently they do
The UK is 300 years old; the EU is at best 70 years old, more like 30
The UK’s identity has been forged through 300 years of shared endeavour and pooled resources: building an empire, making a great nation, fighting existential wars; not so for the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared and supreme parliament which creates and passes our laws; not so the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared head of state deeply woven into our shared history and shared institutions; not true of the EU
The nations of the UK share one common language; unlike the EU
The nations of the UK share - with variations - a military, a seashore, a health service, a national broadcaster, a culture, a media, a demos, a character, a cuisine, a trade pattern, a climate, an architecture, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe, a sense of humour; not so the EU
All of which makes leaving the UK infinitely and impossibly complex compared to the already-painful process of quitting the EU
And finally, there are two DIFFERENT processes for leaving both. If you want to quit the EU you can trigger Article 50 unilaterally. In the UK it is different, you must get permission from Parliament at Westminster to have a referendum: as sturgeon acknowledges
And there it is. Endex
See how much better it is when you engage rather than insulting people?
Some of these are good arguments. For me the question of whether Scotland should be independent is finely balanced.
The UK in its present form is 100 years old, not 300, of course.
The argument about whether Scotland can legally unilaterally secede is of course different from whether it can morally. We can all read the legislation. My contention is that it is a moral outrage that Scotland's moral right to self determination is not matched by a legal right to do so, as it is in the EU. Even committed unionist Scots like DavidL find this troubling. I think the idea that Scotland is on some deep level "sovereign" regardless of legal status is widely held in Scotland by those on all sides of the independence debate. It is perhaps worrying that it is not shared in England.
This point was clearly and expressly recognised by the Scotland Act 2016 which inserted into the 1998 Act the following provision: "(1) The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements. (2) The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. (3) In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
Of course Constitutional theorists would point out that no Parliament can bind a successor so any UK Parliament could repeal this provision too but there is no doubt that this was an attempt to recognise the sovereignty of the Scottish people and their right to choose how they are governed, at least within the UK.
What, other than boredom with repeatedly rehearsed arguments, makes you say that?
It seemed to me that June and July were the months where Russia could win the war. They have made considerable progress in the Donbass and taken a lot of territory. More significantly,they caused real damage to the Ukranian army. But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them, that the more sophisticated weaponry of the west, and their own logistical deficiencies, have ground them to a halt and that they are in increasing danger now of being driven back. My expectation is that within 2-3 weeks the Ukranians will retake Kherson. The threat to Crimea will then be significant. And there may not be a lot that Putin can do about it.
See my other post. We are all studiously ignoring the evidence Putin is winning the economic war, and concentrating on Kherson or whatever
This war will be won in the energy markets not in the Donbas. Gun to head now, my prediction is that Germany and other EU countries will crumble in late autumn - as the gas is turned off - and force Kyiv to accept an inglorious “peace”
If Poland, UK and US stand firm it doesn't matter much what Germany does.
Of course it does. Germany dominates the EU
If Berlin says “sue for peace” then much of the EU will fall in behind - even France, I suspect
Eastern european countries wont for a start as they are nervous of russian aspirations. Also what makes you think Berlin telling Zelensky sue for peace will elicit anything more than a 2 fingered salute from ukraine. What is berlin going to do stop supplying ukraine weapons...oh thats right scholz has been blocking weapons as is.
As long as uk and us and eastern european countries continue to support and supply france and germany can be pretty much ignored by ukraine.
One thing about Boris - forget about the lies and so forth - , it strikes me he could have been an objectively shit PM because "He's a big character".
Neither Starmer nor Truss will be able to do that - it'll be much more policy/record focussed, and that's a damn good thing.
The tragedy is that Boris could have been a good or even great prime minister if only he had been a "good chap". Boris was brought down by his own deeply flawed character.
Boris showed a remarkable refusal to learn from mistakes and pay attention to warning signs.
His other character flaws - laziness for example - he could have survived but his casual complacency proved to be fatal.
A rant here but on the topic of stopping burglaries, telling the courts to stop them would do better than telling the Police to do so.
A revolving door of crime where the same people keep committing the same crime, only to sometimes be arrested, sometimes go to court, only to years later be given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way achieves nothing.
Especially when the court's "punishment" is to issue a fine, a fine which will no doubt be paid off by the proceeds of their next burglary if it gets paid at all.
I've three times been the victim of a burglary. First time as a teenager the TV was stolen while I was in the house, I called out to the burglar (thinking it was my mum returning home, I was studying for my exams) and they must have ran off with just the TV. Was never caught who did it.
Second time, 2010, I was woken up by the burglar and went downstairs in my boxers only to see them stood in my kitchen. They ran, I chased after them and got their reg plate they drove off in. They were arrested a week later, they pled guilty and were given a fine and a suspended sentence.
Third time, 2019, they were caught red handed by a Police officer breaking into my place of work not long after I'd locked it up. Police heard the alarm going and literally arrested them red handed. They claimed they were innocent of any crime, that the doors being kicked in was like that when they got there and that the IT they had in their boot they'd picked up because they had the owners permission to remove it. As they were pleading not guilty I had to go to Court to confirm that the doors weren't kicked in when I'd locked them earlier and that I had not given permission to take the goods they'd stolen. Thanks to Covid the Court date was repeatedly postponed and delayed, three separate times I went to Court only to be told it had been postponed, twice because one of the defendants had "tested positive" the night before.
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
After all that messing around, they were issued with a community service order and a fine. No imprisonment. Years of messing around and immediately back on the streets to rob someone else.
Court delays mean there is effectively no penalty. You can't hold burglars on remand for two years until their trial comes up. So effectively they are back on the street after arrest.
Maybe at the next debate the host will remain conscious for long enough to ask Liz and Rishi which government decimated the criminal justice system.
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
"Given the shortage of working trucks...."
David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.
Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,
The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.
And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..
Russian logistics doctrine is very dependent on using rail transport to hubs close to the front line, with hand loaded trucks shipping shells to the front. This is in stark contrast to NATO / US doctrine which emphasises mechanised goods handling & for a force sized to a Russian BTG would include many more transport vehicles.
The delivery of long ranged missiles to Ukraine has changed the game: Russian transport hubs 30km behind the front lines are now just targets & the rate of Ukrainian losses has dropped tenfold as the Russians struggle to keep their artillery supplied with shells.
This - Russia still has a railway building military engineering organisation for this reason.
I think this also explains the reluctance of some to send long range weapons to Ukraine. With really long range precision strike, the Russian rail system becomes a tempting target. If you prevent the supplies reaching the Russian railheads inside Ukraine the Russian attack on Ukraine as a whole collapses. So incredibly tempting for the Ukrainians.
Getting assurance from the Ukrainians that they wouldn’t extend the war deep into Russian territory…
20% inflation? There's quite a lot of food items that have gone up a lot more than that. I have industry colleagues currently trying to push through a 17% cost price increase. On top of the 8% and 13% ones already done earlier this year.
Which is how we get to stand-offs where Tesco delist Heinz.
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
Depends on the numbers.
If Labour would only have a majority in the UK with SNP support, but would have a majority in England without it, the SNP would say we are off then...
The big question is what happens wqhen the other way round happens. Cons majority in England and Lab + SNP (+ LD?) maj in UK. There are inherent issues in that which mean there will be major problems in England alone, nothing to do with the SNP. TSE is not allowing for this.
The most entertaining electoral result evah for me, the UK voting narrowly to stay in the EU on the back of Scottish votes, wasn't missed by much. This would qualify as a distant but enjoyable second.
A rant here but on the topic of stopping burglaries, telling the courts to stop them would do better than telling the Police to do so....
While I sympathise with your frustration, the evidence is that the likelihood of being caught is a far greater factor in deterring crime than the level of sentences, or even imprisoning at all.
A rant here but on the topic of stopping burglaries, telling the courts to stop them would do better than telling the Police to do so.
A revolving door of crime where the same people keep committing the same crime, only to sometimes be arrested, sometimes go to court, only to years later be given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way achieves nothing.
Especially when the court's "punishment" is to issue a fine, a fine which will no doubt be paid off by the proceeds of their next burglary if it gets paid at all.
I've three times been the victim of a burglary. First time as a teenager the TV was stolen while I was in the house, I called out to the burglar (thinking it was my mum returning home, I was studying for my exams) and they must have ran off with just the TV. Was never caught who did it.
Second time, 2010, I was woken up by the burglar and went downstairs in my boxers only to see them stood in my kitchen. They ran, I chased after them and got their reg plate they drove off in. They were arrested a week later, they pled guilty and were given a fine and a suspended sentence.
Third time, 2019, they were caught red handed by a Police officer breaking into my place of work not long after I'd locked it up. Police heard the alarm going and literally arrested them red handed. They claimed they were innocent of any crime, that the doors being kicked in was like that when they got there and that the IT they had in their boot they'd picked up because they had the owners permission to remove it. As they were pleading not guilty I had to go to Court to confirm that the doors weren't kicked in when I'd locked them earlier and that I had not given permission to take the goods they'd stolen. Thanks to Covid the Court date was repeatedly postponed and delayed, three separate times I went to Court only to be told it had been postponed, twice because one of the defendants had "tested positive" the night before.
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
After all that messing around, they were issued with a community service order and a fine. No imprisonment. Years of messing around and immediately back on the streets to rob someone else.
Court delays mean there is effectively no penalty. You can't hold burglars on remand for two years until their trial comes up. So effectively they are back on the street after arrest.
Maybe at the next debate the host will remain conscious for long enough to ask Liz and Rishi which government decimated the criminal justice system.
Delays are a serious issue but a less serious issue than the fact that the crime isn't punished in the first place.
As I said, the first time I caught a burglar red handed was in 2010, before any cuts to the judicial system. The offender was caught red handed breaking into somebody else's home next week and arrested, and confessed to a string of other burglaries. He had prior burglary convictions.
The punishment? A suspended sentence and a fine and sent back on his merry way.
If after a first conviction a burglar was taken off the streets for a year, that'd be a year with no more burglaries by them and no more cases being referred to the courts in that time for the same individual once more.
If a repeat offender were taken off the streets for five years, that'd be five years with no more burglaries by them.
20% inflation? There's quite a lot of food items that have gone up a lot more than that. I have industry colleagues currently trying to push through a 17% cost price increase. On top of the 8% and 13% ones already done earlier this year.
Which is how we get to stand-offs where Tesco delist Heinz.
Including pretty much everything I regularly buy at tescos
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
...
I believe this is very common. I was a witness for an assault case where the defendant plead guilty after being told I'd been patiently waiting for hours at court to testify.
It must cause lots of difficulty in scheduling cases.
But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them
David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.
But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?
Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
"Given the shortage of working trucks...."
David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.
Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,
The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.
And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..
LOL x2
Enjoy the strategy session team.
Perhaps you'd like to repost that article you thought so highly of back in March and we'll see how accurate it turned out to be.
IIRC it was predicting 60k Ukrainians were about to be captured in the Donbass and that Odesa would be fall within days.
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
I don't, this isn't 1979.
The notion that Scottish SNP voters think Tories = Bad and Labour = Good and will flock back to Labour if Labour fail is perverse. The SNP have done quite well in convincing their voters that Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same unionist arse.
If the Scottish voters vote for a plebiscite and Labour stands in the way of it and fail bringing the Tories back into power then a case would be made that Labour is no better than the Tories and the only way for the Scots to get away from the Tories and Labour is to vote for independence.
I'm not so sure the SNP have been that successful in portraying Labour and the Tories are the same. It's currently untested, because we haven't had the SNP-Holyrood v Labour-Westminster match-up yet. I'm sure the SNP would like to do so, and if at the next GE Labour win power in Westminster and SNP win a majority of Scottish seats we will see them deploy the argument. I just don't think it'll run as well as it does with a Tory Government. Speculating a bit further, I think this is because Labour and SNP (save for Independence) are largely fishing in the same pond. With a Labour Government the SNP can say 'Another example of a Government imposed on Scotland against her will,' but the response from a good chunk of central belt voters could be 'Yeah, but we can live with this one.'
A rant here but on the topic of stopping burglaries, telling the courts to stop them would do better than telling the Police to do so.
A revolving door of crime where the same people keep committing the same crime, only to sometimes be arrested, sometimes go to court, only to years later be given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way achieves nothing.
Especially when the court's "punishment" is to issue a fine, a fine which will no doubt be paid off by the proceeds of their next burglary if it gets paid at all.
I've three times been the victim of a burglary. First time as a teenager the TV was stolen while I was in the house, I called out to the burglar (thinking it was my mum returning home, I was studying for my exams) and they must have ran off with just the TV. Was never caught who did it.
Second time, 2010, I was woken up by the burglar and went downstairs in my boxers only to see them stood in my kitchen. They ran, I chased after them and got their reg plate they drove off in. They were arrested a week later, they pled guilty and were given a fine and a suspended sentence.
Third time, 2019, they were caught red handed by a Police officer breaking into my place of work not long after I'd locked it up. Police heard the alarm going and literally arrested them red handed. They claimed they were innocent of any crime, that the doors being kicked in was like that when they got there and that the IT they had in their boot they'd picked up because they had the owners permission to remove it. As they were pleading not guilty I had to go to Court to confirm that the doors weren't kicked in when I'd locked them earlier and that I had not given permission to take the goods they'd stolen. Thanks to Covid the Court date was repeatedly postponed and delayed, three separate times I went to Court only to be told it had been postponed, twice because one of the defendants had "tested positive" the night before.
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
After all that messing around, they were issued with a community service order and a fine. No imprisonment. Years of messing around and immediately back on the streets to rob someone else.
I can imagine the frustration! And this is the lived experience that so many people have - crime and ASB out of control and nobody doing anything about it. Labour 1997 coined "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and that remains the goal. You can't just lock up more scumbags because (a) there aren't enough jails and people don't want to pay for more, and (b) they come out and pick up as they were, having learned new skills to evade capture.
So we have to go after why scumbags burgle and steal and assault and that means early years interventions and specialist support staff through schools and qualifications and jobs. None of which the Tories have any interest in.
Like Patel's fact-free claims about stopping migrants, they can say "get the police to do more" but won't resource them and won't enable the penal system and won't work with families to stop the next generation of scumbags developing.
Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?
Unfortunately there is evidence
Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP
The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged
Putin is winning
And yet they're scraping the barrel in their forces, using decrepit machines kept out in the open for decades, while Ukraine is using new HIMARS equipment with great effect to destroy Russian ammo dumps.
And the movement recently has been to see the Ukrainians encircling Kherson and potentially about to retake Kherson.
This isn't over yet or all one way traffic.
Though its certainly true that in the Russian/Ukrainian war the first country to surrender was France, and the second might be Germany - but that doesn't mean Putin is winning.
Russia has pretty much gone all in. 85% of it troops from across 8 time zones are now committed to the Ukraine Special Operation. It is so Special, it has left its borders to the east wide open. China could take everything east of the Urals right now if it was so inclined (and didn't mind losing a few cities in a nuclear exchange). All for Putin's vanity project, meant to be remembered across the ages. Well, he got that bit right....
The news on the taking out overnight of the Antonovskiy Bridge is interesting. It is no longer a route through which Russian troops can quickly retreat to Crimea. It is a big piece of the jigsaw for an upcoming Ukrainian counter-offensive in the south. Trapping and taking prisoner many thousands of Russian troops is one of the few routes I can see to getting a meaningful round table discussion on ending the war quickly. As well as destroying supply lines, HIMARS delivers Ukraine the capability to cut off Russian escape routes.
Cutting off escape routes is always a high-risk play though as it means the troops left might fight to the last if they feel they can't escape.
It also makes it seem quite probable that Ukraine is seeking to retake Kherson but not Crimea, which is unfortunate but probably inevitable.
At this stage Ukraine can't expect to retake Crimea. But it can trade it away for the return of other territory. Especially when the Black Sea fleet is not an effective fighting force, that can be sunk at will if it appears to be preparing for combat. Retaking Kherson - and the water supply to Crimea - has to be a primary war aim. It will also need to break the land bridge to Crimea.
Whether it has the means is questionable. But I'd probably rather be in Ukraine's position that Russia's right now.
A rant here but on the topic of stopping burglaries, telling the courts to stop them would do better than telling the Police to do so.
A revolving door of crime where the same people keep committing the same crime, only to sometimes be arrested, sometimes go to court, only to years later be given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way achieves nothing.
Especially when the court's "punishment" is to issue a fine, a fine which will no doubt be paid off by the proceeds of their next burglary if it gets paid at all.
I've three times been the victim of a burglary. First time as a teenager the TV was stolen while I was in the house, I called out to the burglar (thinking it was my mum returning home, I was studying for my exams) and they must have ran off with just the TV. Was never caught who did it.
Second time, 2010, I was woken up by the burglar and went downstairs in my boxers only to see them stood in my kitchen. They ran, I chased after them and got their reg plate they drove off in. They were arrested a week later, they pled guilty and were given a fine and a suspended sentence.
Third time, 2019, they were caught red handed by a Police officer breaking into my place of work not long after I'd locked it up. Police heard the alarm going and literally arrested them red handed. They claimed they were innocent of any crime, that the doors being kicked in was like that when they got there and that the IT they had in their boot they'd picked up because they had the owners permission to remove it. As they were pleading not guilty I had to go to Court to confirm that the doors weren't kicked in when I'd locked them earlier and that I had not given permission to take the goods they'd stolen. Thanks to Covid the Court date was repeatedly postponed and delayed, three separate times I went to Court only to be told it had been postponed, twice because one of the defendants had "tested positive" the night before.
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
After all that messing around, they were issued with a community service order and a fine. No imprisonment. Years of messing around and immediately back on the streets to rob someone else.
Several times over the years, the practise of bailing people who commit crimes on bail has been halted.
This rapidly wharehouses the habitual criminals. Who commit 90% of the classic property crimes.
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
I don't, this isn't 1979.
The notion that Scottish SNP voters think Tories = Bad and Labour = Good and will flock back to Labour if Labour fail is perverse. The SNP have done quite well in convincing their voters that Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same unionist arse.
If the Scottish voters vote for a plebiscite and Labour stands in the way of it and fail bringing the Tories back into power then a case would be made that Labour is no better than the Tories and the only way for the Scots to get away from the Tories and Labour is to vote for independence.
I'm not so sure the SNP have been that successful in portraying Labour and the Tories are the same. It's currently untested, because we haven't had the SNP-Holyrood v Labour-Westminster match-up yet. I'm sure the SNP would like to do so, and if at the next GE Labour win power in Westminster and SNP win a majority of Scottish seats we will see them deploy the argument. I just don't think it'll run as well as it does with a Tory Government. Speculating a bit further, I think this is because Labour and SNP (save for Independence) are largely fishing in the same pond. With a Labour Government the SNP can say 'Another example of a Government imposed on Scotland against her will,' but the response from a good chunk of central belt voters could be 'Yeah, but we can live with this one.'
One thing about Boris - forget about the lies and so forth - , it strikes me he could have been an objectively shit PM because "He's a big character".
Neither Starmer nor Truss will be able to do that - it'll be much more policy/record focussed, and that's a damn good thing.
The tragedy is that Boris could have been a good or even great prime minister if only he had been a "good chap". Boris was brought down by his own deeply flawed character.
Boris showed a remarkable refusal to learn from mistakes and pay attention to warning signs.
His other character flaws - laziness for example - he could have survived but his casual complacency proved to be fatal.
The two big political mistakes of Boris:
1) Flouting covid regulations. The warning being the uproar about Cummings in Durham. Yet the regulation flouting continued throughout the following winter and spring.
2) Greed and sleaze. The warning being the stories about wallpaper etc in April 2021. Yet the Patterson fiasco was allowed to happen later in the year.
20% inflation? There's quite a lot of food items that have gone up a lot more than that. I have industry colleagues currently trying to push through a 17% cost price increase. On top of the 8% and 13% ones already done earlier this year.
Which is how we get to stand-offs where Tesco delist Heinz.
Including pretty much everything I regularly buy at tescos
I've noticed quite a few things which hadn't gone up for years because they'd reached a psychological barrier, often 99p (as in the case of the McD's cheeseburger) or £1 - once broken, the first increase (catching up with some years of delays) is rarely the only.
In my part of the country fuel was a similar thing, with nobody willing to put up diesel past 199.9p/l - that at least has now come down a few pence.
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?
The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all. Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.
No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.
Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.
Does Orkney have a separate legal system to the rest of Scotland?
Orkney is only "Scottish" because of the failure to pay a dowry..... Whereupon the Earldom of Orkney was "absorbed" into the Kingdom of Scotland.
THAT Scottish legal system?
All national boundaries are the result of historical accidents. If history had played out differently then Berwick would be in Scotland, but I am not suggesting that we redraw the border. If the people of Orkney choose to secede from an independent Scotland at some point then I wouldn't personally stand in their way. But I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like they did with Ireland. FWIW I am not personally 100% sold on Scottish independence, and I wouldn't have a vote anyway as a non resident. The economic case for remaining is strong, but the political case for leaving grows with every interaction on this issue on PB.
It was not "the English" who partitioned Ireland; it was Britain, including Scotland.
That's true, apologies. I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like the British did in Ireland.
Without partition there would have been decades long civil war, given the armed UVF
Encouraged, don't forget, by a significant section of the Conservative party.
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
Depends on the numbers.
If Labour would only have a majority in the UK with SNP support, but would have a majority in England without it, the SNP would say we are off then...
That is impossible because for Labour to have a majority in England it would have to have won most seats in England and thus the UK and could ignore the SNP anyway.
The SNP only become decisive if the Tories have a majority or most seats in England but Labour plus the SNP have a majority across the UK
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.
Truly infantile levels of analysis
Why?
I had the same argument with you recently and you came out with the same type of reply i.e. you stop arguing and just throw insults. The analogy is a good one.
The bizarre thing is when we had the discussion before you actually said it mattered not one jot what trauma leaving the EU caused even if massive because we gained independence (it trumped all) and then (as above) gave the trauma of Scotland leaving the union as a reason for not allowing it.
When called out on the inconsistency each time you stop arguing and resort to insults.
No, I give up arguing with people whose argumentation is so clueless or stupid it is waste of my time
And these days I care more about wasted time
But just this once I will indulge you
The differences between the Union of the EU and the Union of the United Kingdom are so vast they barely need explaining. But apparently they do
The UK is 300 years old; the EU is at best 70 years old, more like 30
The UK’s identity has been forged through 300 years of shared endeavour and pooled resources: building an empire, making a great nation, fighting existential wars; not so for the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared and supreme parliament which creates and passes our laws; not so the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared head of state deeply woven into our shared history and shared institutions; not true of the EU
The nations of the UK share one common language; unlike the EU
The nations of the UK share - with variations - a military, a seashore, a health service, a national broadcaster, a culture, a media, a demos, a character, a cuisine, a trade pattern, a climate, an architecture, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe, a sense of humour; not so the EU
All of which makes leaving the UK infinitely and impossibly complex compared to the already-painful process of quitting the EU
And finally, there are two DIFFERENT processes for leaving both. If you want to quit the EU you can trigger Article 50 unilaterally. In the UK it is different, you must get permission from Parliament at Westminster to have a referendum: as sturgeon acknowledges
And there it is. Endex
You forgot to mention that the UK within the EU was sovereign, contrary to the nonsense put about by people you supported. Scotland, like England is not sovereign in it's own right and, unlike the UK when it was within the EU, is fully integrated (with a few minor exceptions) into the overall sovereignty of the UK, as is England and Wales and NI
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.
Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.
Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous. The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.
Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.
That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.
That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border. Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.
What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?
The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all. Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.
No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.
Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.
Does Orkney have a separate legal system to the rest of Scotland?
Orkney is only "Scottish" because of the failure to pay a dowry..... Whereupon the Earldom of Orkney was "absorbed" into the Kingdom of Scotland.
THAT Scottish legal system?
All national boundaries are the result of historical accidents. If history had played out differently then Berwick would be in Scotland, but I am not suggesting that we redraw the border. If the people of Orkney choose to secede from an independent Scotland at some point then I wouldn't personally stand in their way. But I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like they did with Ireland. FWIW I am not personally 100% sold on Scottish independence, and I wouldn't have a vote anyway as a non resident. The economic case for remaining is strong, but the political case for leaving grows with every interaction on this issue on PB.
It was not "the English" who partitioned Ireland; it was Britain, including Scotland.
That's true, apologies. I don't want the English partitioning Scotland like the British did in Ireland.
Without partition there would have been decades long civil war, given the armed UVF
There was a decades-long civil war. Maybe it would have been worse without partition, but I have my doubts.
There wasn't, the Irish civil war between Collins and De Valera was over by 1924.
Protestant Ulster being forced into Roman Catholic Ireland against its will would have seen UVF forces fighting for decades against Dublin
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
...
I believe this is very common. I was a witness for an assault case where the defendant plead guilty after being told I'd been patiently waiting for hours at court to testify.
It must cause lots of difficulty in scheduling cases.
It is the principal reason for adjournments. When I was a fiscal I would typically have up to 15 trials set down for a day. Some would go off because pleas would be agreed. Others would go off because important witnesses had failed to attend. But most went off with sheer pressure of business. On a good day, and I think I can claim to have been faster than most, I would get through 4 trials. Sometimes, of course, you could only get through 1 if it was complex or required a lot of evidence.
The defence, of course, knew this as well as me. They also knew, like @BartholomewRoberts, that witnesses would become increasingly reluctant to turn up and this was the best chance to get an acquittal. So the trick, such as it was, was to pick trials where pleas were almost inevitable if you had a full house and turn them into pleas. This is the way that the Criminal Justice system works and, in my experience, has always worked under Tory, Labour and SNP governments alike.
Well yes. Boris being "tipped" is more than likely a counterplot to the "members ballot" nonsense that assuages his ego and stops him trying to pull a January 6th in No 10.
Morning all, Fridays missing yougov just rolled in bleary eyed.... its LLG 59 with a very high green score but another generally showing a return to pre Dog defenestation levels
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
...
I believe this is very common. I was a witness for an assault case where the defendant plead guilty after being told I'd been patiently waiting for hours at court to testify.
It must cause lots of difficulty in scheduling cases.
It is the principal reason for adjournments. When I was a fiscal I would typically have up to 15 trials set down for a day. Some would go off because pleas would be agreed. Others would go off because important witnesses had failed to attend. But most went off with sheer pressure of business. On a good day, and I think I can claim to have been faster than most, I would get through 4 trials. Sometimes, of course, you could only get through 1 if it was complex or required a lot of evidence.
The defence, of course, knew this as well as me. They also knew, like @BartholomewRoberts, that witnesses would become increasingly reluctant to turn up and this was the best chance to get an acquittal. So the trick, such as it was, was to pick trials where pleas were almost inevitable if you had a full house and turn them into pleas. This is the way that the Criminal Justice system works and, in my experience, has always worked under Tory, Labour and SNP governments alike.
What do you think can or should be done about it?
A guilty plea on the day I'd hope should not be treated the same as a guilty plea in advance when it comes to sentencing? I have no idea how that bit works or not.
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
I don't, this isn't 1979.
The notion that Scottish SNP voters think Tories = Bad and Labour = Good and will flock back to Labour if Labour fail is perverse. The SNP have done quite well in convincing their voters that Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same unionist arse.
If the Scottish voters vote for a plebiscite and Labour stands in the way of it and fail bringing the Tories back into power then a case would be made that Labour is no better than the Tories and the only way for the Scots to get away from the Tories and Labour is to vote for independence.
I'm not so sure the SNP have been that successful in portraying Labour and the Tories are the same. It's currently untested, because we haven't had the SNP-Holyrood v Labour-Westminster match-up yet. I'm sure the SNP would like to do so, and if at the next GE Labour win power in Westminster and SNP win a majority of Scottish seats we will see them deploy the argument. I just don't think it'll run as well as it does with a Tory Government. Speculating a bit further, I think this is because Labour and SNP (save for Independence) are largely fishing in the same pond. With a Labour Government the SNP can say 'Another example of a Government imposed on Scotland against her will,' but the response from a good chunk of central belt voters could be 'Yeah, but we can live with this one.'
I think a Labour party hanging a manifesto/queen's speech on the hooks of 'Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union' might have problems getting a chunk of central belt voters to live with them. Add in a few more photo shoots with SKS and big Union flags..
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
Depends on the numbers.
If Labour would only have a majority in the UK with SNP support, but would have a majority in England without it, the SNP would say we are off then...
That is impossible because for Labour to have a majority in England it would have to have won most seats in England and thus the UK and could ignore the SNP anyway.
The SNP only become decisive if the Tories have a majority or most seats in England but Labour plus the SNP have a majority across the UK
UDI without Westminster consent is also illegal and has been ruled out by Sturgeon
A rant here but on the topic of stopping burglaries, telling the courts to stop them would do better than telling the Police to do so.
A revolving door of crime where the same people keep committing the same crime, only to sometimes be arrested, sometimes go to court, only to years later be given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way achieves nothing.
Especially when the court's "punishment" is to issue a fine, a fine which will no doubt be paid off by the proceeds of their next burglary if it gets paid at all.
I've three times been the victim of a burglary. First time as a teenager the TV was stolen while I was in the house, I called out to the burglar (thinking it was my mum returning home, I was studying for my exams) and they must have ran off with just the TV. Was never caught who did it.
Second time, 2010, I was woken up by the burglar and went downstairs in my boxers only to see them stood in my kitchen. They ran, I chased after them and got their reg plate they drove off in. They were arrested a week later, they pled guilty and were given a fine and a suspended sentence.
Third time, 2019, they were caught red handed by a Police officer breaking into my place of work not long after I'd locked it up. Police heard the alarm going and literally arrested them red handed. They claimed they were innocent of any crime, that the doors being kicked in was like that when they got there and that the IT they had in their boot they'd picked up because they had the owners permission to remove it. As they were pleading not guilty I had to go to Court to confirm that the doors weren't kicked in when I'd locked them earlier and that I had not given permission to take the goods they'd stolen. Thanks to Covid the Court date was repeatedly postponed and delayed, three separate times I went to Court only to be told it had been postponed, twice because one of the defendants had "tested positive" the night before.
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
After all that messing around, they were issued with a community service order and a fine. No imprisonment. Years of messing around and immediately back on the streets to rob someone else.
I can imagine the frustration! And this is the lived experience that so many people have - crime and ASB out of control and nobody doing anything about it. Labour 1997 coined "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and that remains the goal. You can't just lock up more scumbags because (a) there aren't enough jails and people don't want to pay for more, and (b) they come out and pick up as they were, having learned new skills to evade capture.
So we have to go after why scumbags burgle and steal and assault and that means early years interventions and specialist support staff through schools and qualifications and jobs. None of which the Tories have any interest in.
Like Patel's fact-free claims about stopping migrants, they can say "get the police to do more" but won't resource them and won't enable the penal system and won't work with families to stop the next generation of scumbags developing.
Its just hot air. Because Truss doesn't care.
Furthermore, people in jail, or indeed on probation, are much less likely to reoffend on release if there is some appropriate education. As I understand it that education has been severely cut over the past few years, to the frustration of those who have been trying to provide it!
If trials are successful, the hand-held test would give doctors the ability to identify patients with a respiratory infection like pneumonia, who need an antibiotic treatment, within the space of a regular 15-minute clinic appointment – or deliver accurate results for emergency patient care, within a few minutes, from a small sample of blood.
A two-year programme will develop a proof-of-concept test, which uses a combination of procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) to determine between bacterial and viral infections.
How the test works PCT is produced in healthy individuals in response to hormones, however, production is increased during a bacterial infection.
PCT does not rise in the presence of a viral infection, as another protein produced by the body during viral infection, called ‘interferon gamma’, blocks the production of PCT. This makes high levels of PCT specific to bacterial infections.
Simultaneously, CRP is produced by the body when it encounters an infection, which then marks bacterial and viral cells as ‘invaders’ for destruction by the body’s immune system.
The amount of CRP the body produces rises with infection, most significantly by bacteria, but also with other viral and fungal infections.
Combining the measurement of PCT and CRP into one test has the potential to improve accuracy and aid in the proper use of antibiotics....
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
Depends on the numbers.
If Labour would only have a majority in the UK with SNP support, but would have a majority in England without it, the SNP would say we are off then...
That is impossible because for Labour to have a majority in England it would have to have won most seats in England and thus the UK and could ignore the SNP anyway.
The SNP only become decisive if the Tories have a majority or most seats in England but Labour plus the SNP have a majority across the UK
UDI without Westminster consent is also illegal and has been ruled out by Sturgeon
Don't know that yet do we? There is this thing called the Supreme Court. And if an advistory referendum is good enough for Brexit ...
UK PM @BorisJohnson presented Zelensky with the Churchill Leadership Award "for incredible courage, defiance and dignity in the face of Putin’s barbaric invasion"
A rant here but on the topic of stopping burglaries, telling the courts to stop them would do better than telling the Police to do so....
While I sympathise with your frustration, the evidence is that the likelihood of being caught is a far greater factor in deterring crime than the level of sentences, or even imprisoning at all.
I'd like to see some evidence of that, including analysing the crimes not committed while incarcerated.
Most evidence I've seen in the past for claims that prison doesn't work looks at recidivism rates after release, rather than incorporating recidivism rates while incarcerated versus not incarcerated.
Comments
They've screwed up the criminal justice system, and now propose making it a pawn of the politicians.
The PM is the person who holds the confidence of the House of Commons. If the leader of the biggest party didn't, the HoC can act on that.
Basically the argument runs thus: people who comment want four things; a better set of MPs, a better set of party members, a better set of leaders and a better set of voters.
Good luck.
That's x hours that the police currently spend doing something else
So what do the police cut to make up the time required?
And it doesn't solve anything because 90% of the time the police know who the person currently doing burglaries is - they just haven't been able to find where he is to arrest him.
Leon - I can't access the NYT article but I'd be interested to know why they think an offensive is unlikely to succeed.
So Russia has money, but can’t make tanks, or good replacement barrels for artillery, or tractors.
This is ok for Putin and friends, but the wider Russian economy is still shrinking. Note that this is the reverse of all the other petro states - they are all pushing very hard to diversify out of fossil fuels.
Harris looked like she could have it too, but she’s mired in problems, some of her own making and some not. She has not been given briefs that work to her strengths and they are briefs that generate controversy. But she has not helped herself with her rather abrasive presentation style and some easily avoidable messups.
The Democrats are going to struggle to find a figure who can keep the electoral coalition solid in 2024. Their main strength and hope is who they are not - i.e vote for us because you don’t want Donald Trump back. I’m not sure that’s enough though. I fully expect the GOP to win 2024 if they choose anyone other than Trump. If they choose Trump, it’s 50-50 right now.
Betfair next prime minister
1.23 Liz Truss 81%
4.9 Rishi Sunak 20%
Next Conservative leader
1.24 Liz Truss 81%
5 Rishi Sunak 20%
Judging the short term economic performance of a country with such a reputation for lying is not easy. This article rebuffs the idea that Putin is winning the economic war. We talk a lot abut Russian GDP but we rarely talk about unemployment which I would have expected to be a major factor on stability.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/22/russia-economy-sanctions-myths-ruble-business/
In the case of the SPGs there are public satellite images of SPG parks that show a declining number of SPGs in "storage", so the information available is consistent.
Video of T-62s on the Russian railway network was the first sign that those tracks were being sent to the front, and they've subsequently been seen and destroyed there.
I don't know why you insist that we can know absolutely nothing, when we can know something, even if we can't know everything.
"If we have a UK general election in 2024 and the only viable government is a Labour and SNP coalition/supply and confidence agreement and the SNP demand a plebiscite for putting Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street I suspect he’ll turn them down and dare them and ask will the SNP want to bring down a Labour government and put the Tories in power because that worked out so well for the SNP in 1979."
The use of heavy artillery involves lots and lots of large shells every day. These are generally provided in the first instance to stores or depots some distance from the front line. How far from the front line depends on the ability to get shells from the stores to the guns and the safety of those stores. The use of the HIMARS is more than doubling that distance. That means that you need double the number of trucks to deliver the same quantity of shells to the guns.
If the number of trucks is fixed or even diminishing that means less firepower. We have seen this in the Donbas where the volume of fire has been massively reduced since the Ukranians started taking out the depots at the railheads. This has made further advances based on destroying the enemy forces before engaging very difficult. The Russians have not gained further ground in the last couple of weeks as a result.
I look forward to the corrections on my homework.
PB talks logistics
'Blair and Starmer and Cameron were elected by party members. Hague and May and Brown elected only by MPs.'
But all six were half-decent choices. Johnson was not, and it looks like he is due to be replaced by someone nearly as bad.
It's a poor system and chronically undemocratic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62317453
Shit just got real
And these days I care more about wasted time
But just this once I will indulge you
The differences between the Union of the EU and the Union of the United Kingdom are so vast they barely need explaining. But apparently they do
The UK is 300 years old; the EU is at best 70 years old, more like 30
The UK’s identity has been forged through 300 years of shared endeavour and pooled resources: building an empire, making a great nation, fighting existential wars; not so for the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared and supreme parliament which creates and passes our laws; not so the EU
The nations of the UK have a shared head of state deeply woven into our shared history and shared institutions; not true of the EU
The nations of the UK share one common language; unlike the EU
The nations of the UK share - with variations - a military, a seashore, a health service, a national broadcaster, a culture, a media, a demos, a character, a cuisine, a trade pattern, a climate, an architecture, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe, a sense of humour; not so the EU
All of which makes leaving the UK infinitely and impossibly complex compared to the already-painful process of quitting the EU
And finally, there are two DIFFERENT processes for leaving both. If you want to quit the EU you can trigger Article 50 unilaterally. In the UK it is different, you must get permission from Parliament at Westminster to have a referendum: as sturgeon acknowledges
And there it is. Endex
The notion that Scottish SNP voters think Tories = Bad and Labour = Good and will flock back to Labour if Labour fail is perverse. The SNP have done quite well in convincing their voters that Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same unionist arse.
If the Scottish voters vote for a plebiscite and Labour stands in the way of it and fail bringing the Tories back into power then a case would be made that Labour is no better than the Tories and the only way for the Scots to get away from the Tories and Labour is to vote for independence.
Her crimes seem to be changing her mind on the EU, adhering to collective cabinet responsibility whilst she privately disagreed with Sunak and being a slightly stilted public speaker; Johnson's crib sheet is somewhat longer and more involved..
Now I know most of this board including myself probably think Sunak a safer pair of hands but pursuing a slightly risky but with potentially more upside than Sunak plan for the economy doesn't make her a bad person.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1552198832036913152
Sunk!
Mind you converting Scots to English property law on the fly would have been interesting
“Sorry love, can’t investigate. Already brought down crime by 20%. That’s it for the year”
They all lost and delivered little
Neither Starmer nor Truss will be able to do that - it'll be much more policy/record focussed, and that's a damn good thing.
Senior Tory: “The choice isn’t there. She’s trying to impress, but she doesn’t understand the detail. He’s trying to keep the economy going, and doesn’t want the trouble.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-lose-best-friend-what-next/
Some of these are good arguments. For me the question of whether Scotland should be independent is finely balanced.
The UK in its present form is 100 years old, not 300, of course.
The argument about whether Scotland can legally unilaterally secede is of course different from whether it can morally. We can all read the legislation. My contention is that it is a moral outrage that Scotland's moral right to self determination is not matched by a legal right to do so, as it is in the EU. Even committed unionist Scots like DavidL find this troubling. I think the idea that Scotland is on some deep level "sovereign" regardless of legal status is widely held in Scotland by those on all sides of the independence debate. It is perhaps worrying that it is not shared in England.
If Labour would only have a majority in the UK with SNP support, but would have a majority in England without it, the SNP would say we are off then...
But everything I said is obvious. If you need it spelled out to you then you are a cretin. I have given up explaining things to individual cretins: life is too short
I will not engage with you again, other than to hurl squalid, excessive and unjustified abuse
You have my word
A revolving door of crime where the same people keep committing the same crime, only to sometimes be arrested, sometimes go to court, only to years later be given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way achieves nothing.
Especially when the court's "punishment" is to issue a fine, a fine which will no doubt be paid off by the proceeds of their next burglary if it gets paid at all.
I've three times been the victim of a burglary. First time as a teenager the TV was stolen while I was in the house, I called out to the burglar (thinking it was my mum returning home, I was studying for my exams) and they must have ran off with just the TV. Was never caught who did it.
Second time, 2010, I was woken up by the burglar and went downstairs in my boxers only to see them stood in my kitchen. They ran, I chased after them and got their reg plate they drove off in. They were arrested a week later, they pled guilty and were given a fine and a suspended sentence.
Third time, 2019, they were caught red handed by a Police officer breaking into my place of work not long after I'd locked it up. Police heard the alarm going and literally arrested them red handed. They claimed they were innocent of any crime, that the doors being kicked in was like that when they got there and that the IT they had in their boot they'd picked up because they had the owners permission to remove it. As they were pleading not guilty I had to go to Court to confirm that the doors weren't kicked in when I'd locked them earlier and that I had not given permission to take the goods they'd stolen. Thanks to Covid the Court date was repeatedly postponed and delayed, three separate times I went to Court only to be told it had been postponed, twice because one of the defendants had "tested positive" the night before.
Final time I arrived at Court and the CPS lawyer said as soon as I arrived that since I had arrived, they were changing their plea to guilty. I'd be curious if lawyers here have a thought on this, but apparently its a common play by defendants to plead innocent hoping the prosecution witness never arrives, in which case the case would be dismissed.
After all that messing around, they were issued with a community service order and a fine. No imprisonment. Years of messing around and immediately back on the streets to rob someone else.
He has proved the worst PM since WW2, and by some distance.
He's been an embarrassment to country and Party alike.
"(1) The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements.
(2) The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3) In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
Of course Constitutional theorists would point out that no Parliament can bind a successor so any UK Parliament could repeal this provision too but there is no doubt that this was an attempt to recognise the sovereignty of the Scottish people and their right to choose how they are governed, at least within the UK.
As long as uk and us and eastern european countries continue to support and supply france and germany can be pretty much ignored by ukraine.
His other character flaws - laziness for example - he could have survived but his casual complacency proved to be fatal.
Maybe at the next debate the host will remain conscious for long enough to ask Liz and Rishi which government decimated the criminal justice system.
I think this also explains the reluctance of some to send long range weapons to Ukraine. With really long range precision strike, the Russian rail system becomes a tempting target. If you prevent the supplies reaching the Russian railheads inside Ukraine the Russian attack on Ukraine as a whole collapses. So incredibly tempting for the Ukrainians.
Getting assurance from the Ukrainians that they wouldn’t extend the war deep into Russian territory…
Which is how we get to stand-offs where Tesco delist Heinz.
As I said, the first time I caught a burglar red handed was in 2010, before any cuts to the judicial system. The offender was caught red handed breaking into somebody else's home next week and arrested, and confessed to a string of other burglaries. He had prior burglary convictions.
The punishment? A suspended sentence and a fine and sent back on his merry way.
If after a first conviction a burglar was taken off the streets for a year, that'd be a year with no more burglaries by them and no more cases being referred to the courts in that time for the same individual once more.
If a repeat offender were taken off the streets for five years, that'd be five years with no more burglaries by them.
It must cause lots of difficulty in scheduling cases.
IIRC it was predicting 60k Ukrainians were about to be captured in the Donbass and that Odesa would be fall within days.
LOL x20.
A lot of new holes and the structural integrity of that span is now heavily compromised. Nothing heavy is going to safely be able to cross that span.
https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1552227400527790080
So we have to go after why scumbags burgle and steal and assault and that means early years interventions and specialist support staff through schools and qualifications and jobs. None of which the Tories have any interest in.
Like Patel's fact-free claims about stopping migrants, they can say "get the police to do more" but won't resource them and won't enable the penal system and won't work with families to stop the next generation of scumbags developing.
Its just hot air. Because Truss doesn't care.
Whether it has the means is questionable. But I'd probably rather be in Ukraine's position that Russia's right now.
This rapidly wharehouses the habitual criminals. Who commit 90% of the classic property crimes.
New studies agree that animals sold at Wuhan market are most likely what started Covid-19 pandemic
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/26/health/wuhan-market-covid-19/index.html
1) Flouting covid regulations. The warning being the uproar about Cummings in Durham. Yet the regulation flouting continued throughout the following winter and spring.
2) Greed and sleaze. The warning being the stories about wallpaper etc in April 2021. Yet the Patterson fiasco was allowed to happen later in the year.
In my part of the country fuel was a similar thing, with nobody willing to put up diesel past 199.9p/l - that at least has now come down a few pence.
But hearing @BWallaceMP is a serious contender - is being tipped for the role by fellow ministers
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1552222962757017600
The SNP only become decisive if the Tories have a majority or most seats in England but Labour plus the SNP have a majority across the UK
Protestant Ulster being forced into Roman Catholic Ireland against its will would have seen UVF forces fighting for decades against Dublin
The defence, of course, knew this as well as me. They also knew, like @BartholomewRoberts, that witnesses would become increasingly reluctant to turn up and this was the best chance to get an acquittal. So the trick, such as it was, was to pick trials where pleas were almost inevitable if you had a full house and turn them into pleas. This is the way that the Criminal Justice system works and, in my experience, has always worked under Tory, Labour and SNP governments alike.
Boris being "tipped" is more than likely a counterplot to the "members ballot" nonsense that assuages his ego and stops him trying to pull a January 6th in No 10.
Latest Westminster voting intention (21-22 July)
Con: 32% (+3 from 13-14 Jul)
Lab: 39% (-1)
Lib Dem: 12% (-1)
Green: 8% (+1)
Reform UK: 4% (=)
SNP: 4% (=)
https://t.co/Q8pZF9b6Gs https://t.co/1JRB6OoQlv
A guilty plea on the day I'd hope should not be treated the same as a guilty plea in advance when it comes to sentencing? I have no idea how that bit works or not.
Labour 39%
Conservatives 32%
LDs 12%
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1552232739616718848?s=20&t=9oaM-66sgjMsceKCZfF4hw
‘WORLD-FIRST’ GRAPHENE-BASED TEST COULD RAPIDLY DETECT PATIENTS’ NEED FOR ANTIBIOTIC TREATMENT
https://www.thegraphenecouncil.org/blogpost/1501180/475391/World-first-graphene-based-test-could-rapidly-detect-patients-need-for-antibiotic-treatment
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) is collaborating with graphene electronics specialists, Paragraf, the universities of Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, on the development of the ‘world-first’ test.
If trials are successful, the hand-held test would give doctors the ability to identify patients with a respiratory infection like pneumonia, who need an antibiotic treatment, within the space of a regular 15-minute clinic appointment – or deliver accurate results for emergency patient care, within a few minutes, from a small sample of blood.
A two-year programme will develop a proof-of-concept test, which uses a combination of procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) to determine between bacterial and viral infections.
How the test works
PCT is produced in healthy individuals in response to hormones, however, production is increased during a bacterial infection.
PCT does not rise in the presence of a viral infection, as another protein produced by the body during viral infection, called ‘interferon gamma’, blocks the production of PCT. This makes high levels of PCT specific to bacterial infections.
Simultaneously, CRP is produced by the body when it encounters an infection, which then marks bacterial and viral cells as ‘invaders’ for destruction by the body’s immune system.
The amount of CRP the body produces rises with infection, most significantly by bacteria, but also with other viral and fungal infections.
Combining the measurement of PCT and CRP into one test has the potential to improve accuracy and aid in the proper use of antibiotics....
Previous recipients include Prince Charles & M. Thatcher, M. Albright
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1552234369774911491
Most evidence I've seen in the past for claims that prison doesn't work looks at recidivism rates after release, rather than incorporating recidivism rates while incarcerated versus not incarcerated.