I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.
As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.
I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.
"General reservations The Constitution 1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"
A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.
BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.
I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.
Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.
Their written submissions seems to me to suggest
That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved). This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading. That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination. UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law. Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.
Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?
If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved? Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.
She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.
She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.
The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.
I can only speak as a layman, but as someone who thinks the government should grant a referendum as that is the will of the elected representatives of the Scottish nation, the UK government's case does seem pretty persuasive to me.
Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).
The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.
"Belarus orders its troops to be tested for 'combat readiness' after 'huge quantities of Russian soldiers entered the country' - as Lukashenko's secret service says Ukrainian invasion 'turning point' will come within weeks"
Despite evidence that Belarus is sending kit to Russia, I still think Putin's plan is this:
Weaken Ukraine internally, as much as possible, by pounding the infrastructure as long as he can. As winter kicks in this will really hurt (if he is effective)
Then invade Ukraine again from the north, from Belarus, probably alongside Belarus troops (Belarus will be ordered to help)
Aim for another quick drive to seize Kyiv, topple Zelensky, and win the war against a weakened Ukraine
That's the theory, I reckon
Except they are not weakened, are they? They are getting stronger week by week. Kit, better trained troops who know what salisbury plain is like etc.
I am optimistic that if Lukasheko enters the war then he will be brought down quite rapidly. The chaos could easily spread across into Russia as the military disaster unfolds and the public finally wake up.
Perhaps that is the real purpose of the reported large numbers of Russian troops ? To maintain the regime in Belarus.
There is no way Putin would waste his precious 300,000 new conscripts to police Belarus. He has an existential war to win in Ukraine
IF these troops are pouring into Belarus, he surely aims to attack Ukraine from the north, via Belarus. It is the natural thing to do, it is the shortest route to Kyiv. And the "easiest" way to *win* the war - for him - is what it always was. Seize Kyiv, topple Zelensky, declare victory
However we don't yet know if these reports of troop movements are genuine. And of course his plan may go tits up like nearly all of his plans…
First, as you recognise, you don’t know that the troops “pouring in” to Belarus are anything more than a fraction of that number. Second, they’d be no more use, probably a great deal less, than the original relatively well trained armoured forces who tried last time around.
There’s nothing ‘natural’ about the plan at all, and Ukraine reportedly has a significant reserve maintained to deal with such a desperate effort in any event. The collapse of Belarus to revolution would be a political and strategic disaster for Putin, so there’s plenty of incentive for sending troops if Lukashenko really is in trouble. It’s a perfectly feasible alternate explanation.
Bottom line is neither of us has any idea of what’s the truth of the matter.
Oh, and you really have no idea whether or not Putin is as desperate as you intuit he is, either.
You should read the AI tweet thread I posted earlier. It’s much more interesting.
Putin is desperate. He mobilised. A phenomenally risky and unpopular move
I think that you are missing the point @Leon. 300k men without tanks, planes, rockets, the Russian equivalent of NWALS and HIMARS might, at best, use up some Ukranian ammunition but they are not going to attack or achieve anything on the brutal landscape of modern warfare where it is increasingly difficult for fragile human bodies to survive. The latest HIMARs rockets, with their frankly horrific titanium bearings exploding above the target shred human beings who are not adequately protected. Without training, food, tents, armour and the skills to use appropriate weaponary which is available they can, at the very best, release some real troops from guard duties.
Wars are won with logistics and Russia's stink. They can sacrifice or murder their own unfortunates but they cannot stop a modern, well equipped army such as Ukraine has built with a lot of help from us and a massive quantity of kit from the US. The mobilisation was significant politically for the reasons you point out but militarily it was pointless.
As I said downthread, his plans "could easily go tits up, like all his plans"
His army is indeed a pile of wank, facing better soldiers with better morale and better kit. However there is at least one way he could win: if he so weakens Ukraine from bombardment that the country semi-collapses, and his ragtag troops have an easier time, and take Kyiv
{But even then, as I also say, he will lose long term to a hostile new occupied Ukraine}
Let's focus on the here and now. Putin's short term task is difficult. My bet is that he will struggle again, and be rebuffed
But is it impossible for him to win (ie take Kyiv)? No, it's not. There are routes to victory. PB is better when we address reality, rather than bend reality to make it conform to what we want
OK, my armchair general take on it is that ...
- Putin has been in panic since the Ukranian advance started about a month ago. - Hence the 'mobilisation' - a desperate and rather hopeless attempt to 'do something'. - He was then forced to 'do something more' after the Kerch Bridge episode. - So he is throwing everything in to this current bombardment but obviously there are limited supplies of effective heavy weapons. - He is also trying again to attack from Belarus out of desperation, despite the previous retreat and failure. - Given the above he is running the risk of a revolution in Belarus, but he will run this risk because he is basically completely desperate. - His back is completely against the wall and he will also resort to any sort of tactic to get what he wants, hence the appointment of "brutal generals".
There is no way that Russia are on the cusp of winning any conventional war in Ukraine. All they are doing is destroying much of their military capability to preserve the Putin regime, and this is likely to lead to either some kind of collapse of the current regime, or nuclear escalation. Ukraine may appear to be winning, but the outlook for the world is very bad, all the options are bad.
This is probably the most important news from the war today.
NOËL 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 @NOELreports Belarus is handing over tanks, air defense systems and ammo to Russia. Today, several new echelons with equipment of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus in the direction of the Russian Federation were recorded at once, - Belarusian opposition media
First, Belarus will not join the war directly, otherwise it would keep its stock of spare equipment.
Second, Russia is likely reaching the limits of the usable equipment that it can bring back into service from its stores, and so it's ability to sustain the intensity of combat we have seen since February is nearing exhaustion.
Consequently, I believe we are nearer to the end of the war than the beginning.
Ukraine claims to have taken 2,500 of 3,300 Russian tanks, so far in this war. 75% of all the Russian tanks!!
Wiki reckons that Belarus has around 950 tanks, mostly T-72s. How many of those are serviceable, and how many they might let the Russians have, is unknown. Let’s say they give 300 to the Russians.
That’s ONE MONTH of tanks at the current attrition rate, assuming they don’t do anything silly like send them on the NLAW gauntlet down Chernobyl Road heading for Kiev. Again.
Oryx currently has them at 1,320 tanks lost. Which is about half of Ukraine's claims, but still a staggering number. I honestly do believe that Russia is running out of tanks, let alone trained tank crew. Especially when you consider they have a very long border that needs defence, and are already known to be withdrawing kit from other areas (Finnish border?).
Yes, even if for sake of argument we halve the Oryx tally, it's a stunningly high number.
I know Belarus is a weak place run by a Putin wannabe (even though he's been there longer), but I'm surprised even the non-opposition elements of it are resigned to accepting being a Putin proxy state.
I wouldn't halve Oryx's number - it's a very good baseline (the photos really help with that). I think most people assume Russia have lost 20-30% more than Oryx say, due to some losses being behind Russian lines and unphotographed.
Numbers won't necessarily tell the whole story though. Which equipment will Russia have used first - their best stuff, or the museum pieces? Not difficult to work out.
So their early losses might well represent a much bigger proportion of their military capability than the headline figure suggests.
I have probably said this before. An invading force has to work like a orchestra, with artillery, armour and infantry working in fine balance. It’s like scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
Ukraine has properly degraded Russia’s artillery and tanks capability. It’s just about possible to throw massive volumes of infantry at the problem to make up the difference. But those infantry must have iron clad morale and training, so that they run TOWARDS rather than away from the far better armed enemy. And as we’ve established, the morale and training of the recruited infantry is rock bottom (Ukraine increasingly so the opposite). No air dominance to paper over the cracks either, far from it in fact.
So the idea of Russia launching a successful invasion using these recruits is just fanciful. And that’s without the 1.5mln missing winter uniforms and tactical advantage Ukraine now has in both South and East etc...
Leon’s cunning plan to use the precious dregs of Russia’s precision missile reserves to target power infrastructure is a short term tactical plan, not a strategically effective one. It impedes the ability of Ukraine to conduct manoeuvre warfare but only in the short term. It reminds me a bit of Boris Johnson’s “wait for the Sue Gray report you dirty bastards”. Putin is simply hoping “something turns up”. That’s it, that’s all he has now. Buy time, see what happens.
Now Biden is an older gentleman it is true. And we know the state of thinking on sections of the American right because Elon has told us. But I think we’re reaching the point where even with the loss of US support, Ukraine would probably still win albeit at the cost of many more lives and much time.
"And we know the state of thinking on sections of the American right because Elon has told us."
We knew that LONG before Elon Freaking Musk started spouting off.
He's an echo chamber, and the point of his echoing is to schmooze Putin AND Trump.
There’s a story that prior to Musk’s Twitter poll/“peace plan” on Twitter, he spoke directly with Putin about it.
I should think he’s getting dangerously close to criminality if he’s seeking to conduct diplomacy without approval, given his military clearances for space, isn’t he?
In the end, any peace will involve someone talking to Putin. Does it matter if it is Erdogan, Elon Musk or the inevitable Ryan Giggs?
"Belarus orders its troops to be tested for 'combat readiness' after 'huge quantities of Russian soldiers entered the country' - as Lukashenko's secret service says Ukrainian invasion 'turning point' will come within weeks"
Despite evidence that Belarus is sending kit to Russia, I still think Putin's plan is this:
Weaken Ukraine internally, as much as possible, by pounding the infrastructure as long as he can. As winter kicks in this will really hurt (if he is effective)
Then invade Ukraine again from the north, from Belarus, probably alongside Belarus troops (Belarus will be ordered to help)
Aim for another quick drive to seize Kyiv, topple Zelensky, and win the war against a weakened Ukraine
That's the theory, I reckon
Except they are not weakened, are they? They are getting stronger week by week. Kit, better trained troops who know what salisbury plain is like etc.
I am optimistic that if Lukasheko enters the war then he will be brought down quite rapidly. The chaos could easily spread across into Russia as the military disaster unfolds and the public finally wake up.
Perhaps that is the real purpose of the reported large numbers of Russian troops ? To maintain the regime in Belarus.
There is no way Putin would waste his precious 300,000 new conscripts to police Belarus. He has an existential war to win in Ukraine
IF these troops are pouring into Belarus, he surely aims to attack Ukraine from the north, via Belarus. It is the natural thing to do, it is the shortest route to Kyiv. And the "easiest" way to *win* the war - for him - is what it always was. Seize Kyiv, topple Zelensky, declare victory
However we don't yet know if these reports of troop movements are genuine. And of course his plan may go tits up like nearly all of his plans…
First, as you recognise, you don’t know that the troops “pouring in” to Belarus are anything more than a fraction of that number. Second, they’d be no more use, probably a great deal less, than the original relatively well trained armoured forces who tried last time around.
There’s nothing ‘natural’ about the plan at all, and Ukraine reportedly has a significant reserve maintained to deal with such a desperate effort in any event. The collapse of Belarus to revolution would be a political and strategic disaster for Putin, so there’s plenty of incentive for sending troops if Lukashenko really is in trouble. It’s a perfectly feasible alternate explanation.
Bottom line is neither of us has any idea of what’s the truth of the matter.
Oh, and you really have no idea whether or not Putin is as desperate as you intuit he is, either.
You should read the AI tweet thread I posted earlier. It’s much more interesting.
Putin is desperate. He mobilised. A phenomenally risky and unpopular move
I think that you are missing the point @Leon. 300k men without tanks, planes, rockets, the Russian equivalent of NWALS and HIMARS might, at best, use up some Ukranian ammunition but they are not going to attack or achieve anything on the brutal landscape of modern warfare where it is increasingly difficult for fragile human bodies to survive. The latest HIMARs rockets, with their frankly horrific titanium bearings exploding above the target shred human beings who are not adequately protected. Without training, food, tents, armour and the skills to use appropriate weaponary which is available they can, at the very best, release some real troops from guard duties.
Wars are won with logistics and Russia's stink. They can sacrifice or murder their own unfortunates but they cannot stop a modern, well equipped army such as Ukraine has built with a lot of help from us and a massive quantity of kit from the US. The mobilisation was significant politically for the reasons you point out but militarily it was pointless.
As I said downthread, his plans "could easily go tits up, like all his plans"
His army is indeed a pile of wank, facing better soldiers with better morale and better kit. However there is at least one way he could win: if he so weakens Ukraine from bombardment that the country semi-collapses, and his ragtag troops have an easier time, and take Kyiv
{But even then, as I also say, he will lose long term to a hostile new occupied Ukraine}
Let's focus on the here and now. Putin's short term task is difficult. My bet is that he will struggle again, and be rebuffed
But is it impossible for him to win (ie take Kyiv)? No, it's not. There are routes to victory. PB is better when we address reality, rather than bend reality to make it conform to what we want
OK, my armchair general take on it is that ...
- Putin has been in panic since the Ukranian advance started about a month ago. - Hence the 'mobilisation' - a desperate and rather hopeless attempt to 'do something'. - He was then forced to 'do something more' after the Kerch Bridge episode. - So he is throwing everything in to this current bombardment but obviously there are limited supplies of effective heavy weapons. - He is also trying again to attack from Belarus out of desperation, despite the previous retreat and failure. - Given the above he is running the risk of a revolution in Belarus, but he will run this risk because he is basically completely desperate. - His back is completely against the wall and he will also resort to any sort of tactic to get what he wants, hence the appointment of "brutal generals".
There is no way that Russia are on the cusp of winning any conventional war in Ukraine. All they are doing is destroying much of their military capability to preserve the Putin regime, and this is likely to lead to either some kind of collapse of the current regime, or nuclear escalation. Ukraine may appear to be winning, but the outlook for the world is very bad, all the options are bad.
I would say the missile attacks on Ukrainian cities in recent days do indicate Russian weakness but it doesn't mean the missiles were wasted from Putin's PoV. Russia is losing territory, the Ukrainians damaged Kerch Bridge a big status symbol of the Russian occupation. Domestic critics are circling. The missile attacks are agency. It's something he can do to show he can kick ass.
Not a million miles from George Bush's motivation for invading Iraq, incidentally.
BA Jacobsen @ba_jakobsen · 2h Replying to @KyivPost Zoom in and you can see it is still there, i don't see the point of posting something like this, your resilient - we get it. Just keep it honest though.
It did seem rather unlikely that anyone could rebuild and repaint entire roads - cratered by shells - overnight. If you look at all the pics, they are - I think - all fake
But the credulous on here wanted to believe, so they believed
I cannot speak on whether those photos are fake or not, but I cannot see why it wouldn't be possible to fill a crater and resurface overnight - particularly if there are no services underneath (or you are not bothered about the services). All you need to do is find fill material, dump it in, compact as much as possible, then pave it. Not a massive job (tm). Although they might have problems with settlement in the winter...
The video below shows a tunnel being built under a motorway in a weekend. That involves digging away the motorway, sliding the precast tunnel into place, filling, and resurfacing. A massive job, but the road is reopened to road traffic.
These photos imply they did a perfect job of filling in a bomb crater, repaying the road: and clearing it for traffic. In mere hours
In some of them they even repainted the road markings, and then these have been quickly eroded by traffic. Er…
I’m calling fake. As is Twitter
Also the photos have curious anomalies
It’s a shame because they don’t need to do this. The Ukrainian war effort is phenomenal and inspiring. For real
Oddly, I see that tweet as saying: "Look, from bombed-out cars to pretty much normality. You will not defeat us!" It doesn't claim that the hole has been filled in; just that traffic has returned.
Which is the point. Normality returns. Russia's fascist terrorism will not defeat us.
I am not watching the Supreme Court hearings, but my personal view is that even an advisory referendum on constitutional matters falls outside the Scottish government’s remit.
As would, for example, advertising in support of independence.
I think on balance I agree, although you end up at a thorny situation. In 19th century USA, I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union. Does Scotland have the right to do the same from the UK? I assume there was no article 50 in the act of Union?
You only have to read the words of the statute. 'Reserved' means reserved to the UK parliament and therefore not delegated.
"General reservations The Constitution 1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England......"
A referendum (whether binding or not) as to whether the balance of opinion in Scotland favours change in the constitutional matter of the union, and organised according to law (ie not a large opinion poll but a legislated matter) is so plainly a reserved matter that I would say the Scottish government's case has virtually Zero chance of success.
BTW by parity of reasoning if the Scottish government can do this, they can also hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy for Scotland, and removing all armed forces.
I would put it as 66/1 the Scots to win this case.
Even the Lord Advocate clearly does not believe that this falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP's own written submissions really failed to address the wording of the legislation which the SC has to apply, relying instead on inherent rights to self determination which in some way require the SC to ignore the law as it is and recognise some amorphous, overwhelming principle. It's an offer they have declined before and they will do so this time too.
I don't think that's what their written submission does at all.
Their written submissions seems to me to suggest
That the legislation could be interpreted broadly (anything even remotely connected to the reserved matter is reserved, even if it doesn't affect the law on reserved matters) or narrowly (only legal changes on reserved matters are reserved). This referendum being advisory only doesn't change any reserved matters, so would be legal under a narrow reading. That under international law Scotland should have a right to self-determination. UK law is normally interpreted where it can be to be consistent in both national and international law. Therefore the narrow interpretation should be used.
Seems to me to be a reasonable argument. Where is the flaw on that, how is a narrow reading of the legislation inappropriate?
If this from the BBC Coverage earlier is accurate then surely SC precedent would say that an advisory-only referendum is not reserved? Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain continues to cite case law in reference to whether provisions in legislation "relate to" reserved matters.
She speaks about the European Union (Continuity) Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit.
She says the Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the need for there to be some form of practical or legal effect on the law on the reserved matter.
The lord advocate says it is implicit in the reasoning of the Supreme Court when it dealt with the reference on the European Union (Continuity) Bill that it would be reasonable to suggest that holding an advisory referendum on an issue of international affairs would not relate to a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament.
It is an argument that the SC has already rejected at least twice. In the case about the incorporation of the UN Convention of the Child Lord Reed said: "The same conclusion must be reached in the present case. Section 101(2) cannot have been intended to enable the courts to undertake, in substance, a rewriting of provisions enacted by the Scottish Parliament, which on their face are plainly and unambiguously outside its legislative competence, so as eventually, if sufficient cases are decided, to produce an outcome which accurately reflects the limits on legislative competence set out in the Scotland Act. That would give section 101(2) a function going beyond interpretation as ordinarily understood. As the “Named Persons” case illustrates, such an approach to section 101(2) would also be liable to contravene key provisions of the ECHR in cases where they were relevant. As I have explained, it would also result in the circumvention of the safeguards intended to be provided by sections 31 to 33 of the Scotland Act, whose operation is dependent on legislative provisions being drafted with sufficient clarity to enable the requisite assessments to be made."
Yes on inflation, but not quite on growth. They downgrade UK growth from previous forecasts, like every other country, but say the mini budget will increase growth:
There’s a story that prior to Musk’s Twitter poll/“peace plan” on Twitter, he spoke directly with Putin about it.
I should think he’s getting dangerously close to criminality if he’s seeking to conduct diplomacy without approval, given his military clearances for space, isn’t he?
In the end, any peace will involve someone talking to Putin. Does it matter if it is Erdogan, Elon Musk or the inevitable Ryan Giggs?
More likely to be Paul Gascogne turning up with four cans of lager and a fishing rod
BA Jacobsen @ba_jakobsen · 2h Replying to @KyivPost Zoom in and you can see it is still there, i don't see the point of posting something like this, your resilient - we get it. Just keep it honest though.
It did seem rather unlikely that anyone could rebuild and repaint entire roads - cratered by shells - overnight. If you look at all the pics, they are - I think - all fake
But the credulous on here wanted to believe, so they believed
I cannot speak on whether those photos are fake or not, but I cannot see why it wouldn't be possible to fill a crater and resurface overnight - particularly if there are no services underneath (or you are not bothered about the services). All you need to do is find fill material, dump it in, compact as much as possible, then pave it. Not a massive job (tm). Although they might have problems with settlement in the winter...
The video below shows a tunnel being built under a motorway in a weekend. That involves digging away the motorway, sliding the precast tunnel into place, filling, and resurfacing. A massive job, but the road is reopened to road traffic.
Several journalists have made the comment that the Ukrainians are very quick to clear war damage compared with other war zones they have been to. It seems they are culturally very tidy people, as demonstrated by the woman who threw a jar of homemade pickles from her apartment window at a passing drone and then went downstairs to sweep up the broken glass,
They are certainly very quick to remove war detritus and repair streets. Because who would want a daily reminder that they live in a war zone?
Some cultures react to destruction with an almost instinctive impulse to tidy up.
Allied occupiers in Germany at the end of WWII found that the locals would self organise to clear the rubble, form neat piles of salvageable bricks etc
There’s a story that prior to Musk’s Twitter poll/“peace plan” on Twitter, he spoke directly with Putin about it.
I should think he’s getting dangerously close to criminality if he’s seeking to conduct diplomacy without approval, given his military clearances for space, isn’t he?
In the end, any peace will involve someone talking to Putin. Does it matter if it is Erdogan, Elon Musk or the inevitable Ryan Giggs?
Dennis Rodman?
We'll know it's bad when Paul Gascoigne pops round the Kremlin with a few cans and a bit of fried chicken.
This is probably the most important news from the war today.
NOËL 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 @NOELreports Belarus is handing over tanks, air defense systems and ammo to Russia. Today, several new echelons with equipment of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus in the direction of the Russian Federation were recorded at once, - Belarusian opposition media
First, Belarus will not join the war directly, otherwise it would keep its stock of spare equipment.
Second, Russia is likely reaching the limits of the usable equipment that it can bring back into service from its stores, and so it's ability to sustain the intensity of combat we have seen since February is nearing exhaustion.
Consequently, I believe we are nearer to the end of the war than the beginning.
Ukraine claims to have taken 2,500 of 3,300 Russian tanks, so far in this war. 75% of all the Russian tanks!!
Wiki reckons that Belarus has around 950 tanks, mostly T-72s. How many of those are serviceable, and how many they might let the Russians have, is unknown. Let’s say they give 300 to the Russians.
That’s ONE MONTH of tanks at the current attrition rate, assuming they don’t do anything silly like send them on the NLAW gauntlet down Chernobyl Road heading for Kiev. Again.
Oryx currently has them at 1,320 tanks lost. Which is about half of Ukraine's claims, but still a staggering number. I honestly do believe that Russia is running out of tanks, let alone trained tank crew. Especially when you consider they have a very long border that needs defence, and are already known to be withdrawing kit from other areas (Finnish border?).
Yes, even if for sake of argument we halve the Oryx tally, it's a stunningly high number.
I know Belarus is a weak place run by a Putin wannabe (even though he's been there longer), but I'm surprised even the non-opposition elements of it are resigned to accepting being a Putin proxy state.
Oryx is visually confirmed so the true number is higher (although probably not much higher given how everything is shared on Social Media) .
This is probably the most important news from the war today.
NOËL 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 @NOELreports Belarus is handing over tanks, air defense systems and ammo to Russia. Today, several new echelons with equipment of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus in the direction of the Russian Federation were recorded at once, - Belarusian opposition media
First, Belarus will not join the war directly, otherwise it would keep its stock of spare equipment.
Second, Russia is likely reaching the limits of the usable equipment that it can bring back into service from its stores, and so it's ability to sustain the intensity of combat we have seen since February is nearing exhaustion.
Consequently, I believe we are nearer to the end of the war than the beginning.
Ukraine claims to have taken 2,500 of 3,300 Russian tanks, so far in this war. 75% of all the Russian tanks!!
Wiki reckons that Belarus has around 950 tanks, mostly T-72s. How many of those are serviceable, and how many they might let the Russians have, is unknown. Let’s say they give 300 to the Russians.
That’s ONE MONTH of tanks at the current attrition rate, assuming they don’t do anything silly like send them on the NLAW gauntlet down Chernobyl Road heading for Kiev. Again.
Oryx currently has them at 1,320 tanks lost. Which is about half of Ukraine's claims, but still a staggering number. I honestly do believe that Russia is running out of tanks, let alone trained tank crew. Especially when you consider they have a very long border that needs defence, and are already known to be withdrawing kit from other areas (Finnish border?).
Yes, even if for sake of argument we halve the Oryx tally, it's a stunningly high number.
I know Belarus is a weak place run by a Putin wannabe (even though he's been there longer), but I'm surprised even the non-opposition elements of it are resigned to accepting being a Putin proxy state.
Oryx is visually confirmed so the true number is higher (although probably not much higher given how everything is shared on Social Media) .
Oryx is accepted by even those who are quite anti-Ukraine.
On pro Russian media troops at the front have been complaining that replacement tank crews are barely able to use their tanks, let alone fight well in then.
Comments
Whilst the draft of any bill is unlikely to change, as even a Justice pointed out, it seems as though it is the job of the Lord Advocate to take a view on the competence, and she is simply reluctant to do so. If she is not willing to offer a firm view that it is or is not, then surely it falls by default? Why is it the job of the court to provide an answer to a question she is not even willing to answer? (I know there's a whole bunch of arguments about when she is able to refer a matter and what on as well, but at its heart this seems to be her job is to take a view, and she is unwilling to offer one at the moment).
The BBC live text updates also then includes a lot of stuff about how this is important, and a festering sore, which are both true, but doesn't seem like it would overrule matters of legislative procedure and whether that has been followed properly - you see that sort of argument at much much lower levels with things like public sector equality duty, or duty of care, meaning (people argue) any other rules are not relevant. And its the sort of thing the government lost, when trying to argue Brexit was really important and thus little things like parliamentayr consent were not necessary.
"Security will be heightened on the day."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/11/king-charles-iii-coronation-date-6-may-2023
We knew that LONG before Elon Freaking Musk started spouting off.
He's an echo chamber, and the point of his echoing is to schmooze Putin AND Trump.
NEW THREAD
Oh, that Coronation.
A wheel falls of Boeing's wagon:
https://twitter.com/BoardingPassRO/status/1579858165407305728
Not a million miles from George Bush's motivation for invading Iraq, incidentally.
Which is the point. Normality returns. Russia's fascist terrorism will not defeat us.
"The same conclusion must be reached in the present case. Section 101(2) cannot have been intended to enable the courts to undertake, in substance, a rewriting of provisions enacted by the Scottish Parliament, which on their face are plainly and unambiguously outside its legislative competence, so as eventually, if sufficient cases are decided, to produce an outcome which accurately reflects the limits on legislative competence set out in the Scotland Act. That would give section 101(2) a function going beyond interpretation as ordinarily understood. As the “Named Persons” case illustrates, such an approach to section 101(2) would also be liable to contravene key provisions of the ECHR in cases where they were relevant. As I have explained, it would also result in the circumvention of the safeguards intended to be provided by sections 31 to 33 of the Scotland Act, whose operation is dependent on legislative provisions being drafted with sufficient clarity to enable the requisite assessments to be made."
Edit: Belay that - wheel has been recovered, apparently. (But background is odd?)
https://twitter.com/HSB773/status/1579880212119969797
Allied occupiers in Germany at the end of WWII found that the locals would self organise to clear the rubble, form neat piles of salvageable bricks etc
On pro Russian media troops at the front have been complaining that replacement tank crews are barely able to use their tanks, let alone fight well in then.