Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
Lord Reed: Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation. SNP MSP: Ruling that Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation proves it is. *Sigh*
So now we have it confirmed that Scotland is a colony of England. End of any pretence of democracy by a lickspittle English court.
Lord Reed is Scottish.
Try again?
A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal , Try harder loser
I think he has somewhat more connection with Scotland than merely being born there.
Reed was Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Education Department from 1988 to 1989, and to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department from 1989 to 1995. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1995, and Advocate Depute in 1996. He was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the country's College of Justice, in 1998, with the judicial title, Lord Reed. He sat initially as a Judge of the Outer House, becoming Principal Commercial Judge in 2006...He was promoted to the Inner House (First Division) in 2008
His Scottishness may not affect your view of the Court or the decision, but you're surely not saying he is not a true scotsman?
I am saying he is part of an English court making a decision on Scottish Law that should be done by the Court of Session in Scotland, I care not a jot what his nationality is and fact he is Scottish does not make it valid..
Do you think the Court of Session would have ruled differently?
Lord Reed: Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation. SNP MSP: Ruling that Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation proves it is. *Sigh*
So now we have it confirmed that Scotland is a colony of England. End of any pretence of democracy by a lickspittle English court.
Lord Reed is Scottish.
Try again?
A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal , Try harder loser
I think he has somewhat more connection with Scotland than merely being born there.
Reed was Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Education Department from 1988 to 1989, and to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department from 1989 to 1995. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1995, and Advocate Depute in 1996. He was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the country's College of Justice, in 1998, with the judicial title, Lord Reed. He sat initially as a Judge of the Outer House, becoming Principal Commercial Judge in 2006...He was promoted to the Inner House (First Division) in 2008
His Scottishness may not affect your view of the Court or the decision, but you're surely not saying he is not a true scotsman?
I am saying he is part of an English court making a decision on Scottish Law that should be done by the Court of Session in Scotland, I care not a jot what his nationality is and fact he is Scottish does not make it valid..
We have, as a matter of Scots law, accepted decisions of the House of Lords on civil matters since the Union of the Parliaments. That jurisdiction was much more recently extended to the Criminal Courts in respect of devolution issues dealing with Human Rights. When determining a Scottish case the Court sits as a Scottish Court, regardless of the fact that it is in London, and it applies Scots law, in so far as that is relevant. We live in extraordinary times where Scotland has provided both the President and Vice President of the Court for the first time, ever. It perhaps says something of the quality of the 2 men involved that this has not raised more than the odd eyebrow south of the border.
In short, this was a Scottish Court determining Scots law.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
It is quite normal for a deliberative body to have rules against repeating the same vote within a certain timeframe. Westminster certainly does, Bercow spiked May on that point, and I'd be astonished if Holyrood doesn't. So authorising referendums over and over would seem excessive.
There would be nothing unreasonable about some limitations on repetition.
Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?
Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.
If there is still pressure for another referendum in say 20-30 years time, that would seem to me to be about a generation's time....
A generation is surely circa 25 years - so another Referendum in 2039 or 2040 would seem reasonable.Another 17 years is not so very long to wait anyway.
I think Dorothy Bain KC comes out of this quite well.
Yep. Correct on the reference, fair and balanced on the arguments, correct on the need to refer. Not associated with the more far-fetched SNP submissions.
Personally as a unionist, I'd think a fair compromise would be a referendum (endorsed by Westminster) 10 years after the last one: September 2024.
My logic would be:
- Constitutional referenda should be less frequent than general elections given any approved change is irreversible. Too frequent and we risk 'try until we get the right answer' issues. - Nationalists have consistently performed very well in elections, so to the extent a mandate is possible, they have one. - The UK has decided to make a major change in its constitutional arrangement since 2014 and Scotland was on the opposing side of that vote. - 10-years represents a significant turnover in the composition of the electorate
You could make an argument for a different number, but I'd suggest leaving it too late would be an own goal for unionists.
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
We just rinse and repeat the arguments from after the last election
“It’s a majority for independence” vs “how do you know”
I think Dorothy Bain KC comes out of this quite well.
I was not persuaded by some of her arguments but the Court seemed to agree with her on the issue if why they should rule so she made at least part of her case.
What next? At least two of my daughters have clothes with rainbows on them - would they get banned? What happens if an actual rainbow shows up over Qatar - do they angrily hurl rocks at it? Is Qatar proposing to outlaw any clothing with any colours on it which feature in the rainbow? Utter lunatics.
Imagine what they think of the gay teletubby?
It's lucky for them the Seychelles didn't qualify.
They won't be happy with the Inca either. Heaven help any Qatari tourists in Cusco.
I think Dorothy Bain KC comes out of this quite well.
Yep. Correct on the reference, fair and balanced on the arguments, correct on the need to refer. Not associated with the more far-fetched SNP submissions.
Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
But you're not. They've had one single referendum only. They now seek a 2nd, Brexit having provided the material change in circs - and boy was it - and the Holyrood election having franked the case. To extrapolate from this to a perennial state of "oh they'll just keep on agitating for and demanding Sindy Refs till they get a Yes vote" is softhead jaundice in lieu of thinking cap. You'll see this if you slip yours on. Is it to hand?
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
I agree.
Why not update the Act of Union to put in place a constitutional process for how that Union can end. Address the issue regarding passage of time between votes, provide details of the question that needs to be asked and how the breakup would work. Essentially, we need an Article 50.
Yes I agree. As I said upthread. We need to define “generation”. And give Scotland a mechanism to trigger a vote, once a generation has passed. Then write it into law at Westminster
And presumably re-write the Good Friday agreement to be compatible with those mechanisms - otherwise you are discriminating between subject of the UK.
Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
But you're not. They've had one single referendum only. They now seek a 2nd, Brexit having provided the material change in circs - and boy was it - and the Holyrood election having franked the case. To extrapolate from this to a perennial state of "oh they'll just keep on agitating for and demanding Sindy Refs till they get a Yes vote" is softhead jaundice in lieu of thinking cap. You'll see this if you slip yours on. Is it to hand?
You seem to be suggesting that the SNP didn't want a referendum between September 2014 and June 2016.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Come off it. We are as we were. The GE plan now proceeds as the precalculated next step - to add to the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to grant a legal Sindy vote - after the (expected) loss today in the SC. It's all about building that pressure. There's no unilateral legal route to independence so this is the only way. And as you build the pressure to get a vote you at the same time build enough support to win it. That's the plan. Was yesterday, is today, will be tomorrow. To detect Sturgeon "folding" is pure wish-casting.
No, it's not. As others have said, that was a weak response by Sturgeon. She even sounds like she is backtracking of the "de facto referendum" election nonsense
She must have expected this rebuff, so she had to time to prepare her reply. And yet - nothing. "A conference next year". WTF?
If she hasn't run out of road she can certainly see the garages at the end of the cul de sac. And maybe a new career for her, over the garden fence
The alternative explanation is that she really did NOT expect such a firm rejection by the SCUK. And it threw her
As brexit has shown, there is a huge danger in winning. Before the vote, you could blame everything on the EU. Not so now. Scottish independence works for the SNP right now. Its the foundation myth, the defining touchstone. Woe betide them if they ever won that independence - voters might realise that they are just as bad as all the other parties at actually running a country...
This lot would be but they cannot be worse than the donkeys in Westminster
Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
But you're not. They've had one single referendum only. They now seek a 2nd, Brexit having provided the material change in circs - and boy was it - and the Holyrood election having franked the case. To extrapolate from this to a perennial state of "oh they'll just keep on agitating for and demanding Sindy Refs till they get a Yes vote" is softhead jaundice in lieu of thinking cap. You'll see this if you slip yours on. Is it to hand?
You seem to be suggesting that the SNP didn't want a referendum between September 2014 and June 2016.
Ok, fair enough. You're trolling me. Very immature. I'd call you a baby, Driver, if I were in the mood to shoehorn song titles in today. But I'm not so it has to be farewell for now.
On Topic (for which I should perhaps apologize): Have the Conservatives lost some especially capable members this way already, and are they likely to lose others?
During their time in office, three of America's last four presidents, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, saw their parties lose many capable people. I hope the same does not happen to the Conservatives.
And the Democrats lost Jane Harman, who was quite good on national security because, as far as I can tell, she and Nancy Pelosi did not get along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman
(For the record: I like both Scots and English, and think some commenters here ought to try a little harder to be friends across that border. It would be good, for example, if one of you would put new words to that song from he musical, "Oklahoma" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5cwSBnyQU )
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
I have not been BTL for a while as some of the comments were becoming deeply unpleasant & personally abusive. I had more than enough of that at work. While I'm quite certain I could be equally vitriolic back, I don't want to be. This is meant to be a fun & interesting forum - usually - not an endurance.
I will do some headers occasionally.
On the day the SC rules on Scotland, the King - with exquisite timing - visits the centre of legal London, South Square, & husband's chambers in particular. Here is a photo. (No, I am not in it.)
On topic, yesterday the parties were running an "Ask Her" campaign trying to get more women to stand for political positions. All very necessary. The parties should ask themselves tho' why any woman would seek to join parties which so often treat them so badly, which promote incompetent bullies to high office & which do nothing to implement the recommendations of reports on bullying/misogyny etc., such as the Cox report. Even the toughest woman will eventually say "stuff that" & "life's too short to put up with this shit".
I think it a shame that the younger Tory cohorts are leaving, but not because I share their views. The current Tory party needs a complete reboot, assuming it survives (not a certainty). But if the younger generation don't get involved, who - exactly - will do the reboot? Also, it is a very bad idea to have parties winning power with huge majorities. It means no effective opposition or scrutiny, both very bad things. It leads to complacency, arrogance, hubris and often very poor government - as we have seen in England with the Tories since 2019 & in Scotland with the SNP. We don't need it again with Labour in 2024 or 2025.
I am very busy with work & my role as Chair of Trustees of a school. KCSIE & Safer Recruitment have become my nightly reading. Safeguarding is a really key issue; it really pains me to read the dangerous nonsense some SNP MSPs are coming out with on the GRR Bill. If any of the candidates for Head (we're currently recruiting) said anything like that they'd be off the list not given the power to legislate. We'd probably be reporting them to the authorities with such an attitude.
Finally, almost without realising, I have acquired a literary agent, a charming tyrant, who has set me deadlines with a steely charm I can only marvel at. I must do what I'm told. Of course I am now suffering imposter syndrome so if @Leon is around, I will forgive him for never delivering on the Montenegro love nest if he can get his stalker whom he fondly (I assume) calls "that wanker @SeanT" to give me some tips. On writing, obviously. I also promised him a picnic on a Lake District beach in return for his editing skills. He's gone on about it enough on here.
"In writing you must kill all your darlings - as some writer once said. I am keeping it in mind all the time.
Westminster should take the initiative re- the wording of any Referendum. No reason to leave it in the hands of the SNP or Holyrood.
As a nation (nations?) we need to learn the lesson of the brexit vote. The outcomes MUST be better establised before the vote. The issues are pretty clear: 1) Currency 2) National debt 3) Pensions 4) Military 5) Trade after the vote 6) Citizens rights after the vote (rUK and Scottish)
I have not been BTL for a while as some of the comments were becoming deeply unpleasant & personally abusive. I had more than enough of that at work. While I'm quite certain I could be equally vitriolic back, I don't want to be. This is meant to be a fun & interesting forum - usually - not an endurance.
I will do some headers occasionally.
On the day the SC rules on Scotland, the King - with exquisite timing - visits the centre of legal London, South Square, & husband's chambers in particular. Here is a photo. (No, I am not in it.)
On topic, yesterday the parties were running an "Ask Her" campaign trying to get more women to stand for political positions. All very necessary. The parties should ask themselves tho' why any woman would seek to join parties which so often treat them so badly, which promote incompetent bullies to high office & which do nothing to implement the recommendations of reports on bullying/misogyny etc., such as the Cox report. Even the toughest woman will eventually say "stuff that" & "life's too short to put up with this shit".
I think it a shame that the younger Tory cohorts are leaving, but not because I share their views. The current Tory party needs a complete reboot, assuming it survives (not a certainty). But if the younger generation don't get involved, who - exactly - will do the reboot? Also, it is a very bad idea to have parties winning power with huge majorities. It means no effective opposition or scrutiny, both very bad things. It leads to complacency, arrogance, hubris and often very poor government - as we have seen in England with the Tories since 2019 & in Scotland with the SNP. We don't need it again with Labour in 2024 or 2025.
I am very busy with work & my role as Chair of Trustees of a school. KCSIE & Safer Recruitment have become my nightly reading. Safeguarding is a really key issue; it really pains me to read the dangerous nonsense some SNP MSPs are coming out with on the GRR Bill. If any of the candidates for Head (we're currently recruiting) said anything like that they'd be off the list not given the power to legislate. We'd probably be reporting them to the authorities with such an attitude.
Finally, almost without realising, I have acquired a literary agent, a charming tyrant, who has set me deadlines with a steely charm I can only marvel at. I must do what I'm told. Of course I am now suffering imposter syndrome so if @Leon is around, I will forgive him for never delivering on the Montenegro love nest if he can get his stalker whom he fondly (I assume) calls "that wanker @SeanT" to give me some tips. On writing, obviously. I also promised him a picnic on a Lake District beach in return for his editing skills. He's gone on about it enough on here.
"In writing you must kill all your darlings - as some writer once said. I am keeping it in mind all the time.
So I am off on My Great Big Literary Adventure.
Now back to obscurity.
Good luck recruiting a head - I think it ranks as the hardest thing I've ever had to do. Mind you we had 3 decent options to choose from (something I don't think is as likely now 10 years later).
If the Tories wanted to max out their options to create an SNP civil war, a shewed move right now might to legislate for the Scottish government to have the power to hold a binding independence referendum, providing that 20 years has elapsed since such a referendum has been held.
They could specify the franchise, question etc as part of the legislation to ensure that an attempt isn't made to abuse the process to get the "right" answer.
This would effectively take independence off the table until 2034, demonstrate that the UK government is willing to allow the Scots a vote, but not every five minutes, and would massively split the Nats between a "wait for 2034" and "we should unilaterally have a vote tomorrow" crowd.
Taking the independence off the table for another ten years or more also means that the next couple of elections in Scotland might start to become about the SNP's appalling mismanagement of public services (like Labour in Wales it appears they've managed stuff up lots of things even worse than the Tories have in England) rather than independence wish casting - which would be no bad thing.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Sturgeon won't say what will count as an election mandate - but remarks that "majority support for independence" is what is required - suggests votes, not seats.
I disagree slight with Carnyx and DavidL on the last election being a mandate for a referendum. There was some ambiguity over it, and the SNP campaigned on (and were attacked for) plenty of other issues.
One thing is for certain - if they lose this defacto GE referendum, there will be a call for a "real" referendum about 2 second later.
It was in the manifesto, which is generally regarded as sufficient for all parties, unless one is an unionist talking about Sindy.
There will be questions over the mandate unless Indyref2 is the only thing in the manifesto (and the manifestos of all the other parties on both sides).
I voted for the Greens in the locals because they pledged to sort out the cycle lane on my commute. Doesn't reflect my view on the rest of their policy positions.
I have not been BTL for a while as some of the comments were becoming deeply unpleasant & personally abusive. I had more than enough of that at work. While I'm quite certain I could be equally vitriolic back, I don't want to be. This is meant to be a fun & interesting forum - usually - not an endurance.
I will do some headers occasionally.
On the day the SC rules on Scotland, the King - with exquisite timing - visits the centre of legal London, South Square, & husband's chambers in particular. Here is a photo. (No, I am not in it.)
On topic, yesterday the parties were running an "Ask Her" campaign trying to get more women to stand for political positions. All very necessary. The parties should ask themselves tho' why any woman would seek to join parties which so often treat them so badly, which promote incompetent bullies to high office & which do nothing to implement the recommendations of reports on bullying/misogyny etc., such as the Cox report. Even the toughest woman will eventually say "stuff that" & "life's too short to put up with this shit".
I think it a shame that the younger Tory cohorts are leaving, but not because I share their views. The current Tory party needs a complete reboot, assuming it survives (not a certainty). But if the younger generation don't get involved, who - exactly - will do the reboot? Also, it is a very bad idea to have parties winning power with huge majorities. It means no effective opposition or scrutiny, both very bad things. It leads to complacency, arrogance, hubris and often very poor government - as we have seen in England with the Tories since 2019 & in Scotland with the SNP. We don't need it again with Labour in 2024 or 2025.
I am very busy with work & my role as Chair of Trustees of a school. KCSIE & Safer Recruitment have become my nightly reading. Safeguarding is a really key issue; it really pains me to read the dangerous nonsense some SNP MSPs are coming out with on the GRR Bill. If any of the candidates for Head (we're currently recruiting) said anything like that they'd be off the list not given the power to legislate. We'd probably be reporting them to the authorities with such an attitude.
Finally, almost without realising, I have acquired a literary agent, a charming tyrant, who has set me deadlines with a steely charm I can only marvel at. I must do what I'm told. Of course I am now suffering imposter syndrome so if @Leon is around, I will forgive him for never delivering on the Montenegro love nest if he can get his stalker whom he fondly (I assume) calls "that wanker @SeanT" to give me some tips. On writing, obviously. I also promised him a picnic on a Lake District beach in return for his editing skills. He's gone on about it enough on here.
"In writing you must kill all your darlings - as some writer once said. I am keeping it in mind all the time.
Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
But you're not. They've had one single referendum only. They now seek a 2nd, Brexit having provided the material change in circs - and boy was it - and the Holyrood election having franked the case. To extrapolate from this to a perennial state of "oh they'll just keep on agitating for and demanding Sindy Refs till they get a Yes vote" is softhead jaundice in lieu of thinking cap. You'll see this if you slip yours on. Is it to hand?
You seem to be suggesting that the SNP didn't want a referendum between September 2014 and June 2016.
Where did he say that? Of course they wanted one between those dates. Of course they will constantly agitate for one. However Brexit provided substantial ammunition to argue for another one due to significant change in circumstances. I assume you are referring to 'They now seek a 2nd', but any fool can see a difference between them just keep asking and there being a significant reason to ask, even if both apply.
An analogy might be I want PR to replace FPTP. I always want this, but my argument is enhanced if a FPTP election produces a really weird result. I don't just suddenly want it after the weird result, but the weird result enhances my argument.
Westminster should take the initiative re- the wording of any Referendum. No reason to leave it in the hands of the SNP or Holyrood.
As a nation (nations?) we need to learn the lesson of the brexit vote. The outcomes MUST be better establised before the vote. The issues are pretty clear: 1) Currency 2) National debt 3) Pensions 4) Military 5) Trade after the vote 6) Citizens rights after the vote (rUK and Scottish)
etc etc etc.
No more nebulous YES/NO or IN/OUT.
A nice thought but in practice a Not Happening Event because it would effectively mean negotiating the separation deal - an enormous task - before knowing that one was needed.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
Lord Reed: Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation. SNP MSP: Ruling that Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation proves it is. *Sigh*
So now we have it confirmed that Scotland is a colony of England. End of any pretence of democracy by a lickspittle English court.
Lord Reed is Scottish.
Try again?
A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal , Try harder loser
I think he has somewhat more connection with Scotland than merely being born there.
Reed was Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Education Department from 1988 to 1989, and to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department from 1989 to 1995. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1995, and Advocate Depute in 1996. He was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the country's College of Justice, in 1998, with the judicial title, Lord Reed. He sat initially as a Judge of the Outer House, becoming Principal Commercial Judge in 2006...He was promoted to the Inner House (First Division) in 2008
His Scottishness may not affect your view of the Court or the decision, but you're surely not saying he is not a true scotsman?
I am saying he is part of an English court making a decision on Scottish Law that should be done by the Court of Session in Scotland, I care not a jot what his nationality is and fact he is Scottish does not make it valid..
Do you think the Court of Session would have ruled differently?
no idea but at least it would have had validity in the eyes of Scottish people
I have not been BTL for a while as some of the comments were becoming deeply unpleasant & personally abusive. I had more than enough of that at work. While I'm quite certain I could be equally vitriolic back, I don't want to be. This is meant to be a fun & interesting forum - usually - not an endurance.
I will do some headers occasionally.
On the day the SC rules on Scotland, the King - with exquisite timing - visits the centre of legal London, South Square, & husband's chambers in particular. Here is a photo. (No, I am not in it.)
On topic, yesterday the parties were running an "Ask Her" campaign trying to get more women to stand for political positions. All very necessary. The parties should ask themselves tho' why any woman would seek to join parties which so often treat them so badly, which promote incompetent bullies to high office & which do nothing to implement the recommendations of reports on bullying/misogyny etc., such as the Cox report. Even the toughest woman will eventually say "stuff that" & "life's too short to put up with this shit".
I think it a shame that the younger Tory cohorts are leaving, but not because I share their views. The current Tory party needs a complete reboot, assuming it survives (not a certainty). But if the younger generation don't get involved, who - exactly - will do the reboot? Also, it is a very bad idea to have parties winning power with huge majorities. It means no effective opposition or scrutiny, both very bad things. It leads to complacency, arrogance, hubris and often very poor government - as we have seen in England with the Tories since 2019 & in Scotland with the SNP. We don't need it again with Labour in 2024 or 2025.
I am very busy with work & my role as Chair of Trustees of a school. KCSIE & Safer Recruitment have become my nightly reading. Safeguarding is a really key issue; it really pains me to read the dangerous nonsense some SNP MSPs are coming out with on the GRR Bill. If any of the candidates for Head (we're currently recruiting) said anything like that they'd be off the list not given the power to legislate. We'd probably be reporting them to the authorities with such an attitude.
Finally, almost without realising, I have acquired a literary agent, a charming tyrant, who has set me deadlines with a steely charm I can only marvel at. I must do what I'm told. Of course I am now suffering imposter syndrome so if @Leon is around, I will forgive him for never delivering on the Montenegro love nest if he can get his stalker whom he fondly (I assume) calls "that wanker @SeanT" to give me some tips. On writing, obviously. I also promised him a picnic on a Lake District beach in return for his editing skills. He's gone on about it enough on here.
"In writing you must kill all your darlings - as some writer once said. I am keeping it in mind all the time.
I have not been BTL for a while as some of the comments were becoming deeply unpleasant & personally abusive. I had more than enough of that at work. While I'm quite certain I could be equally vitriolic back, I don't want to be. This is meant to be a fun & interesting forum - usually - not an endurance.
I will do some headers occasionally.
On the day the SC rules on Scotland, the King - with exquisite timing - visits the centre of legal London, South Square, & husband's chambers in particular. Here is a photo. (No, I am not in it.)
On topic, yesterday the parties were running an "Ask Her" campaign trying to get more women to stand for political positions. All very necessary. The parties should ask themselves tho' why any woman would seek to join parties which so often treat them so badly, which promote incompetent bullies to high office & which do nothing to implement the recommendations of reports on bullying/misogyny etc., such as the Cox report. Even the toughest woman will eventually say "stuff that" & "life's too short to put up with this shit".
I think it a shame that the younger Tory cohorts are leaving, but not because I share their views. The current Tory party needs a complete reboot, assuming it survives (not a certainty). But if the younger generation don't get involved, who - exactly - will do the reboot? Also, it is a very bad idea to have parties winning power with huge majorities. It means no effective opposition or scrutiny, both very bad things. It leads to complacency, arrogance, hubris and often very poor government - as we have seen in England with the Tories since 2019 & in Scotland with the SNP. We don't need it again with Labour in 2024 or 2025.
I am very busy with work & my role as Chair of Trustees of a school. KCSIE & Safer Recruitment have become my nightly reading. Safeguarding is a really key issue; it really pains me to read the dangerous nonsense some SNP MSPs are coming out with on the GRR Bill. If any of the candidates for Head (we're currently recruiting) said anything like that they'd be off the list not given the power to legislate. We'd probably be reporting them to the authorities with such an attitude.
Finally, almost without realising, I have acquired a literary agent, a charming tyrant, who has set me deadlines with a steely charm I can only marvel at. I must do what I'm told. Of course I am now suffering imposter syndrome so if @Leon is around, I will forgive him for never delivering on the Montenegro love nest if he can get his stalker whom he fondly (I assume) calls "that wanker @SeanT" to give me some tips. On writing, obviously. I also promised him a picnic on a Lake District beach in return for his editing skills. He's gone on about it enough on here.
"In writing you must kill all your darlings - as some writer once said. I am keeping it in mind all the time.
So I am off on My Great Big Literary Adventure.
Now back to obscurity.
It's not the case that all the Con MPs standing down so far are young. There should still be safe seats available to up and coming potential MPs like Broxbourne, Windsor and Reigate. I would also expect quite a few of the "old guard" Brexiteers like Cash and Bone to stand down
It's quite often the best time to become an MP just as your party suffers a heavy defeat (e.g. Blair in 1983) as it gives you the chance to work your way up and then run for LOTO just as your party is moving back to electability.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It wouldn't happen. If it's another "No" the SNP would have to backburner the commitment to another referendum anytime soon or lose power. The politics dictates this. Sturgeon knows it. Hence her slow burn strategy for getting this 2nd vote.
On Topic (for which I should perhaps apologize): Have the Conservatives lost some especially capable members this way already, and are they likely to lose others?
During their time in office, three of America's last four presidents, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, saw their parties lose many capable people. I hope the same does not happen to the Conservatives.
And the Democrats lost Jane Harman, who was quite good on national security because, as far as I can tell, she and Nancy Pelosi did not get along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman
(For the record: I like both Scots and English, and think some commenters here ought to try a little harder to be friends across that border. It would be good, for example, if one of you would put new words to that song from he musical, "Oklahoma" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5cwSBnyQU )
you aware of anyone who does not or are you just a sanctimonious git
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
Pretty good template readily available
The Northern Ireland Act 1998, a statute of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, provides that Northern Ireland will remain within the United Kingdom unless a majority of the people of Northern Ireland vote to form part of a united Ireland. It specifies that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland "shall exercise the power [to hold a referendum] if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland". Such referendums may not take place within seven years of each other.[19]
As a nation (nations?) we need to learn the lesson of the brexit vote. The outcomes MUST be better establised before the vote.
The lesson from Brexit is that the outcomes must NOT be defined before the vote if you want to have any chance of winning
Telling. "Any chance of winning". Precisely why Cameron set the terms of the referendum the way he did, and precisely why the Remain campign pretended that the status quo was a sustainable position.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
Why is time the only factor. Surely significant events that impact the Scots are more important. During the Indy referendum the unionist played the card of the Scots will have to leave the EU if there was independence. Also the Scots voted heavily to remain in the EU. Yet the Scots now find themselves outside of the EU. This is a major event, far more important than the random passage of time.
Actually now we have left the EU I think it is actually very difficult for the Scots to leave the Union as it sets up another NI situation. It would have been much easier while we were members of the EU for them to leave the union. However my opinion is not important, It is theirs that counts.
Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
But you're not. They've had one single referendum only. They now seek a 2nd, Brexit having provided the material change in circs - and boy was it - and the Holyrood election having franked the case. To extrapolate from this to a perennial state of "oh they'll just keep on agitating for and demanding Sindy Refs till they get a Yes vote" is softhead jaundice in lieu of thinking cap. You'll see this if you slip yours on. Is it to hand?
You seem to be suggesting that the SNP didn't want a referendum between September 2014 and June 2016.
Where did he say that? Of course they wanted one between those dates. Of course they will constantly agitate for one. However Brexit provided substantial ammunition to argue for another one due to significant change in circumstances. I assume you are referring to 'They now seek a 2nd', but any fool can see a difference between them just keep asking and there being a significant reason to ask, even if both apply.
An analogy might be I want PR to replace FPTP. I always want this, but my argument is enhanced if a FPTP election produces a really weird result. I don't just suddenly want it after the weird result, but the weird result enhances my argument.
The point is that no matter what happens, the SNP will always find something as an excuse for a third, fourth, fifth... referendum. There is only one thing that would make teh SNP accept a referendum result.
I think Dorothy Bain KC comes out of this quite well.
Yep. Correct on the reference, fair and balanced on the arguments, correct on the need to refer. Not associated with the more far-fetched SNP submissions.
she was pathetic in court, I would hope I never had to depend or her defending me, totally useless.
Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
But you're not. They've had one single referendum only. They now seek a 2nd, Brexit having provided the material change in circs - and boy was it - and the Holyrood election having franked the case. To extrapolate from this to a perennial state of "oh they'll just keep on agitating for and demanding Sindy Refs till they get a Yes vote" is softhead jaundice in lieu of thinking cap. You'll see this if you slip yours on. Is it to hand?
You seem to be suggesting that the SNP didn't want a referendum between September 2014 and June 2016.
Where did he say that? Of course they wanted one between those dates. Of course they will constantly agitate for one. However Brexit provided substantial ammunition to argue for another one due to significant change in circumstances. I assume you are referring to 'They now seek a 2nd', but any fool can see a difference between them just keep asking and there being a significant reason to ask, even if both apply.
An analogy might be I want PR to replace FPTP. I always want this, but my argument is enhanced if a FPTP election produces a really weird result. I don't just suddenly want it after the weird result, but the weird result enhances my argument.
The point is that no matter what happens, the SNP will always find something as an excuse for a third, fourth, fifth... referendum. There is only one thing that would make teh SNP accept a referendum result.
Yep, so what? We all do that. And we have to distinguish between valid and invalid reasons.
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Not quite so. The question is whether you take her at her word. See my earlier response to one of our reluctant fellow countrymen early in this thread:
"You already know the answer to that, but let me spell it out for you.
1. You persuade 45% of the electors of Scotland to vote for your party, which would deliver you 90% of parliamentary Scottish seats. That means that you get a wholly disproportionate and unrepresentative 8% or so of seats in the UK parliament, on the back of only 4% of the UK wide vote. Maybe even 40% of Scottish electors would be enough to do the trick.
2. You then use that 8% of the UK parliamentary seats to basically make government of the UK impossible, and bring down any government which tries to govern effectively, unless you're given another referendum. That can't be tried at the moment in the face of a Conservative majority, but you may get the chance if Labour and the LDs between them don't get a majority of seats.
The flaw in that strategy is that you'll be campaigning in Scotland on the basis that you want a return to the parliamentary paralysis that we saw under Theresa May, and trusting that Scots share your priority that the constitutional issue trumps all, as opposed to the election of a stable and effective UK government. I don't think it will. And after 14 years of Conservative government, you'll be doing your damnedest to bring down a government of an alternative colour. I don't think that'll go down well with former Labour voters who switched to the SNP in 2015.
3. So there is a third part. In order to get the vote of at least 40% of Scottish electors, make sure you keep your true intentions hidden from them as long as you can. Although, if you do have to follow through and bring down a Labour-led government, I think the game will be up for you at the following 2025 GE."
Sturgeon will still be pursuing points 1, 2 and 3. Point 3 was to not level with Scots about the constitutional chaos at Westminster that she intends to cause, because if she did it would undermine the ability to achieve points 1 and 2. That's perfectly consistent with her statement today.
The problem with such a strategy is the repeal of the fixed term parliament act. Let's say we end up with 280 Lab, 25 LD, 45 SNP next time round. Lab's likely strategy will be to run a minority government and dare everyone else to vote them down. if the SNP constantly vote Lab bills down then Starmer would likely do what Boris did in 2019 and go to the country asking for a majority.
Westminster should take the initiative re- the wording of any Referendum. No reason to leave it in the hands of the SNP or Holyrood.
As a nation (nations?) we need to learn the lesson of the brexit vote. The outcomes MUST be better establised before the vote. The issues are pretty clear: 1) Currency 2) National debt 3) Pensions 4) Military 5) Trade after the vote 6) Citizens rights after the vote (rUK and Scottish)
etc etc etc.
No more nebulous YES/NO or IN/OUT.
A nice thought but in practice a Not Happening Event because it would effectively mean negotiating the separation deal - an enormous task - before knowing that one was needed.
Perhaps, but at least an outline can be there. Certain Scottish posters believe that Scotland could walk with no retained national debt, for instance. And resolving which currency you would use is not that hard.
I have not been BTL for a while as some of the comments were becoming deeply unpleasant & personally abusive. I had more than enough of that at work. While I'm quite certain I could be equally vitriolic back, I don't want to be. This is meant to be a fun & interesting forum - usually - not an endurance.
I will do some headers occasionally.
On the day the SC rules on Scotland, the King - with exquisite timing - visits the centre of legal London, South Square, & husband's chambers in particular. Here is a photo. (No, I am not in it.)
On topic, yesterday the parties were running an "Ask Her" campaign trying to get more women to stand for political positions. All very necessary. The parties should ask themselves tho' why any woman would seek to join parties which so often treat them so badly, which promote incompetent bullies to high office & which do nothing to implement the recommendations of reports on bullying/misogyny etc., such as the Cox report. Even the toughest woman will eventually say "stuff that" & "life's too short to put up with this shit".
I think it a shame that the younger Tory cohorts are leaving, but not because I share their views. The current Tory party needs a complete reboot, assuming it survives (not a certainty). But if the younger generation don't get involved, who - exactly - will do the reboot? Also, it is a very bad idea to have parties winning power with huge majorities. It means no effective opposition or scrutiny, both very bad things. It leads to complacency, arrogance, hubris and often very poor government - as we have seen in England with the Tories since 2019 & in Scotland with the SNP. We don't need it again with Labour in 2024 or 2025.
I am very busy with work & my role as Chair of Trustees of a school. KCSIE & Safer Recruitment have become my nightly reading. Safeguarding is a really key issue; it really pains me to read the dangerous nonsense some SNP MSPs are coming out with on the GRR Bill. If any of the candidates for Head (we're currently recruiting) said anything like that they'd be off the list not given the power to legislate. We'd probably be reporting them to the authorities with such an attitude.
Finally, almost without realising, I have acquired a literary agent, a charming tyrant, who has set me deadlines with a steely charm I can only marvel at. I must do what I'm told. Of course I am now suffering imposter syndrome so if @Leon is around, I will forgive him for never delivering on the Montenegro love nest if he can get his stalker whom he fondly (I assume) calls "that wanker @SeanT" to give me some tips. On writing, obviously. I also promised him a picnic on a Lake District beach in return for his editing skills. He's gone on about it enough on here.
"In writing you must kill all your darlings - as some writer once said. I am keeping it in mind all the time.
So I am off on My Great Big Literary Adventure.
Now back to obscurity.
@Cyclefree Was my help re your son of any use in the end or did he sort out his accommodation independently?
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well, likewise. I find your comments juvenile and tedious
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
Why is time the only factor. Surely significant events that impact the Scots are more important. During the Indy referendum the unionist played the card of the Scots will have to leave the EU if there was independence. Also the Scots voted heavily to remain in the EU. Yet the Scots now find themselves outside of the EU. This is a major event, far more important than the random passage of time.
Actually now we have left the EU I think it is actually very difficult for the Scots to leave the Union as it sets up another NI situation. It would have been much easier while we were members of the EU for them to leave the union. However my opinion is not important, It is theirs that counts.
Yep, Brexit gives moral force to holding another Sindy vote but at the same time makes Sindy itself much harder. Talk about a double whammy.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
"Once a generation" should be codified as "each tike Scotland reach a World Cup Finals".
Westminster should take the initiative re- the wording of any Referendum. No reason to leave it in the hands of the SNP or Holyrood.
As a nation (nations?) we need to learn the lesson of the brexit vote. The outcomes MUST be better establised before the vote. The issues are pretty clear: 1) Currency 2) National debt 3) Pensions 4) Military 5) Trade after the vote 6) Citizens rights after the vote (rUK and Scottish)
etc etc etc.
No more nebulous YES/NO or IN/OUT.
A nice thought but in practice a Not Happening Event because it would effectively mean negotiating the separation deal - an enormous task - before knowing that one was needed.
Perhaps, but at least an outline can be there. Certain Scottish posters believe that Scotland could walk with no retained national debt, for instance. And resolving which currency you would use is not that hard.
It'd be good if the issues were better examined than they were for Brexit, I will give you that.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
That's ironic.
Oi you're out until you engage with a modicum of good faith and thinking cap.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
Suella Braverman says that the only way a persecuted child from a country in Africa who has a sibling in the UK could get here would be to enter illegally and then claim asylum. She then realises what she has said - as evidenced by her lips... https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1595362008072863746
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
As noted below the Northern Ireland Act specifies 7 years between independence referendums, so stipulating *some* minimum doesn't appear ridiculous. Presumably that is shorter for Ireland which is liable to resort to extra statutory protests vs Scotland which is not.
Which does raise the interesting question why there's an IRA but no SRA. No idea what the answer is.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
But you're not. They've had one single referendum only. They now seek a 2nd, Brexit having provided the material change in circs - and boy was it - and the Holyrood election having franked the case. To extrapolate from this to a perennial state of "oh they'll just keep on agitating for and demanding Sindy Refs till they get a Yes vote" is softhead jaundice in lieu of thinking cap. You'll see this if you slip yours on. Is it to hand?
You seem to be suggesting that the SNP didn't want a referendum between September 2014 and June 2016.
Could you point to where they asked for one in that time period.
Isn't the irony of the SNP position that the very reserved powers that they bemoan Westminster having are exactly the same powers that they would use to prevent Scottish regions from seceding from an independent Scotland. Or given the imperative of 'democracy' would such regions that, for instance, voted by majority to remain part of the UK be able to hold their own independence referendums every 5 or 10 years?
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
"Once a generation" should be codified as "each time Scotland reach a World Cup Finals".
Lol. It's so not a goer you may as well propose that, yes.
The pressure on that final qualifying game penalty shoot out then!
Isn't the irony of the SNP position that the very reserved powers that they bemoan Westminster having are exactly the same powers that they would use to prevent Scottish regions from seceding from an independent Scotland. Or given the imperative of 'democracy' would such regions that, for instance, voted by majority to remain part of the UK be able to hold their own independence referendums every 5 or 10 years?
Isn't it time to take the gloves off?
Partition always works out great, yeah why not give it a go in Scotland. Although in the interests of fairness let's give London a shot at secession too.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
Yes, and that parliament is Westminster. And the Scots willingly joined in this arrangement with the Act of Union back in the 18th century
Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede
Utah can't do it Bavaria can't do it Wales can't do it Brittany can't do it The Basques can't do it
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
That's ironic.
Oi you're out until you engage with a modicum of good faith and thinking cap.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well, likewise. I find your comments juvenile and tedious
So let's move on
One of us 2 Englishmen has the better insight into the politics of Scottish independence. We should poll our Scottish PB posters electorate and see what the result is. If I lose I'll accept it. No immediately demanding another vote. You too.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Yup. And at that point, the referendum would be confirming what an (implicit) majority have clearly decided anyway.
The polls aren't there yet.
Much the same applies to other referendum-worthy issues.
Suella Braverman says that the only way a persecuted child from a country in Africa who has a sibling in the UK could get here would be to enter illegally and then claim asylum. She then realises what she has said - as evidenced by her lips... https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1595362008072863746
That clip does neatly summarise Braverman's, and the government's, cynicism. It's Catch 22 exemplified:
- people crossing the Channel are trying to enter the UK illegally. - they should use safe, legal routes. - but there are no safe, legal routes from most countries. - so to claim asylum they need to cross the Channel illegally. - but it's illegal to cross the Channel illegally.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
That's ironic.
Oi you're out until you engage with a modicum of good faith and thinking cap.
Sorry, no.
You won't do good faith and thinking cap? Well marks for honesty at least!
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
That's ironic.
Oi you're out until you engage with a modicum of good faith and thinking cap.
Sorry, no.
You won't do good faith and thinking cap? Well marks for honesty at least!
I can't start doing good faith and thinking cap because I already am. I won't do shutting up because you disagree with me on the Nats' motivations.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
I'm afraid there's a degree of "taunting and trolling" on this one. Some posters who are viscerally anti Sindy and the SNP actually relish the idea that Scot Nats want Independence but can't get it. That they're trapped and all frustrated. Not all the ardent Unionists on PB are like this - fact it's a minority - but some are and I personally find it pretty easy to spot. @Leon@HYUFD are perhaps the most obvious but there's another half dozen or so to varying degrees. But anyway, all good, all grist to the mill.
Lord Reed: Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation. SNP MSP: Ruling that Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation proves it is. *Sigh*
So now we have it confirmed that Scotland is a colony of England. End of any pretence of democracy by a lickspittle English court.
Lord Reed is Scottish.
Try again?
A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal , Try harder loser
I think he has somewhat more connection with Scotland than merely being born there.
Reed was Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Education Department from 1988 to 1989, and to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department from 1989 to 1995. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1995, and Advocate Depute in 1996. He was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the country's College of Justice, in 1998, with the judicial title, Lord Reed. He sat initially as a Judge of the Outer House, becoming Principal Commercial Judge in 2006...He was promoted to the Inner House (First Division) in 2008
His Scottishness may not affect your view of the Court or the decision, but you're surely not saying he is not a true scotsman?
I am saying he is part of an English court making a decision on Scottish Law that should be done by the Court of Session in Scotland, I care not a jot what his nationality is and fact he is Scottish does not make it valid..
Do you think the Court of Session would have ruled differently?
no idea but at least it would have had validity in the eyes of Scottish people@malcolmg
Suella Braverman says that the only way a persecuted child from a country in Africa who has a sibling in the UK could get here would be to enter illegally and then claim asylum. She then realises what she has said - as evidenced by her lips... https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1595362008072863746
That clip does neatly summarise Braverman's, and the government's, cynicism. It's Catch 22 exemplified:
- people crossing the Channel are trying to enter the UK illegally. - they should use safe, legal routes. - but there are no safe, legal routes from most countries. - so to claim asylum they need to cross the Channel illegally. - but it's illegal to cross the Channel illegally.
Its clear that we should do more closer to the points of origin of those genuinely seeking asylum. Its also pretty clear that many do not regard those crossing the channel as genuine because they are leaving a safe country.* This is the dilemna. We have operated decent schemes for Syria, Hong Kong and Ukraine recently. We should not be having to give asylum to Albanians.
*Note - this is not my view, but it is commonly expressed.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
I'm afraid there's a degree of "taunting and trolling" on this one. Some posters who are viscerally anti Sindy and the SNP actually relish the idea that Scot Nats want Independence but can't get it. That they're trapped and all frustrated. Not all the ardent Unionists on PB are like this - fact it's a minority - but some are and I personally find it pretty easy to spot. @Leon@HYUFD are perhaps the most obvious but there's another half dozen or so to varying degrees. But anyway, all good, all grist to the mill.
You cannot run a union or a nation allowing separatists to try and break away every 5 minutes. Spain for example certainly doesn't, the US fought a civil war to stop separatism. Russia and China are even now going after former separatists from their nation.
Even Canada did not allow Quebec separatists an independence referendum for 15 years after the first
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
As noted below the Northern Ireland Act specifies 7 years between independence referendums, so stipulating *some* minimum doesn't appear ridiculous. Presumably that is shorter for Ireland which is liable to resort to extra statutory protests vs Scotland which is not.
Which does raise the interesting question why there's an IRA but no SRA. No idea what the answer is.
Yes, some deminimus maybe makes sense if you go that route. But nothing like 20 odd years.
New: Adam Tolley KC will conduct the independent investigation into Dominic Raab, the Cabinet Office has said. He'll look into two formal complaints - one from Raab's time at the MoJ, another from his time at the Foreign Office. Both complaints were made on Nov 15. https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1595418044632809474
Isn't the irony of the SNP position that the very reserved powers that they bemoan Westminster having are exactly the same powers that they would use to prevent Scottish regions from seceding from an independent Scotland. Or given the imperative of 'democracy' would such regions that, for instance, voted by majority to remain part of the UK be able to hold their own independence referendums every 5 or 10 years?
Isn't it time to take the gloves off?
Partition always works out great, yeah why not give it a go in Scotland. Although in the interests of fairness let's give London a shot at secession too.
So perhaps we shouldn't partition Britain then when a large minority of Scots and a majority in various regions are not in favour?
Or is it partition of Britain okay, partition of Scotland not okay?
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
I'm afraid there's a degree of "taunting and trolling" on this one. Some posters who are viscerally anti Sindy and the SNP actually relish the idea that Scot Nats want Independence but can't get it. That they're trapped and all frustrated. Not all the ardent Unionists on PB are like this - fact it's a minority - but some are and I personally find it pretty easy to spot. @Leon@HYUFD are perhaps the most obvious but there's another half dozen or so to varying degrees. But anyway, all good, all grist to the mill.
I am suspicious of any ardent Unionist who lives and originates from anywhere other than Scotland (or, to be generous, England North of Lancaster). From the home counties it is a faraway country of which we know little, and genuine ardency vs willingness to troll is not easy to understand.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
That's ironic.
Oi you're out until you engage with a modicum of good faith and thinking cap.
Sorry, no.
You won't do good faith and thinking cap? Well marks for honesty at least!
I can't start doing good faith and thinking cap because I already am. I won't do shutting up because you disagree with me on the Nats' motivations.
Ok, you carry on. Free country, free speech, let a thousand flowers etc - they don't all have to look pretty or smell nice.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
I'm afraid there's a degree of "taunting and trolling" on this one. Some posters who are viscerally anti Sindy and the SNP actually relish the idea that Scot Nats want Independence but can't get it. That they're trapped and all frustrated. Not all the ardent Unionists on PB are like this - fact it's a minority - but some are and I personally find it pretty easy to spot. @Leon@HYUFD are perhaps the most obvious but there's another half dozen or so to varying degrees. But anyway, all good, all grist to the mill.
I am suspicious of any ardent Unionist who lives and originates from anywhere other than Scotland (or, to be generous, England North of Lancaster). From the home counties it is a faraway country of which we know little, and genuine ardency vs willingness to troll is not easy to understand.
Westminster should take the initiative re- the wording of any Referendum. No reason to leave it in the hands of the SNP or Holyrood.
As a nation (nations?) we need to learn the lesson of the brexit vote. The outcomes MUST be better establised before the vote. The issues are pretty clear: 1) Currency 2) National debt 3) Pensions 4) Military 5) Trade after the vote 6) Citizens rights after the vote (rUK and Scottish)
etc etc etc.
No more nebulous YES/NO or IN/OUT.
7) Free movement 8) Border arrangements 9) Right of abode
Comments
In short, this was a Scottish Court determining Scots law.
There would be nothing unreasonable about some limitations on repetition.
My logic would be:
- Constitutional referenda should be less frequent than general elections given any approved change is irreversible. Too frequent and we risk 'try until we get the right answer' issues.
- Nationalists have consistently performed very well in elections, so to the extent a mandate is possible, they have one.
- The UK has decided to make a major change in its constitutional arrangement since 2014 and Scotland was on the opposing side of that vote.
- 10-years represents a significant turnover in the composition of the electorate
You could make an argument for a different number, but I'd suggest leaving it too late would be an own goal for unionists.
“It’s a majority for independence” vs “how do you know”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/23/george-hotz-programming-prodigy-elon-musk-has-asked-help-fix/
During their time in office, three of America's last four presidents, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, saw their parties lose many capable people. I hope the same does not happen to the Conservatives.
And the Democrats lost Jane Harman, who was quite good on national security because, as far as I can tell, she and Nancy Pelosi did not get along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman
(For the record: I like both Scots and English, and think some commenters here ought to try a little harder to be friends across that border. It would be good, for example, if one of you would put new words to that song from he musical, "Oklahoma" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5cwSBnyQU )
I have not been BTL for a while as some of the comments were becoming deeply unpleasant & personally abusive. I had more than enough of that at work. While I'm quite certain I could be equally vitriolic back, I don't want to be. This is meant to be a fun & interesting forum - usually - not an endurance.
I will do some headers occasionally.
On the day the SC rules on Scotland, the King - with exquisite timing - visits the centre of legal London, South Square, & husband's chambers in particular. Here is a photo. (No, I am not in it.)
On topic, yesterday the parties were running an "Ask Her" campaign trying to get more women to stand for political positions. All very necessary. The parties should ask themselves tho' why any woman would seek to join parties which so often treat them so badly, which promote incompetent bullies to high office & which do nothing to implement the recommendations of reports on bullying/misogyny etc., such as the Cox report. Even the toughest woman will eventually say "stuff that" & "life's too short to put up with this shit".
I think it a shame that the younger Tory cohorts are leaving, but not because I share their views. The current Tory party needs a complete reboot, assuming it survives (not a certainty). But if the younger generation don't get involved, who - exactly - will do the reboot? Also, it is a very bad idea to have parties winning power with huge majorities. It means no effective opposition or scrutiny, both very bad things. It leads to complacency, arrogance, hubris and often very poor government - as we have seen in England with the Tories since 2019 & in Scotland with the SNP. We don't need it again with Labour in 2024 or 2025.
I am very busy with work & my role as Chair of Trustees of a school. KCSIE & Safer Recruitment have become my nightly reading. Safeguarding is a really key issue; it really pains me to read the dangerous nonsense some SNP MSPs are coming out with on the GRR Bill. If any of the candidates for Head (we're currently recruiting) said anything like that they'd be off the list not given the power to legislate. We'd probably be reporting them to the authorities with such an attitude.
Finally, almost without realising, I have acquired a literary agent, a charming tyrant, who has set me deadlines with a steely charm I can only marvel at. I must do what I'm told. Of course I am now suffering imposter syndrome so if @Leon is around, I will forgive him for never delivering on the Montenegro love nest if he can get his stalker whom he fondly (I assume) calls "that wanker @SeanT" to give me some tips. On writing, obviously. I also promised him a picnic on a Lake District beach in return for his editing skills. He's gone on about it enough on here.
"In writing you must kill all your darlings - as some writer once said. I am keeping it in mind all the time.
So I am off on My Great Big Literary Adventure.
Now back to obscurity.
1) Currency
2) National debt
3) Pensions
4) Military
5) Trade after the vote
6) Citizens rights after the vote (rUK and Scottish)
etc etc etc.
No more nebulous YES/NO or IN/OUT.
They could specify the franchise, question etc as part of the legislation to ensure that an attempt isn't made to abuse the process to get the "right" answer.
This would effectively take independence off the table until 2034, demonstrate that the UK government is willing to allow the Scots a vote, but not every five minutes, and would massively split the Nats between a "wait for 2034" and "we should unilaterally have a vote tomorrow" crowd.
Taking the independence off the table for another ten years or more also means that the next couple of elections in Scotland might start to become about the SNP's appalling mismanagement of public services (like Labour in Wales it appears they've managed stuff up lots of things even worse than the Tories have in England) rather than independence wish casting - which would be no bad thing.
I voted for the Greens in the locals because they pledged to sort out the cycle lane on my commute. Doesn't reflect my view on the rest of their policy positions.
An analogy might be I want PR to replace FPTP. I always want this, but my argument is enhanced if a FPTP election produces a really weird result. I don't just suddenly want it after the weird result, but the weird result enhances my argument.
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
It's quite often the best time to become an MP just as your party suffers a heavy defeat (e.g. Blair in 1983) as it gives you the chance to work your way up and then run for LOTO just as your party is moving back to electability.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998, a statute of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, provides that Northern Ireland will remain within the United Kingdom unless a majority of the people of Northern Ireland vote to form part of a united Ireland. It specifies that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland "shall exercise the power [to hold a referendum] if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland". Such referendums may not take place within seven years of each other.[19]
Actually now we have left the EU I think it is actually very difficult for the Scots to leave the Union as it sets up another NI situation. It would have been much easier while we were members of the EU for them to leave the union. However my opinion is not important, It is theirs that counts.
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
So let's move on
“There will be no deals going into the election, no deals coming out of the election”. Said "correct" when I put the above to him.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1595411554660454400
Suella Braverman says that the only way a persecuted child from a country in Africa who has a sibling in the UK could get here would be to enter illegally and then claim asylum. She then realises what she has said - as evidenced by her lips...
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1595362008072863746
Which does raise the interesting question why there's an IRA but no SRA. No idea what the answer is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1872_Scotland_v_England_football_match
Isn't it time to take the gloves off?
The pressure on that final qualifying game penalty shoot out then!
Although in the interests of fairness let's give London a shot at secession too.
Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede
Utah can't do it
Bavaria can't do it
Wales can't do it
Brittany can't do it
The Basques can't do it
And so on, and so forth
The polls aren't there yet.
Much the same applies to other referendum-worthy issues.
- people crossing the Channel are trying to enter the UK illegally.
- they should use safe, legal routes.
- but there are no safe, legal routes from most countries.
- so to claim asylum they need to cross the Channel illegally.
- but it's illegal to cross the Channel illegally.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
Its clear that we should do more closer to the points of origin of those genuinely seeking asylum. Its also pretty clear that many do not regard those crossing the channel as genuine because they are leaving a safe country.*
This is the dilemna. We have operated decent schemes for Syria, Hong Kong and Ukraine recently. We should not be having to give asylum to Albanians.
*Note - this is not my view, but it is commonly expressed.
Even Canada did not allow Quebec separatists an independence referendum for 15 years after the first
https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1595418044632809474
Or is it partition of Britain okay, partition of Scotland not okay?
Elno’s fringe right clown show 🤡continues to tank the Tesla stock price, the thing that gives him power.
I thought the bleeding would stop when the stock price was HALVED. Instead, it’s plummeting to $150.
Here’s what you need to know. https://twitter.com/BriannaWu/status/1595389001527361537/photo/1
8) Border arrangements
9) Right of abode