This is an interesting watch. But I disagree with @AlexSalmond’s suggestion that the UKSC comments on self-determination were “over-reach”. They were an answer to the SNP’s written case, which needed to be addressed.
Scot Gov admits that no modelling of a fundamental consequence of independence has been done. They have no record of the issue ever being discussed. Should be a big story.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
I think it is slightly more nuanced than 'the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum'. They didn't. The voted for parties that want that and have formed a coalition(?) government with a majority. Not every SNP or Green voter will have voted explicitly for those parties just because of the referendum position. Some may want SNP government but not Indpendence (Nicola Sturgeon for one!). Was the vote framed as just a vote on independence?
I think there is a case for setting down criteria, although opinion polls need to be treated with caution. How do we determine a 'valid' poll? Number sampled? Previous vote? Errors? Should there need to be independent surveys?
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
Ooops. You do have to wonder at the thought processes of the people who thought doing live-action war roleplay was a good idea not far from the Russia-Ukraine border.
1/ In what may be a bizarre case of mistaken identity, the Russian FSB has killed a group of Russian people it claims are pro-Ukrainian saboteurs – but who reportedly appear to be Airsoft enthusiasts who were engaged in live-action roleplay of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. video games. ⬇️ https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1596066963608178688
Scot Gov admits that no modelling of a fundamental consequence of independence has been done. They have no record of the issue ever being discussed. Should be a big story.
Currency discussions in SG - Carlotta + the rest of the Yoons furious at the waste of public money.
Currency discussions kept out of SG and within SNP - Carlotta and the rest of the Yoons furious ...
But economy discussions are held within the SG at cost to tax payers. But these don't include currency transaction costs. The uncharitable might think they weren't serious.....
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
No, and yes.
Practically, if there were a significant increase in support for independence, and that was evidenced in an election, the case for a referendum would be unanswerable.
If everything stays about where it is now, then it would be another decade, probably.
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
The normally noisy Lady Mone has broken her 11 month twitter silence with a prime piece of livelaughlove-ology. I shall stop believing what I think this instant.
Having read about her involvement in dodgy PPE contracts, I think she's a money grabbing, apparently corrupt politician, who has received millions from state coffers.
According to Bloomberg, the German Government are planning on imposing a windfall tax of 90% on renewable operators including wind solar and nuclear. It will apply to all earnings above €130 a megawatt.
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
Carolin, more usually.
Puts me in mind of a Fleetwood Mac song...
ETA: Should have saved that for pillsbury's response
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
No, they didn't. At the last Scottish parliament election the people of Scotland voted the way they did for many reasons. The SNP stood on a broad manifesto so you can't count all their votes as definitely supporting one aspect of that manifesto.
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
I think it would be Carolean, except that with the best will in the world I don't expect it to last long enough to count as an "era".
Note the tiny votes for Labour in the IOW seat and for the LDs in the Bassetlaw seat - voters doing well to work out who the likely winner will be.
The Bassetlaw result is really good for Labour. A very rural ward never gained by Labour before. Typically 60+% Tory vote.
Similarly in the IOW for the LibDems - a safe rural Tory seat in the west of the island, previously (prior to some boundary shuffling) represented by the now Tory MP for the IOW. Doubtless helped along by the previous councillor (and previous Tory Group Leader on the council) having thrown in both his Tory membership and his seat during those long days of the Truss premiership.
Bob Seeley going for East rather than West Wight with the new boundaries? Any idea which is the better opposition prospect? Difficult to know which party is best placed to take the seats?
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
Carolin, more usually.
Puts me in mind of a Fleetwood Mac song...
ETA: Should have saved that for pillsbury's response
Weirdly (but may be right) Wikipedia thinks Charles I was Caroline, Charles Ii was Carolean.
A complaint of pro-SNP bias has been upheld by the BBC watchdog after the broadcaster serialised a book by a Scottish government medical adviser a fortnight before an election. Devi Sridhar, a professor of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, served as a high-profile consultant to Nicola Sturgeon during the pandemic.
The independent expert drew on her experiences in her work Preventable: How a Pandemic Changed the World and How to Prevent the Next One, which was broadcast as Radio 4’s book of the week two weeks before the local elections in May. One excerpt discussed the damage done to public health policy by Dominic Cummings’s visit to County Durham and its repercussions.
One listener contacted the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) to report what they perceived to be bias in favour of the SNP. They claimed the broadcast “contained material which was politically partial in relation to the Scottish local authority elections, which were less than two weeks away”....
The ECU also upheld a complaint that an edition of Reporting Scotland had shown “bias against Brexit”.
Incredible video of Russian soldiers in a dug out having grenades dropped from drones. They are so cold and exhausted that they can barely move. Mobilised Russians have not been equipped for the cold.
This little video is truly incredible. I recommend everybody watch it several times, to let it sink in. It says so much about why Russia is losing this war. A short thread. https://twitter.com/warnerta/status/1596017726212169728
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Well, fair enough, if that's how they want to spend their money. But is not a wee bit tragic to spend that much money and effort travelling to an unpleasant desert shithole where beer is unavailable in the hope of seeing someone you hate lose? That a rival's misfortune should cause you so much pleasure that you are willing to considerably impoverish and inconvenience yourself to share in it? I mean, I enjoyed seeing Cameroon beating Argentina in the opening stage of the 1990 World Cup on the telly. But it gave me, what, half an hour's pleasure? I think that's proportionate. I think the intensity of what these fellas are doing is absolutely deranged. Though, who knows, maybe they live in Qatar anyway. Maybe they're just five odd-looking Scottish pensioners who happen to be there and have thought it might be jolly to team kilts they already own with USA tops. Who knows.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
No, they didn't. At the last Scottish parliament election the people of Scotland voted the way they did for many reasons. The SNP stood on a broad manifesto so you can't count all their votes as definitely supporting one aspect of that manifesto.
So we should let Scotland have a referendum on whether they want to have a referendum, and if they vote 'Yes' they can have the in/out referendum, if not then that's it for a decade?
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
I think it is slightly more nuanced than 'the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum'. They didn't. The voted for parties that want that and have formed a coalition(?) government with a majority. Not every SNP or Green voter will have voted explicitly for those parties just because of the referendum position. Some may want SNP government but not Indpendence (Nicola Sturgeon for one!). Was the vote framed as just a vote on independence?
I think there is a case for setting down criteria, although opinion polls need to be treated with caution. How do we determine a 'valid' poll? Number sampled? Previous vote? Errors? Should there need to be independent surveys?
We have a representative democracy. You vote for individuals based on a manifesto of policies. Whether a voter personally endorsed the pledge to hold another referendum or not, if they voted for the parties pledging that in their manifesto or not you are voting for it.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Meanwhile, any PR system by definition is designed to allow politicians to choose the party make up of the government after the election with no reference to the voters. We've seen enough examples of a party that, based on votes and seats, should have a chance to be in the government being frozen out of negotiations for being unacceptable. And almost always from one side of the political spectrum, funnily enough.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Well, fair enough, if that's how they want to spend their money. But is not a wee bit tragic to spend that much money and effort travelling to an unpleasant desert shithole where beer is unavailable in the hope of seeing someone you hate lose? That a rival's misfortune should cause you so much pleasure that you are willing to considerably impoverish and inconvenience yourself to share in it? I mean, I enjoyed seeing Cameroon beating Argentina in the opening stage of the 1990 World Cup on the telly. But it gave me, what, half an hour's pleasure? I think that's proportionate. I think the intensity of what these fellas are doing is absolutely deranged. Though, who knows, maybe they live in Qatar anyway. Maybe they're just five odd-looking Scottish pensioners who happen to be there and have thought it might be jolly to team kilts they already own with USA tops. Who knows.
Chillax, I think they are more likely US of Scotch descent, than Glasgow neds, judging by tans and baseball cap.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
No, they didn't. At the last Scottish parliament election the people of Scotland voted the way they did for many reasons. The SNP stood on a broad manifesto so you can't count all their votes as definitely supporting one aspect of that manifesto.
So we should let Scotland have a referendum on whether they want to have a referendum, and if they vote 'Yes' they can have the in/out referendum, if not then that's it for a decade?
Well, I think the court ruling was clear enough on this point: the Scottish parliament doesn't have the right to call a referendum unilaterally so votes for the Scottish parliament cannot create a mandate for a referendum. That's arguably true even if the SNP were to stand on a one-line manifesto of "we will have an immediate referendum and will make no other political decisions until the referendum is over" - it's certainly true under a broad manifesto.
The solution, of course, is obvious - put political pressure on the Parliament that can call a referendum to have a referendum. But thus far, with less than 10% of seats in that Parliament and no political leverage against any other party in it, and with support in Scotland for separation being barely, if any, higher than eight years ago, that seems quite some time away.
Utterly conflicted here, do I back the great evil that is Wales or Iran.
So I’m going to break the habit of a lifetime and support Iran this morning, I’m doing it for the protestors.
There's a question here;: if the Iranian team win matches, who benefits? The protestors or the regime?
The answer is probably the regime. Therefore backing the team would be a negative for the protestors. (This might change if the Iranian team make a very big political statement - bigger than the admirable ones they have already done).
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Well, fair enough, if that's how they want to spend their money. But is not a wee bit tragic to spend that much money and effort travelling to an unpleasant desert shithole where beer is unavailable in the hope of seeing someone you hate lose? That a rival's misfortune should cause you so much pleasure that you are willing to considerably impoverish and inconvenience yourself to share in it? I mean, I enjoyed seeing Cameroon beating Argentina in the opening stage of the 1990 World Cup on the telly. But it gave me, what, half an hour's pleasure? I think that's proportionate. I think the intensity of what these fellas are doing is absolutely deranged. Though, who knows, maybe they live in Qatar anyway. Maybe they're just five odd-looking Scottish pensioners who happen to be there and have thought it might be jolly to team kilts they already own with USA tops. Who knows.
Chillax, I think they are more likely US of Scotch descent, than Glasgow neds, judging by tans and baseball cap.
That would make more sense. Certainly pensioner #5 looks very American: my first thought was that pensioners 1-4 and 6 had accosted an American and dressed him in a kilt. And look at pensioner #6's teeth! Definitely American teeth, those.
Pensioners 3 and 4 could be Scottish, and Pensioner #1 at a push. Pensioner #2 is an odd looking fella.
But on reflection, your explanation is almost certainly the right one - not least because of the utter insanity of going to a dry desert state in the hope of watching your neighbours lose.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
The eastern boundary of the Kingdom of Cornwall was fixed as the River Tamar by Aethelstan in about 934. So it is actually fairly close in size and shape to the modern county.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
Cornwall has a far better case for secession than Scotland, as does the South West as a whole, the West Midlands and anywhere else in England. Unlike the Scots we do not enjoy any meaningful degree of independent devolved self-government.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
So we should let Scotland have a referendum on whether they want to have a referendum, and if they vote 'Yes' they can have the in/out referendum, if not then that's it for a decade?
Well, I think the court ruling was clear enough on this point: the Scottish parliament doesn't have the right to call a referendum unilaterally so votes for the Scottish parliament cannot create a mandate for a referendum. That's arguably true even if the SNP were to stand on a one-line manifesto of "we will have an immediate referendum and will make no other political decisions until the referendum is over" - it's certainly true under a broad manifesto.
The solution, of course, is obvious - put political pressure on the Parliament that can call a referendum to have a referendum. But thus far, with less than 10% of seats in that Parliament and no political leverage against any other party in it, and with support in Scotland for separation being barely, if any, higher than eight years ago, that seems quite some time away.
This seems to me to be pretty much saying "No, Scotland is too small and so it does not have a democratic path to independence": its size means that it's never going to have more than about 10% of seats in Westminster. So that's not a "solution" at all in my view, it's just the tory "we can block this so we will, never mind the trouble we're storing up for the future" policy.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
Certainly not. The borders of 'ancient Kernow' (and ancient Cymru, for that matter) extend as far as the North Sea. That's the problem with history. "No vestige of a beginning..." etc etc.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
Cornwall has a far better case for secession than Scotland, as does the South West as a whole, the West Midlands and anywhere else in England. Unlike the Scots we do not enjoy any meaningful degree of independent devolved self-government.
This debate ultimately is the post-code lottery. Areas and regions and places want self-determination, local services locally run. But they don't want other places to have better services than they get - the post-code lottery.
If localities are to make their own decisions, that inevitably means different service provisions. Which means place x will have poorer services than place y...
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Meanwhile, any PR system by definition is designed to allow politicians to choose the party make up of the government after the election with no reference to the voters. We've seen enough examples of a party that, based on votes and seats, should have a chance to be in the government being frozen out of negotiations for being unacceptable. And almost always from one side of the political spectrum, funnily enough.
When you vote for a party you almost certainly do not believe in all their manifesto. In fact in many cases you are voting to keep out another party than voting for the one you want so a coalition is no different. You might be lucky enough to get all the bits from those selected from the combined manifestos that you like (or possibly none at all of course) but to suggest the voters don't get a choice or at least to claim one is better than the other is silly as in nearly all UK elections a majority government is formed from a minority of votes and often a long way short of a majority.
In terms of almost always from one side of the spectrum, in the UK the only recent example was the LDs in coalition with the Conservatives so not in line with what you imply. It really does just depend upon how the votes/seats fall. If rightwing parties hold a majority they will form a government, if not they won't. There is no conspiracy here.
I would argue that the Con/LD coalition produced a sensible government moderating the extremes and selecting generally the best of both manifestos.
So we should let Scotland have a referendum on whether they want to have a referendum, and if they vote 'Yes' they can have the in/out referendum, if not then that's it for a decade?
Well, I think the court ruling was clear enough on this point: the Scottish parliament doesn't have the right to call a referendum unilaterally so votes for the Scottish parliament cannot create a mandate for a referendum. That's arguably true even if the SNP were to stand on a one-line manifesto of "we will have an immediate referendum and will make no other political decisions until the referendum is over" - it's certainly true under a broad manifesto.
The solution, of course, is obvious - put political pressure on the Parliament that can call a referendum to have a referendum. But thus far, with less than 10% of seats in that Parliament and no political leverage against any other party in it, and with support in Scotland for separation being barely, if any, higher than eight years ago, that seems quite some time away.
This seems to me to be pretty much saying "No, Scotland is too small and so it does not have a democratic path to independence": its size means that it's never going to have more than about 10% of seats in Westminster. So that's not a "solution" at all in my view, it's just the tory "we can block this so we will, never mind the trouble we're storing up for the future" policy.
Nothing stops the SNP either putting up candidates in the rest of the country or allying with a party that stands outwith Scotland.
And if there's actual strong demand for a new referendum in Scotland, then Parliament wouldn't ignore that. The SNP's problem is that there really isn't.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
Well now - what are the correct borders of Scotland? Can you indicate on a map?
So we should let Scotland have a referendum on whether they want to have a referendum, and if they vote 'Yes' they can have the in/out referendum, if not then that's it for a decade?
Well, I think the court ruling was clear enough on this point: the Scottish parliament doesn't have the right to call a referendum unilaterally so votes for the Scottish parliament cannot create a mandate for a referendum. That's arguably true even if the SNP were to stand on a one-line manifesto of "we will have an immediate referendum and will make no other political decisions until the referendum is over" - it's certainly true under a broad manifesto.
The solution, of course, is obvious - put political pressure on the Parliament that can call a referendum to have a referendum. But thus far, with less than 10% of seats in that Parliament and no political leverage against any other party in it, and with support in Scotland for separation being barely, if any, higher than eight years ago, that seems quite some time away.
This seems to me to be pretty much saying "No, Scotland is too small and so it does not have a democratic path to independence": its size means that it's never going to have more than about 10% of seats in Westminster. So that's not a "solution" at all in my view, it's just the tory "we can block this so we will, never mind the trouble we're storing up for the future" policy.
It's the minority shareholders problem. The Companies Acts have specific provisions to prevent minorities being oppressed in this way.
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
I think it would be Carolean, except that with the best will in the world I don't expect it to last long enough to count as an "era".
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
Carolingian. This term has form.
That's the term for a dynasty descended from Charles, though, not a reign.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
No it doesn't. It's no different to people in a PR system saying they voted for a particular individual to become leader.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
So we should let Scotland have a referendum on whether they want to have a referendum, and if they vote 'Yes' they can have the in/out referendum, if not then that's it for a decade?
Well, I think the court ruling was clear enough on this point: the Scottish parliament doesn't have the right to call a referendum unilaterally so votes for the Scottish parliament cannot create a mandate for a referendum. That's arguably true even if the SNP were to stand on a one-line manifesto of "we will have an immediate referendum and will make no other political decisions until the referendum is over" - it's certainly true under a broad manifesto.
The solution, of course, is obvious - put political pressure on the Parliament that can call a referendum to have a referendum. But thus far, with less than 10% of seats in that Parliament and no political leverage against any other party in it, and with support in Scotland for separation being barely, if any, higher than eight years ago, that seems quite some time away.
This seems to me to be pretty much saying "No, Scotland is too small and so it does not have a democratic path to independence": its size means that it's never going to have more than about 10% of seats in Westminster. So that's not a "solution" at all in my view, it's just the tory "we can block this so we will, never mind the trouble we're storing up for the future" policy.
Nothing stops the SNP either putting up candidates in the rest of the country or allying with a party that stands outwith Scotland.
And if there's actual strong demand for a new referendum in Scotland, then Parliament wouldn't ignore that. The SNP's problem is that there really isn't.
That is potty as under fptp they don't stand a chance because for most English people Scottish independence is very low on their priority list and as we have to vote on a mix of everything you are asking the impossible.
To take it to its ridiculous extreme it is like me being asked about a planning decision in Cornwall when I live near Guildford. I don't give a toss and even if I did it has sod all to do with me.
I have no view on whether Scotland should be independent or not. I guess most English people are similar or just don't care, but I do believe it is up to the Scots and they do care whether they are pro or anti so it is their decision not mine.
Do you not see how your two arguments today conflict with one another. You are pro fptp and anti coalition, yet you expect the English to be able to vote in people who stand on Scottish Independence platform in England. Under our current voting arrangements no matter how pro English people were for independence that just gets swamped by other stuff (economy, brexit, NHS, etc, etc) so is unrealistic.
In Holyrood today Nicola Sturgeon accepted our NHS reporting except to deny that this was a meeting of board chief executives. So to explain our reporting 1. The minutes are titled “Board Chief Executives and Functional Groups Chairs Meeting”. 1/2
2. NHS Borders chief exec (and chair of the chief execs group) Ralph Roberts is minuted as speaking at the meeting. 3. We told the Scottish Government in advance when seeking a right of reply that it was described as a chief execs meeting and they did not quibble in their reply.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
I think it is slightly more nuanced than 'the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum'. They didn't. The voted for parties that want that and have formed a coalition(?) government with a majority. Not every SNP or Green voter will have voted explicitly for those parties just because of the referendum position. Some may want SNP government but not Indpendence (Nicola Sturgeon for one!). Was the vote framed as just a vote on independence?
I think there is a case for setting down criteria, although opinion polls need to be treated with caution. How do we determine a 'valid' poll? Number sampled? Previous vote? Errors? Should there need to be independent surveys?
Why not have a separate voting paper in every election for the scots parliament with the question I want an independence referendum in the coming parliament Yes/No
On topic, I don't have a strong opinion for or against independence but the conventional solution here would be to get a million Scots together and march on Westminster. Just fucking shut down London, for as long as it takes.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
If only life was like that. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Haven't we learned that lesson with the post-Brexit comedy?
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
Carolingian. This term has form.
That's the term for a dynasty descended from Charles, though, not a reign.
Time for a campaign to restore the Holy Roman Empire. Carolus III would have a better imperial claim than many when you consider his ancestry (the Georges, Prince Albert, and a cast of thousands). Maybe the pope will come to the coronation and do the necessary. It's been too long since 1806.
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
Carolingian. This term has form.
That's the term for a dynasty descended from Charles, though, not a reign.
Time for a campaign to restore the Holy Roman Empire. Carolus III would have a better imperial claim than many when you consider his ancestry (the Georges, Prince Albert, and a cast of thousands). Maybe the pope will come to the coronation and do the necessary. It's been too long since 1806.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
Well now - what are the correct borders of Scotland? Can you indicate on a map?
Sure. The border was settled centuries ago. And there is the previous Scottish state to revet back to which has the same border as Scotland has now. What was the geographic border of the precursor Kernow state before it became part of England, and is it the same as the current County Council?
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
If only life was like that. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Haven't we learned that lesson with the post-Brexit comedy?
In a democracy, by definition the voters cannot be wrong.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
If only life was like that. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Haven't we learned that lesson with the post-Brexit comedy?
Some people don't even believe what they think, apparently!
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
If only life was like that. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Haven't we learned that lesson with the post-Brexit comedy?
In a democracy, by definition the voters cannot be wrong.
Of course they can.
a) People change their mind b) If people voted the earth was flat would that make it right? And by the way such nutty things have happened eg US state defining pi incorrectly and voting it through.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
If only life was like that. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Haven't we learned that lesson with the post-Brexit comedy?
In a democracy, by definition the voters cannot be wrong.
Don't be silly; of course they can.
Democracy merely gives them the right to make wrong decisions.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
If only life was like that. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Haven't we learned that lesson with the post-Brexit comedy?
In a democracy, by definition the voters cannot be wrong.
Don't be silly; of course they can.
Democracy merely gives them the right to make wrong decisions.
On topic: Regardless of the technicalities if support in Scotland for Independence is persistently close to or breaching 50% there will have to be a Vote on it. Nothing else is tenable.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Incredible video of Russian soldiers in a dug out having grenades dropped from drones. They are so cold and exhausted that they can barely move. Mobilised Russians have not been equipped for the cold.
This little video is truly incredible. I recommend everybody watch it several times, to let it sink in. It says so much about why Russia is losing this war. A short thread. https://twitter.com/warnerta/status/1596017726212169728
That's pretty tame stuff compared to the infamous 'steaming face removal' grenade drop or the one where the Wagner greybeard keeps trying (and failing) to kill himself with an AK-74M after he's wounded by a drop. It's not 'truly incredible' nor even just 'incredible'.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
Well now - what are the correct borders of Scotland? Can you indicate on a map?
Sure. The border was settled centuries ago. And there is the previous Scottish state to revet back to which has the same border as Scotland has now. What was the geographic border of the precursor Kernow state before it became part of England, and is it the same as the current County Council?
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Not acceptable. Could be cancelled by the next parliament. I'm astounded at the number of supposed fervent conservatives and defenders of the UK who are keen to subvert parliamentary democracy.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
If only life was like that. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Haven't we learned that lesson with the post-Brexit comedy?
In a democracy, by definition the voters cannot be wrong.
Of course they can.
a) People change their mind b) If people voted the earth was flat would that make it right? And by the way such nutty things have happened eg US state defining pi incorrectly and voting it through.
c) the number one point of democracy is it’s about trying to incorporate and care for minority views in decision making. We are all in it together. Governments drawn from command of the legislature shouldn’t just give lip service to “we govern for everyone”. d) the other number one point of democracy is the best way to create laws is not through mass referendums but through professional lawmakers to have the time to consider the details and save the country future grief by removing inherent vice.
On topic: Regardless of the technicalities if support in Scotland for Independence is persistently close to or breaching 50% there will have to be a Vote on it. Nothing else is tenable.
Just thinking that your brief but summary post the other day was one of the saner ones on the matter and summed it up pretty well.
Apropos of nothing, I note that Ms, or rather now Baroness, Mone was one of the great figureheads of the Better Together campaign and of Scottish Conservatism and Unionism. Her famous Scottish factory has now closed down despite a No victory in 2014, and the lady has departed ...
Strangely. Just Baxtered a 42-31. And that gives a majority of 10. I expect it to be more. Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are. So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
A lot of casual observers don’t realise how much potential unfairness is already baked into our crooked voting system. It’s a miracle we haven’t had another of those elections where the second most supported party actually gets the most seats.
No it isn’t.
The comment implies that there’s a randomness, or capriciousness, about the way FPTP as practised in the UK translates the popular vote into seats.
Not so.
What FPTP almost always does, as the record shows going back many decades, is award a substantial bonus in terms of seats to the party that gains the most votes. Whether this results in an outright majority, however, is subject to two conditions: (a) the winning party must get more than about 40%; and (b), it must have a decent lead, say 3%, over its nearest rival.
Since the present party system became established, which I am taking as being the 1924 GE when Liberal representation collapsed from 158 to 40, FPTP has delivered this outcome almost infallibly. Of the 25 GEs during this time, the two requirements of a 40% vote and 3% lead have been achieved on 15 occasions and each time the ascendant party has been rewarded with a decent governing majority (Tories 11 (1924, 1931, 1935, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2019); Labour 4 (1945, 1966, 1997, 2001)).
On the 10 occasions where these two requirements were not met, the system delivered:
four hung Parliaments (1929, Feb 1974, 2010, 2017);
four very small majorities (1950, 1964, Oct 1974, 2015); and
two system failures (in 1951 Labour narrowly won the popular vote (48.8 to 48.0) but the Tories gained a small majority of 17, and in 2005 Labour won only 35.2% of the vote with a lead of 2.8% (so failing both elements of the test) but gained a very comfortable majority of 66).
Given the closeness of the numbers in 1951, I'd say that 2005 represents the clearest failure of the system, and it favoured Labour.
Despite the apparently analytical nature of your response, your conclusion rests entirely upon your assumptions.
The “test” assumes that it is legitimate for a party that has only 40% support and only a minimum 3% lead over its rival to assume majority power. That is a highly contestable assertion.
Second, even by your own yardstick you still concede a system failure rate of 8%, which in any other walk of life would be considered a system unfit for purpose.
Third, the system has other purposes in addition to selecting a government. Even if you dismiss the question of representation, there is still the question of how the government is held to account, and by whom. 1983 is clearly a further failure of the system in handing this task almost entirely to the Labour Party despite the vote share it received being similar to that of the hugely underrepresented Alliance parties.
I’d also suggest that the later election when UKIP received a significant vote without any representation at all is a further instance of failure.
IanB2 is answering an argument I didn’t make. At no point did I express a view one way or the other about whether the current FPTP system is ‘legitimate’. My point was not about legitimacy, which after all is a matter of opinion, but about predictability.
As for the 8% failure rate, this was rather harsh marking on my part because neither 1951 or 2005 can be described as an outright failure.
The worse case was certainly 2005, when Labour gained only 35.2% of the popular vote yet was rewarded with a majority of 66. But even here, the system generated the correct winner and Labour’s lead over the Tories, 2.8%, was more than marginal. A fairer outcome would probably have been either a wafer-thin Labour majority or a hung Parliament with Labour as much the largest party; but even so, 2005 was a relative failure rather than an absolute one.
As for 1951, this was an election of very tight margins with Labour ahead in the popular vote by only 0.8%. Yes, this has to be considered a failure because the outcome was a Tory majority, but it was only 17. So while it was wrong, it was not outrageously wrong. Feb 1974 is the only other example where the system generated the ‘wrong’ winner, although in the case Labour had most seats (but not a majority) although the Tories led in the popular vote. But in both 1951 and Feb 1974 the winning margin, in the popular vote, was less than 1%, so I’d see them as instances of the minor distortions and uncertainties at the margin that are a feature not only of FPTP but of almost all electoral systems including most so-called ‘proportional’ ones.
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
It is Carolean.
Caroline and Carolean are pre-empted, which I didn'tr know.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Can't bind future parliaments in UK or rUK - still less Scotland. It would not be, after all, an international treaty - because that would prejudge the situation.
Incredible video of Russian soldiers in a dug out having grenades dropped from drones. They are so cold and exhausted that they can barely move. Mobilised Russians have not been equipped for the cold.
This little video is truly incredible. I recommend everybody watch it several times, to let it sink in. It says so much about why Russia is losing this war. A short thread. https://twitter.com/warnerta/status/1596017726212169728
That's pretty tame stuff compared to the infamous 'steaming face removal' grenade drop or the one where the Wagner greybeard keeps trying (and failing) to kill himself with an AK-74M after he's wounded by a drop. It's not 'truly incredible' nor even just 'incredible'.
Scot Gov admits that no modelling of a fundamental consequence of independence has been done. They have no record of the issue ever being discussed. Should be a big story.
Incredible video of Russian soldiers in a dug out having grenades dropped from drones. They are so cold and exhausted that they can barely move. Mobilised Russians have not been equipped for the cold.
This little video is truly incredible. I recommend everybody watch it several times, to let it sink in. It says so much about why Russia is losing this war. A short thread. https://twitter.com/warnerta/status/1596017726212169728
That's pretty tame stuff compared to the infamous 'steaming face removal' grenade drop or the one where the Wagner greybeard keeps trying (and failing) to kill himself with an AK-74M after he's wounded by a drop. It's not 'truly incredible' nor even just 'incredible'.
It's all just so utterly sad.
Most drones just drop one grenade so staying in the hole is probably the move after it's landed on your mate.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.
Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.
And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.
What if Cornwall wanted self-determination? Or Yorkshire? Or Pimlico?
What of it? I lived in Thornaby-on-Tees, where the local wazzock party demanded independence from Stockton Borough Council. SBC told them it was a matter determined by the Boundary Commission and not them. Vote goes ahead, 80% boycott it. Wazzocks declare victory and demand SBC release them. SBC refer them again to the BCE.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
Well now - what are the correct borders of Scotland? Can you indicate on a map?
Sure. The border was settled centuries ago. And there is the previous Scottish state to revet back to which has the same border as Scotland has now. What was the geographic border of the precursor Kernow state before it became part of England, and is it the same as the current County Council?
Also: Scots Law prevails in Scotland right back to before 1707. Another strong indicator of continuity, notably in land tenure and ownership. Ultimately the land on which my house stands was seised of the King by the local lord and in turn to the occupiers before me before the sasine tenure was bought out in the 1960s and converted to the local equivalent of freehold in England.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s
That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?
It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.
Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.
With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?
A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.
That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.
The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example
When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.
Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.
Then surely the government should be chosen by voters at an election, not by politicians after it?
We do not elect a government. Under the current system we elect the named individual on the ballot paper. The type of PR system shown may apply a different methodology.
In theory, but not in practice.
Snipped right there because that is the problem we have. Our democracy is pretty simple. Elect an MP. MPs elect a government. MPs vote however they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
If most people think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister then they are, because this is a democracy. A lot of MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament, let by Sir Keir, thought they could ignore that. If you remember, it didn't end that well for them.
If only life was like that. Believing in something doesn't make it real. Haven't we learned that lesson with the post-Brexit comedy?
In a democracy, by definition the voters cannot be wrong.
Of course they can.
a) People change their mind b) If people voted the earth was flat would that make it right? And by the way such nutty things have happened eg US state defining pi incorrectly and voting it through.
c) the number one point of democracy is it’s about trying to incorporate and care for minority views in decision making. We are all in it together. Governments drawn from command of the legislature shouldn’t just give lip service to “we govern for everyone”. d) the other number one point of democracy is the best way to create laws is not through mass referendums but through professional lawmakers to have the time to consider the details and save the country future grief by removing inherent vice.
I very strongly agree with both of those points, In particular c), something I get annoyed with hyufd about when he says 'tough we won'.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
Incredible video of Russian soldiers in a dug out having grenades dropped from drones. They are so cold and exhausted that they can barely move. Mobilised Russians have not been equipped for the cold.
This little video is truly incredible. I recommend everybody watch it several times, to let it sink in. It says so much about why Russia is losing this war. A short thread. https://twitter.com/warnerta/status/1596017726212169728
That's pretty tame stuff compared to the infamous 'steaming face removal' grenade drop or the one where the Wagner greybeard keeps trying (and failing) to kill himself with an AK-74M after he's wounded by a drop. It's not 'truly incredible' nor even just 'incredible'.
It's all just so utterly sad.
Most drones just drop one grenade so staying in the hole is probably the move after it's landed on your mate.
I've read that many now drop at least two: you get much more accuracy that way, as you can see where the first one dropped, and adjust for the second. There are also videos of some drones with four or five dangling off them.
All this mess; all this misery, injury and death, was just so avoidable. One man's fascist-imperialist dream for his country has led to all of this.
Comments
@AlexSalmond’s suggestion that the UKSC comments on self-determination were “over-reach”. They were an answer to the SNP’s written case, which needed to be addressed.
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1596063123949379586
I think there is a case for setting down criteria, although opinion polls need to be treated with caution. How do we determine a 'valid' poll? Number sampled? Previous vote? Errors? Should there need to be independent surveys?
My son (who has forgiven the late Queen for not attending the jubilee party his play group put on for her - he commented after her death that perhaps she wasn't feeling very well and that's why she didn't come) has asked me, if we were in the Elizabethan period up until her death, are we now in the Charlseian period?
This, to be honest, had me stumped. It follows: Edwardian, Georgian, Elizabethan etc... But Charlseian souds wrong. Charlian? Chuckian? Charlatan?
Is it in fact Carolean, as a quick google suggests, from Carolus?
https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-new-scotland-stronger-economy-independence/
Practically, if there were a significant increase in support for independence, and that was evidenced in an election, the case for a referendum would be unanswerable.
If everything stays about where it is now, then it would be another decade, probably.
Is that what she's getting at ?
According to Bloomberg, the German Government are planning on imposing a windfall tax of 90% on renewable operators including wind solar and nuclear. It will apply to all earnings above €130 a megawatt.
ETA: Should have saved that for pillsbury's response
The independent expert drew on her experiences in her work Preventable: How a Pandemic Changed the World and How to Prevent the Next One, which was broadcast as Radio 4’s book of the week two weeks before the local elections in May. One excerpt discussed the damage done to public health policy by Dominic Cummings’s visit to County Durham and its repercussions.
One listener contacted the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) to report what they perceived to be bias in favour of the SNP. They claimed the broadcast “contained material which was politically partial in relation to the Scottish local authority elections, which were less than two weeks away”....
The ECU also upheld a complaint that an edition of Reporting Scotland had shown “bias against Brexit”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5cef021a-6c4b-11ed-b8ae-c57034dfa905
This little video is truly incredible. I recommend everybody watch it several times, to let it sink in. It says so much about why Russia is losing this war. A short thread.
https://twitter.com/warnerta/status/1596017726212169728
But is not a wee bit tragic to spend that much money and effort travelling to an unpleasant desert shithole where beer is unavailable in the hope of seeing someone you hate lose? That a rival's misfortune should cause you so much pleasure that you are willing to considerably impoverish and inconvenience yourself to share in it?
I mean, I enjoyed seeing Cameroon beating Argentina in the opening stage of the 1990 World Cup on the telly. But it gave me, what, half an hour's pleasure? I think that's proportionate. I think the intensity of what these fellas are doing is absolutely deranged.
Though, who knows, maybe they live in Qatar anyway. Maybe they're just five odd-looking Scottish pensioners who happen to be there and have thought it might be jolly to team kilts they already own with USA tops. Who knows.
That is how our democratic system works.
Meanwhile, any PR system by definition is designed to allow politicians to choose the party make up of the government after the election with no reference to the voters. We've seen enough examples of a party that, based on votes and seats, should have a chance to be in the government being frozen out of negotiations for being unacceptable. And almost always from one side of the political spectrum, funnily enough.
Cornwall is a County Council. There is no cornish precursor state for it to seek to return to. Are the borders of ancient Kernow identical to the modern county?
Lab 50% (nc)
Con 27% (-1)
LibDem 9% (+1)
Green 4% (nc)
SNP 4% (nc)
1,625 questioned 23-24 Nov.
Changes with 17 Nov.
Data - http://www.technetracker.co.uk https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1596054565467881472/photo/1
So I’m going to break the habit of a lifetime and support Iran this morning, I’m doing it for the protestors.
The solution, of course, is obvious - put political pressure on the Parliament that can call a referendum to have a referendum. But thus far, with less than 10% of seats in that Parliament and no political leverage against any other party in it, and with support in Scotland for separation being barely, if any, higher than eight years ago, that seems quite some time away.
The answer is probably the regime. Therefore backing the team would be a negative for the protestors. (This might change if the Iranian team make a very big political statement - bigger than the admirable ones they have already done).
And look at pensioner #6's teeth! Definitely American teeth, those.
Pensioners 3 and 4 could be Scottish, and Pensioner #1 at a push. Pensioner #2 is an odd looking fella.
But on reflection, your explanation is almost certainly the right one - not least because of the utter insanity of going to a dry desert state in the hope of watching your neighbours lose.
Yet that isn't what probably most voters think. I expect that almost all voters - myself included - make statements like "I voted [party name here]. A smaller number though still very sizeable say "I voted for Boris / Corbyn" etc.
When most people incorrectly think they are voting for a party or a Prime Minister, it demonstrates utterly why FPTP is not fit for purpose.
*Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right
*Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked.
However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
If localities are to make their own decisions, that inevitably means different service provisions. Which means place x will have poorer services than place y...
In terms of almost always from one side of the spectrum, in the UK the only recent example was the LDs in coalition with the Conservatives so not in line with what you imply. It really does just depend upon how the votes/seats fall. If rightwing parties hold a majority they will form a government, if not they won't. There is no conspiracy here.
I would argue that the Con/LD coalition produced a sensible government moderating the extremes and selecting generally the best of both manifestos.
And if there's actual strong demand for a new referendum in Scotland, then Parliament wouldn't ignore that. The SNP's problem is that there really isn't.
Don't think Wales will do it though.
To take it to its ridiculous extreme it is like me being asked about a planning decision in Cornwall when I live near Guildford. I don't give a toss and even if I did it has sod all to do with me.
I have no view on whether Scotland should be independent or not. I guess most English people are similar or just don't care, but I do believe it is up to the Scots and they do care whether they are pro or anti so it is their decision not mine.
Do you not see how your two arguments today conflict with one another. You are pro fptp and anti coalition, yet you expect the English to be able to vote in people who stand on Scottish Independence platform in England. Under our current voting arrangements no matter how pro English people were for independence that just gets swamped by other stuff (economy, brexit, NHS, etc, etc) so is unrealistic.
2. NHS Borders chief exec (and chair of the chief execs group) Ralph Roberts is minuted as speaking at the meeting. 3. We told the Scottish Government in advance when seeking a right of reply that it was described as a chief execs meeting and they did not quibble in their reply.
https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1595911507904462848
Seems a no brainer to me if you want to find out
A Show Of Shame - Belgian Weapons Deliveries To #Ukraine 🇧🇪🇺🇦
Updated with:
- Sleeping Bags
https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1596077769313722368
*(c) PB.
a) People change their mind
b) If people voted the earth was flat would that make it right? And by the way such nutty things have happened eg US state defining pi incorrectly and voting it through.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PhysInHistory/status/1596059153973522433
On this day in 1906, the first triode was ordered by Lee de Forest. It extended the Fleming two-element diode valve design. De Forest named his invention the "Audion."
He profited a lot from it when he sold his patent to AT&T for a total of $390,000.
Democracy merely gives them the right to make wrong decisions.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
d) the other number one point of democracy is the best way to create laws is not through mass referendums but through professional lawmakers to have the time to consider the details and save the country future grief by removing inherent vice.
Apropos of nothing, I note that Ms, or rather now Baroness, Mone was one of the great figureheads of the Better Together campaign and of Scottish Conservatism and Unionism. Her famous Scottish factory has now closed down despite a No victory in 2014, and the lady has departed ...
As for the 8% failure rate, this was rather harsh marking on my part because neither 1951 or 2005 can be described as an outright failure.
The worse case was certainly 2005, when Labour gained only 35.2% of the popular vote yet was rewarded with a majority of 66. But even here, the system generated the correct winner and Labour’s lead over the Tories, 2.8%, was more than marginal. A fairer outcome would probably have been either a wafer-thin Labour majority or a hung Parliament with Labour as much the largest party; but even so, 2005 was a relative failure rather than an absolute one.
As for 1951, this was an election of very tight margins with Labour ahead in the popular vote by only 0.8%. Yes, this has to be considered a failure because the outcome was a Tory majority, but it was only 17. So while it was wrong, it was not outrageously wrong. Feb 1974 is the only other example where the system generated the ‘wrong’ winner, although in the case Labour had most seats (but not a majority) although the Tories led in the popular vote. But in both 1951 and Feb 1974 the winning margin, in the popular vote, was less than 1%, so I’d see them as instances of the minor distortions and uncertainties at the margin that are a feature not only of FPTP but of almost all electoral systems including most so-called ‘proportional’ ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolean_era
So it'll have to be Chuckian or Brian.
Now stop it, we can't have us agreeing.
All this mess; all this misery, injury and death, was just so avoidable. One man's fascist-imperialist dream for his country has led to all of this.