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.
We've seen plenty of videos with multiple drops. A drone building chap I know, who is working with Ukrainians online, says that they are increasing the payloads all the time.
A worry I and many colleagues who work on security issues had during Europe's lockdowns was how sustainable such measures were before societies break and tip into violence. UK and EU vaccine programmes meant that was avoided. But we're seeing a case study of these risks in China
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?
Sadly, I don't think we were in the Elizabethan age - just a few excitable commentators said it around coronation time. I think Edwardian would have been the last royal 'era' to have any significance, and Victorian the last one to be significant worldwide. Nobody went back to calling it Georgian when the secind wave of Georges were on the throne.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
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?
Sadly, I don't think we were in the Elizabethan age - just a few excitable commentators said it around coronation time. I think Edwardian would have been the last royal 'era' to have any significance, and Victorian the last one to be significant worldwide. Nobody went back to calling it Georgian when the secind wave of Georges were on the throne.
There was quite a lot of frothing about the new Elizabethan era when the late HMtQ succeeded to the throne, conquest of Everest, Skylon, breaking the sound barrier etc. etc.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
So they're Americans pretending to be Scottish not Scots pretending to be American?
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
Ah - that's partly it: I'd wear brogues with those socks.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
So they're Americans pretending to be Scottish not Scots pretending to be American?
Pretending to be Americans pretending to be Scots?
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
So they're Americans pretending to be Scottish not Scots pretending to be American?
What's wrong with them being Scots-American who have imported their liking for fitba? Might be a group from one of the Caledonian etc societies.
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?
Sadly, I don't think we were in the Elizabethan age - just a few excitable commentators said it around coronation time. I think Edwardian would have been the last royal 'era' to have any significance, and Victorian the last one to be significant worldwide. Nobody went back to calling it Georgian when the secind wave of Georges were on the throne.
There was quite a lot of frothing about the new Elizabethan era when the late HMtQ succeeded to the throne, conquest of Everest, Skylon, breaking the sound barrier etc. etc.
We had some wonderful things happen in the 50s, but in world cultural influence terms we were second division and shrinking. Which is fine. The Queen added some much needed sparkle and finesse to the whole show.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
Ah - that's partly it: I'd wear brogues with those socks.
You are going to cook in 13 or 16oz cloth out there.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
Scottish Americans wear clothes of their heritage shock. How is this any different to any of the other European national diasporas in America?
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
I'm only viscerally opposed to Scotland having repeated votes until they give the right answer - which is in itself a very EU thing to do.
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?
Sadly, I don't think we were in the Elizabethan age - just a few excitable commentators said it around coronation time. I think Edwardian would have been the last royal 'era' to have any significance, and Victorian the last one to be significant worldwide. Nobody went back to calling it Georgian when the secind wave of Georges were on the throne.
There was quite a lot of frothing about the new Elizabethan era when the late HMtQ succeeded to the throne, conquest of Everest, Skylon, breaking the sound barrier etc. etc.
We had some wonderful things happen in the 50s, but in world cultural influence terms we were second division and shrinking. Which is fine. The Queen added some much needed sparkle and finesse to the whole show.
It was however sort of being revived for a while with all kthe talk of buccaneering from the likes of Messrs Johnson, Rees-Mogg etc. around brexit (despite, or possibly because of, what the word really meant historically).
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
Footwear looks a bit golfy to me. Couple of weeks on the baked fairway away from drizzly Scotland with a bit of ABE bantz thrown in, manna to a certain type of older Scotch gentleman.
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
Also some desperate to see armed insurrection. Not nice. And not the independistas either. Which is also revealing.
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
Ah - that's partly it: I'd wear brogues with those socks.
You are going to cook in 13 or 16oz cloth out there.
The locals wear wool robes to keep the heat out. interesting whether that works in a kilt - it's certainly ventilated. And there is a *lot* of aircon out there, even outdoors, I gather.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
So they're Americans pretending to be Scottish not Scots pretending to be American?
What's wrong with them being Scots-American who have imported their liking for fitba? Might be a group from one of the Caledonian etc societies.
But they could just as easily be members of an Ayrshire gold club. Golf shoes in the colours of the Saltire (unless the man just has extremely bad taste) is over and above the call of duty for an American, however proud of their Scottish roots.
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'.
Now stop it, we can't have us agreeing.
I wasn’t thinking of a particular poster, I wasn’t thinking of Brexit, I was just thinking of how I understand democracy.
It’s demos Greek for people and cracy Greek for rule, People Rule to get away from cliques or establishments dominating everything. Rather like go over there and have a proper tear up with the Irianians, no, last time we done that we got our heads kicked in.
But US is a democracy without being parliamentary democracy, so how I understand parliamentary democracy is 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. You wouldn’t want to buy a house built on top of a sink hole, would you? So why would you buy a a mass referendum result built on top of a sink hole?
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
Also some desperate to see armed insurrection. Not nice. And not the independistas either. Which is also revealing.
I'm not, but I am puzzled as to why political violence comes so naturally to the Irish and not at all to the Scots. And grateful.
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
Footwear looks a bit golfy to me. Couple of weeks on the baked fairway away from drizzly Scotland with a bit of ABE bantz thrown in, manna to a certain type of older Scotch gentleman.
Snap (downthread).
I won't mention a meat product beginning with 'g', but we're all thinking it.
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
I'm only viscerally opposed to Scotland having repeated votes until they give the right answer - which is in itself a very EU thing to do.
Sorry, good faith and thinking cap remember? Neither on display here.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
So they're Americans pretending to be Scottish not Scots pretending to be American?
It is what I assumed also mainly because the USA is in the world cup and Scotland isn't and US citizens with either Scottish or Irish heritage do have a tendency to be rather proud of it.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
Footwear looks a bit golfy to me. Couple of weeks on the baked fairway away from drizzly Scotland with a bit of ABE bantz thrown in, manna to a certain type of older Scotch gentleman.
Snap (downthread).
I won't mention a meat product beginning with 'g', but we're all thinking it.
Still not convinced it's Ayrshire bacon, except at a remove. Golf also comes naturally to US gents. So still inconclusive.
And it's the complexions as well. I'd be brick red after 30 mins in Qatar, the amount of sun I've had recently. Never mind, one of life's great unsolved mysteries.
Wordle! A craze that died off as quickly as it arose. Happily.
Plenty of people are still playing it, although the trend of people sharing their result every day was never going to last. Thankfully.
I dropped Wordle when the number of pleasantly diverting daily puzzles which had come on the scene started to become a major time commitment. I limited myself to 6, and wordle didn't make the top 6. My rota is now Quintessential, Wardle, Worgle (this one: https://bronze-age.com/worgle/ - basically 6 letter wordle), Worldle, Nerdle and Quordle.
I'm no great shakes at the word ones, though I find them enjoyable enough. But I reckon my map scores are pretty good: I get slightly over 1 out of 5 on the first try on Wardle (and around 2 in 3 within 3 tries); and I get 3 in 4 Worldles right first time (and 7 out of 8 within 2). (/self-aggrandise mode: off/)
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
I am a Unionist and thus opposed to Scottish independence. However I say let's have another vote. The pro independence will lose. And then that will be the end of it just like Quebec 1980 and 1995.
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
I'm only viscerally opposed to Scotland having repeated votes until they give the right answer - which is in itself a very EU thing to do.
Sorry, good faith and thinking cap remember? Neither on display here.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
The footwear does suggest American. What's the point of them all donning kilts though? On the other hand, the kilts are all the right way round.
Footwear looks a bit golfy to me. Couple of weeks on the baked fairway away from drizzly Scotland with a bit of ABE bantz thrown in, manna to a certain type of older Scotch gentleman.
Snap (downthread).
I won't mention a meat product beginning with 'g', but we're all thinking it.
Still not convinced it's Ayrshire bacon, except at a remove. Golf also comes naturally to US gents. So still inconclusive.
Yes, not conclusive.
Though I do feel like a US golf club would blackball someone for those shoes. Not that I've ever been to the US golf club.
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
I am a Unionist and thus opposed to Scottish independence. However I say let's have another vote. The pro independence will lose. And then that will be the end of it just like Quebec 1980 and 1995.
If you were of a Unionist persuasion there is a case along those lines for having a vote now. The SNP definitely wasted Johnson.
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
I am a Unionist and thus opposed to Scottish independence. However I say let's have another vote. The pro independence will lose. And then that will be the end of it just like Quebec 1980 and 1995.
But surely a vote now would be insane? I am a huge supporter of UK independence, but there's no doubt that we have trade frictions and issues in NI as a result of the Brexit settlement. How is it in anyone’s interest to risk adding the huge shitshow of indy to that? It seems like one epoch-defining constitutional change per 10 years enough.
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.
And who defines "wrong decision"?
Who has ever been able to do that, except to their own satisfaction ?
The point of any democracy is that debate continues; it's never ended by a vote. The majority get their way, for a time, until the next vote. But that doesn't make them "right".
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 ...
Cheers. The Sindy debate on here is illuminating. Eg there are many English Brexiter posters viscerally opposed to Scotland having a vote. Conversely you have @DavidL - also a Brexiter but Scottish - who despite being a fervent supporter of the Union realizes it can't be maintained through compulsion.
I am a Unionist and thus opposed to Scottish independence. However I say let's have another vote. The pro independence will lose. And then that will be the end of it just like Quebec 1980 and 1995.
Easily the best approach. One based on confidence and democracy and political reality. So much better than arcane legal arguments and reams of bullshit about "once a generation" and "reserved powers" and "give em this vote and they'll want one every other Wednesday".
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
I don't think a multiple choice referendum would ever have been widely accepted. Would you not find it unfair if Indy was split up into 'indy with no hard border, indy but keeping Eastenders, indy with a currency union, full balls out indy with a new currency etc etc., and only the vote total of one of them was expected to be higher than remain?
It would always have been a binary referendum, so any fleshing out of the journey post-Brexit 'Exit into EEA for 5 years whilst a Royal commission on further changes is set up' would have just made it less scary and more likely to win.
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
If you had your thinking cap on you would realise that your opinion of what would have happened in the hypothetical situation suggested is just that.
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.
The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
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.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
The suggestion is that the deal would have been done, although that would still have led to three options - Remain, Leave with the deal, Leave with no deal.
At the very least there should have been a decision made on EEA in/out as well as Leave/Remain.
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.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
So after being told that we held all the cards before Brexit, only to discover we didn’t, have Scots been told they would hold all the cards after independence? Asking for a friend…
Iran look the likelier to score. On the evidence of monday England are going through with two more high scoring wins, but football isn’t that simple.
Indeed. But if this could be a draw that would at least put us in total control of the group: but we still need to put the States away, which we never have in a competitive match.
Germany will officially recognise the Holodomor, the Soviet artificial famine against the population of Ukraine in the years 1932-1933 which killed between three and five million Ukrainians, as genocide.
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'.
Now stop it, we can't have us agreeing.
I wasn’t thinking of a particular poster, I wasn’t thinking of Brexit, I was just thinking of how I understand democracy.
It’s demos Greek for people and cracy Greek for rule, People Rule to get away from cliques or establishments dominating everything. Rather like go over there and have a proper tear up with the Irianians, no, last time we done that we got our heads kicked in.
But US is a democracy without being parliamentary democracy, so how I understand parliamentary democracy is 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. You wouldn’t want to buy a house built on top of a sink hole, would you? So why would you buy a a mass referendum result built on top of a sink hole?
Re your first para - I agree completely. Don't know where you thought I thought you were talking about Brexit from. I wasn't. Re particular poster again I wasn't. Just gave it as an example of the opposite of where we should always consider the minority view in a democracy as you said and I agree with you.
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.
I wasn't talking about it "binding future parliaments", as well you know.
But rehearsing all the issues that would be impacted would not make those issues go away, even if there were changes in Government.
It is very telling that there is a huge reluctance to address these practical issues as part of the debate. Almost as if Scotland never expects independence never to actually happen. Especially if these issues are comprehensively aired.
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'.
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'.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
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.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
So after being told that we held all the cards before Brexit, only to discover we didn’t, have Scots been told they would hold all the cards after independence? Asking for a friend…
We held quite a lot of cards (not all) but played them badly. And the card we didn't hold (the ability to walk away from a deal because we were ready to do so) was the trump card. We tried to bluff a bit that we held it, but we didn't.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
There was plenty of "what if Brexit?" thinking
You called it Project Fear
And lo, it came to pass...
No it didn't. You claiming all the Covid and Ukraine war disruption as "Brexit, innit?" looks very desperate.
It makes topping the group possible after the USA match. So players could potentially be rested for Wales.
AS long as we play to beat the Welsh and hopefully knock them out that is all good.
Time was, the English tended to support the Scots, Welsh and Irish, even if it was one way. I'm still in that particular boat, to be honest. I'd love to see Wales qualify. Because a) I like Wales, and have Welsh friends, and so on, and b) a bitter rivalry in which the bitterness only goes one way is quite fun.
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely: 1) England 2) Sco/Wal/NI 3) Ireland 4) Can/Aus/NZ 5) USA 6) Scandinavia 7) Any minnows 8) Other north Europeans 9) Other south Europeans 10) South Americans
Iran look the likelier to score. On the evidence of monday England are going through with two more high scoring wins, but football isn’t that simple.
Indeed. But if this could be a draw that would at least put us in total control of the group: but we still need to put the States away, which we never have in a competitive match.
Fun though that kind of stat are, what happened in 1950 and 2010 are totally irrelevant today.
I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.
Puzzled by this. Pukka Americans, I think. The kilts don't feel like your average upper middle class Scottish wedding and Burns Nicht wear. Yet the sporrans are very US Scots style - too expensive looking to be cheap accessories sold with a see you Jimmy hat. I wouldn't wear anything so flashy. And not an orange Sauciehall Street tan or red radiation burn in sight.
It’s not just Scots that like to wind up the English. Americans like to as well.
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
I don't think a multiple choice referendum would ever have been widely accepted. Would you not find it unfair if Indy was split up into 'indy with no hard border, indy but keeping Eastenders, indy with a currency union, full balls out indy with a new currency etc etc., and only the vote total of one of them was expected to be higher than remain?
It would always have been a binary referendum, so any fleshing out of the journey post-Brexit 'Exit into EEA for 5 years whilst a Royal commission on further changes is set up' would have just made it less scary and more likely to win.
Yep, binary is the way. As for defining the Leave option on the ballot to be "EEA for 5 years and after this it all depends on what a Royal Commission says" - we need a word for something that sounds superficially sensible but in practice has almost no possibility of happening. Being serious here - we do need a word for that. It's a precise thing, crops up a lot, and I don't think there is a bespoke word for it. My "not happening event" is too clunky.
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.
I wasn't talking about it "binding future parliaments", as well you know.
But rehearsing all the issues that would be impacted would not make those issues go away, even if there were changes in Government.
It is very telling that there is a huge reluctance to address these practical issues as part of the debate. Almost as if Scotland never expects independence never to actually happen. Especially if these issues are comprehensively aired.
Like Labour's policies in goverment, which are being kept for the election campaign, they will wait for the actual referendum campaign, which may be some years ahead. There's been plenty of debate and discussion already as you know perfectly well.
You can't refuse a referendum and simultaneously expect a referendum campaign.
Out of curiousity could the UK legislate (S30 I think) for a referendum if the scots parliament didn't want one?
S30 would hand the power to the Scottish Parliament to hold one within a defined time frame (say by end-2023) - so if they didn’t want to hold it they’d just do nothing.
On the other hand, as it’s a reserved matter I don’t see why legally Westminster couldn’t hold a referendum in Scotland - as it’s within their competence. The politics might not be quite so straight forward….
Whilst I obviously support England in preference, as a good Aberystwyth graduate I really wanted Wales to win.
But I can't see them doing anything other than draw now. They really aren't very good. Five minutes (plus two hours added time) to try and get a win.........
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
That would have been Cameron taking the lead from John Howard's method of holding a referendum when you personally support the status quo.
It would also be sensible for the Westminster PM to go down this route, which was more or less suggetsed below.
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.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
I don't think a multiple choice referendum would ever have been widely accepted. Would you not find it unfair if Indy was split up into 'indy with no hard border, indy but keeping Eastenders, indy with a currency union, full balls out indy with a new currency etc etc., and only the vote total of one of them was expected to be higher than remain?
It would always have been a binary referendum, so any fleshing out of the journey post-Brexit 'Exit into EEA for 5 years whilst a Royal commission on further changes is set up' would have just made it less scary and more likely to win.
Yep, binary is the way. As for defining the Leave option on the ballot to be "EEA for 5 years and after this it all depends on what a Royal Commission says" - we need a word for something that sounds superficially sensible but in practice has almost no possibility of happening. Being serious here - we do need a word for that. It's a precise thing, crops up a lot, and I don't think there is a bespoke word for it. My "not happening event" is too clunky.
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.
I wasn't talking about it "binding future parliaments", as well you know.
But rehearsing all the issues that would be impacted would not make those issues go away, even if there were changes in Government.
It is very telling that there is a huge reluctance to address these practical issues as part of the debate. Almost as if Scotland never expects independence never to actually happen. Especially if these issues are comprehensively aired.
Like Labour's policies in goverment, which are being kept for the election campaign, they will wait for the actual referendum campaign, which may be some years ahead. There's been plenty of debate and discussion already as you know perfectly well.
You can't refuse a referendum and simultaneously expect a referendum campaign.
So what’s all this then?
Building a New Scotland It is vital that the people of Scotland have the information they need to make an informed choice about Scotland's future.
A series of papers, titled ‘Building a New Scotland’, together form a prospectus for an independent Scotland.
Comments
https://twitter.com/aphclarkson/status/1596092716185968641
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
⬜🟨⬜🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRjFWDGs1g
It’s demos Greek for people and cracy Greek for rule, People Rule to get away from cliques or establishments dominating everything. Rather like go over there and have a proper tear up with the Irianians, no, last time we done that we got our heads kicked in.
But US is a democracy without being parliamentary democracy, so how I understand parliamentary democracy is 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. You wouldn’t want to buy a house built on top of a sink hole, would you? So why would you buy a a mass referendum result built on top of a sink hole?
Just off the top of my head.
I won't mention a meat product beginning with 'g', but we're all thinking it.
And it's the complexions as well. I'd be brick red after 30 mins in Qatar, the amount of sun I've had recently. Never mind, one of life's great unsolved mysteries.
I'm no great shakes at the word ones, though I find them enjoyable enough. But I reckon my map scores are pretty good: I get slightly over 1 out of 5 on the first try on Wardle (and around 2 in 3 within 3 tries); and I get 3 in 4 Worldles right first time (and 7 out of 8 within 2).
(/self-aggrandise mode: off/)
Though I do feel like a US golf club would blackball someone for those shoes. Not that I've ever been to the US golf club.
It still seems very popular.
The point of any democracy is that debate continues; it's never ended by a vote.
The majority get their way, for a time, until the next vote.
But that doesn't make them "right".
It would always have been a binary referendum, so any fleshing out of the journey post-Brexit 'Exit into EEA for 5 years whilst a Royal commission on further changes is set up' would have just made it less scary and more likely to win.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
At the very least there should have been a decision made on EEA in/out as well as Leave/Remain.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1596103790864011265
https://m.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/bundestag-will-holodomor-als-voelkermord-anerkennen-18486312.html
Didn't understand the rest of the post.
But rehearsing all the issues that would be impacted would not make those issues go away, even if there were changes in Government.
It is very telling that there is a huge reluctance to address these practical issues as part of the debate. Almost as if Scotland never expects independence never to actually happen. Especially if these issues are comprehensively aired.
You called it Project Fear
And lo, it came to pass...
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely:
1) England
2) Sco/Wal/NI
3) Ireland
4) Can/Aus/NZ
5) USA
6) Scandinavia
7) Any minnows
8) Other north Europeans
9) Other south Europeans
10) South Americans
You can't refuse a referendum and simultaneously expect a referendum campaign.
On the other hand, as it’s a reserved matter I don’t see why legally Westminster couldn’t hold a referendum in Scotland - as it’s within their competence. The politics might not be quite so straight forward….
But I can't see them doing anything other than draw now. They really aren't very good.
Five minutes (plus two hours added time) to try and get a win.........
It would also be sensible for the Westminster PM to go down this route, which was more or less suggetsed below.
I am neither conventionally right nor left, but I agree with your point.
The woke mind virus has thoroughly penetrated entertainment and is pushing civilization towards suicide.
There needs to be a counter-narrative.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1596083744728928257
Building a New Scotland
It is vital that the people of Scotland have the information they need to make an informed choice about Scotland's future.
A series of papers, titled ‘Building a New Scotland’, together form a prospectus for an independent Scotland.
https://www.gov.scot/newscotland/