A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Assault with an egg is a fairly common assault. Slapping someone with a whole lobe of foie gras is a little more refayned.
HM the King should not bother with petty little trials. He should just be allowed to beat his assailant to death. With a swan.
There should be some perks to being a King.
Bit harsh. On the swan.
How's about allowing HM to beat the malefactor with a DEAD swan?
More humane - and more royal - than being savaged by a dead sheep!
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Assault with an egg is a fairly common assault. Slapping someone with a whole lobe of foie gras is a little more refayned.
HM the King should not bother with petty little trials. He should just be allowed to beat his assailant to death. With a swan.
OGH's headline is factually incorrect, although it is largely accurate from perspective of most Brit bettors.
Note that there are number of recounts for various offices, either still ongoing or yet to commence, across USA from sea to shining sea.
For example - and for comic relief - in WA 3rd Congressional, Putinist loser Joe Kent has requested a machine recount, which won't happen until the WA Secretary of State certifies the election later this week.
Basically just more grifting by a MAGA-maniac grifter, emulating his role model the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo. BUT meaning that the Georgia runnoff - which itself will not be certified today obviously - is NOT the "Final Final Chapter" for the 2022 US midterm elections.
Shocked to find out that egg chucker has a long history of being arrested and is an eco- fascist that is still a student in his mid 20s. Only thing missing from the bingo card is that he spends his summers travelling to places like Bali with his private school chums and that his parents are multi-millionaires.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
I think a 51/49 Senate would make three differences.
1. The Senate Committees would be majority Democrat rather than 50/50 and deadlocked as now. So the Senate will be more productive. Vacancies will be filled.
2. Kamala Harris won't have to hang around Washingtom with her casting vote and she can get on with her VP job. Might make a difference if Biden doesn't stand.
Angela Rayner seems to have total amnesia about how Labour was demanding that PPE contracts be entered into.
I hope she gets reminded.....
I remember their hilarious dossier that was saying why wasn't the government fast tracking deals with these highly qualified suppliers....like football agents.....
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
A furious lorry driver has said "police need to get a backbone" after officers told off motorists for honking their horns at Just Stop Oil protesters.
Four van loads of Metropolitan Police officers walked alongside around 20 activists from the eco group this morning as they evaded arrest once again with their "slow march" tactic.
The protesters turned out in Southwark, south London, on Tuesday just after 8am and blocked three lanes of traffic.
One lorry driver stuck at the front of the blockade sounded his deafening air horn at the protesters, prompting a strolling police officer to rush over to him and order him to "pack it in".
The lorry driver told The Telegraph: "The police officer told me my air horn was hurting his ears - w------ aren't they.
Shocked to find out that egg chucker has a long history of being arrested and is an eco- fascist that is still a student in his mid 20s. Only thing missing from the bingo card is that he spends his summers travelling to places like Bali with his private school chums and that his parents are multi-millionaires.
Quite a bit in common with HM, then. You'd think he'd be more friendly.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
How is Scotland any more a historic nation than Bavaria or Gujurat?
Texas, Hawaii and Newfoundland could all enter the chat too.
This is another step up for @nanopore and I know its been a time in R&D. Duplex means getting both strands of a single molecule reading one after the other (using some molecular biology dark arts); calling it *jointly* reduces error by ~an order of magnitude (Q20->Q30). https://mobile.twitter.com/ewanbirney/status/1600160252975992832
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
And politely suggest its best not to use 'Celtic' as a synonym of the non-English nations. It's not accurate for Scotland (even if one means the Highlands and Western Islands, which is obviously not the case here), and a lot of people in NI would take great offence.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Is that a joke? The idea heads of state (or indeed government) cannot be or shouldn't be unpopular enough to get an egg thrown at them is risible. It doesn't take a great deal of unpopularity for a few people to throw eggs, or boo, or chant. Kings have had much worse.
Honestly, there are good sound reasons to oppose monarchy or at the least (if still supportive) point out where there is trouble on the horizon (commonwealth realms, Harry and Meghan, being an anachronism), so why do people go for such shit ones?
The enemy for Charles is apathy, and if he doesn't keep his mouth shut, not getting excited about pending revolution because someone threw an egg.
Saw an article which had the summary that the original purpose of Instagram had been lost in the age of 'performance media'.
Without being too grumpy old man about it, I confess I didn't know what the original purpose of Instagram was. I thought it's niche was that young people wanted a place away from their grandparents on Facebook.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
And politely suggest its best not to use 'Celtic' as a synonym of the non-English nations. It's not accurate for Scotland (even if one means the Highlands and Western Islands, which is obviously not the case here), and a lot of people in NI would take great offence.
I see the inclusion of the UK as a voting member as a way to avoid a tied vote, and to recognise the stake of the UK Government in the process. The effective 'doubling' of the 'English' vote isn't a characterisation I would agree with, but it does gesture slightly toward the population magnititude of England, whilst also recognising the equal historical nationhood of the other parties, regardless of size. It is important within the system that Wales, NI, and Scotland could, as a voting group, get the UK Government to think again, but not weighted so that this becomes the usual status quo. The UK Government has to convince at least 2 of the parties to vote with it - if it can't do this, why is it proposing something?
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
It's not essential - the English leader could just be the designated representative of English MPs.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
And politely suggest its best not to use 'Celtic' as a synonym of the non-English nations. It's not accurate for Scotland (even if one means the Highlands and Western Islands, which is obviously not the case here), and a lot of people in NI would take great offence.
I see the inclusion of the UK as a voting member as a way to avoid a tied vote, and to recognise the stake of the UK Government in the process. The effective 'doubling' of the 'English' vote isn't a characterisation I would agree with, but it does gesture slightly toward the population magnititude of England, whilst also recognising the equal historical nationhood of the other parties, regardless of size. It is important within the system that Wales, NI, and Scotland could, as a voting group, get the UK Government to think again, but not weighted so that this becomes the usual status quo. The UK Government has to convince at least 2 of the parties to vote with it - if it can't do this, why is it proposing something?
Ah, thanks. Better, though, to have a majority vote than mix incommensurates, though - you can't have the proposing body part of the referring body, any more than the HoC is part of the HoL.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Is that a joke? The idea heads of state (or indeed government) cannot be or shouldn't be unpopular enough to get an egg thrown at them is risible. It doesn't take a great deal of unpopularity for a few people to throw eggs, or boo, or chant. Kings have had much worse.
Honestly, there are good sound reasons to oppose monarchy or at the least (if still supportive) point out where there is trouble on the horizon (commonwealth realms, Harry and Meghan, being an anachronism), so why do people go for such shit ones?
The enemy for Charles is apathy, and if he doesn't keep his mouth shut, not getting excited about pending revolution because someone threw an egg.
My point wasn't about what should or shouldn't happen, or about revolution, but how it looks for a guy who prances around embodying the state while calling himself "the king" to have photos of himself splatted with protestor-thrown eggs distributed around this new-fangled thing called the internet and thereby enter into a few billion minds.
Tsar Alexander II was assassinated but he didn't have a problem like that.
It doesn't look good. There's a contradiction there. It could grow.
When has any other king had that kind of thing? What is the closest example you can cite? It's not like a city mayor who gets booed everywhere he goes and it doesn't affect his position much.
Being "king" is all about the formal respect that is shown to the person. (Paul Keating got into awful trouble for putting his hand on the late queen's back.) The king gets ritual respect shown to him all over the place - in courtrooms, on banknotes, in the armed forces (two of which are called "royal"), in what senior barristers call their rank, in what the government's summary of its proposed legislation is called, etc. etc. The plan is that the king will be the main focus of a big televised event next year too, bigger than any model's strut up a catwalk. Yet he can't go for a simple walkabout without getting his bonce egged. Or his coat. OK neither his head nor his clothes have been egged so far, but it's only a matter of time before an egg hits its target. See if they can stop photos getting out. That'll be new.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
And politely suggest its best not to use 'Celtic' as a synonym of the non-English nations. It's not accurate for Scotland (even if one means the Highlands and Western Islands, which is obviously not the case here), and a lot of people in NI would take great offence.
I see the inclusion of the UK as a voting member as a way to avoid a tied vote, and to recognise the stake of the UK Government in the process. The effective 'doubling' of the 'English' vote isn't a characterisation I would agree with, but it does gesture slightly toward the population magnititude of England, whilst also recognising the equal historical nationhood of the other parties, regardless of size. It is important within the system that Wales, NI, and Scotland could, as a voting group, get the UK Government to think again, but not weighted so that this becomes the usual status quo. The UK Government has to convince at least 2 of the parties to vote with it - if it can't do this, why is it proposing something?
Ah, thanks. Better, though, to have a majority vote than mix incommensurates, though - you can't have the proposing body part of the referring body, any more than the HoC is part of the HoL.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Assault with an egg is a fairly common assault. Slapping someone with a whole lobe of foie gras is a little more refayned.
HM the King should not bother with petty little trials. He should just be allowed to beat his assailant to death. With a swan.
There should be some perks to being a King.
Bit harsh. On the swan.
Some pretty bad-tempered royalists out today. Must be the weather.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Is that a joke? The idea heads of state (or indeed government) cannot be or shouldn't be unpopular enough to get an egg thrown at them is risible. It doesn't take a great deal of unpopularity for a few people to throw eggs, or boo, or chant. Kings have had much worse.
Honestly, there are good sound reasons to oppose monarchy or at the least (if still supportive) point out where there is trouble on the horizon (commonwealth realms, Harry and Meghan, being an anachronism), so why do people go for such shit ones?
The enemy for Charles is apathy, and if he doesn't keep his mouth shut, not getting excited about pending revolution because someone threw an egg.
My point wasn't about what should or shouldn't happen, or about revolution, but how it looks for a guy who prances around embodying the state while calling himself "the king" to have photos of himself splatted with protestor-thrown eggs distributed around this new-fangled thing called the internet and thereby enter into a few billion minds.
Tsar Alexander II was assassinated but he didn't have a problem like that.
It doesn't look good. There's a contradiction there. It could grow.
When has any other king had that kind of thing? It's not like a city mayor who gets booed everywhere he goes and it doesn't affect his position much.
Being "king" is all about the formal respect that is shown to the person. (Paul Keating got into awful trouble for putting his hand on the late queen's back.) The king gets ritual respect shown to him all over the place - in courtrooms, on banknotes, in the armed forces (two of which are called "royal"), in what senior barristers call their rank, in what the government's summary of its proposed legislation is called, etc. etc. The plan is that the king will be the main focus of a big televised event next year too, bigger than any model's strut up a catwalk. Yet he can't go for a simple walkabout without getting his bonce egged. Or his coat. OK neither his head nor his clothes have been egged so far, but it's only a matter of time before an egg hits its target. See if they can stop photos getting out. That'll be new.
Given his namesake as King was beheaded in 1649 I think an egg being thrown at him is not a major issue.
Though the culprit should be dealt with as they are. If his special branch team allows an egg to hit him then they are at fault not the King as it could easily be a gun. Hence so far they are careful enough to stop it.
Had an egg been thrown at the Queen in the UK the crowd would probably have lynched the thrower, the King may not get that level of respect but the thrower of the last egg has still had death threats against them
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
If Scotland has a veto on UK foreign and defence policy as you suggest then the UK is effectively over in terms of Scotland given Holyrood already runs most Scottish domestic policy already
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
If Scotland has a veto on UK foreign and defence policy as you suggest then the UK is effectively over in terms of Scotland given Holyrood already runs most Scottish domestic policy already
Angela Rayner seems to have total amnesia about how Labour was demanding that PPE contracts be entered into.
I hope she gets reminded.....
But MM, and I don't wish to defend Rayner, who incidentally looks like she is holding a fag in the HoC, there are contracts procuring fit for purpose PPE that fulfils the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, and there are contracts for s***e that is only fit for the dumpster. Your government entered into both types of contract.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Is that a joke? The idea heads of state (or indeed government) cannot be or shouldn't be unpopular enough to get an egg thrown at them is risible. It doesn't take a great deal of unpopularity for a few people to throw eggs, or boo, or chant. Kings have had much worse.
Honestly, there are good sound reasons to oppose monarchy or at the least (if still supportive) point out where there is trouble on the horizon (commonwealth realms, Harry and Meghan, being an anachronism), so why do people go for such shit ones?
The enemy for Charles is apathy, and if he doesn't keep his mouth shut, not getting excited about pending revolution because someone threw an egg.
My point wasn't about what should or shouldn't happen, or about revolution, but how it looks for a guy who prances around embodying the state while calling himself "the king" to have photos of himself splatted with protestor-thrown eggs distributed around this new-fangled thing called the internet and thereby enter into a few billion minds.
Tsar Alexander II was assassinated but he didn't have a problem like that.
It doesn't look good. There's a contradiction there. It could grow.
When has any other king had that kind of thing? What is the closest example you can cite? It's not like a city mayor who gets booed everywhere he goes and it doesn't affect his position much.
Being "king" is all about the formal respect that is shown to the person. (Paul Keating got into awful trouble for putting his hand on the late queen's back.) The king gets ritual respect shown to him all over the place - in courtrooms, on banknotes, in the armed forces (two of which are called "royal"), in what senior barristers call their rank, in what the government's summary of its proposed legislation is called, etc. etc. The plan is that the king will be the main focus of a big televised event next year too, bigger than any model's strut up a catwalk. Yet he can't go for a simple walkabout without getting his bonce egged. Or his coat. OK neither his head nor his clothes have been egged so far, but it's only a matter of time before an egg hits its target. See if they can stop photos getting out. That'll be new.
Isn't this a fine old tradition? Didn't the Prince Regent get pelted by the London mob from time to time?
The Vanarama National League have been on the phone, they are asking why one of their matches is being shown in place of the last 16 match at the WC.....
The Vanarama National League have been on the phone, they are asking why one of their matches is being shown in place of the last 16 match at the WC.....
Bit of a slur on non-league football. At last there's generally a bit of action. If often accidentally.
The Vanarama National League have been on the phone, they are asking why one of their matches is being shown in place of the last 16 match at the WC.....
Bit of a slur on non-league football. At last there's generally a bit of action. If often accidentally.
The finishing has been non-league football level....
I sometimes think people exaggerate the brutality of American police, but today I learned of the case of Daniel Shaver. Murdered in cold blood by a psycho cop as Shaver crawled, weeping, towards him
Warning: it is far worse than the awful George Floyd video. You will never unsee it
I’m currently reading the “Commission on the UK’s Future”. All 155 pages.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
There’s some good stuff in there - and I know you're big on decentralization - but swapping my Labour hat for the pundit one I’d say the good stuff isn't really the point. Starmer is ruthlessly closing in now and this is smart politics, following the Blair template. He knows the country being sick of the Tories is enough for them to lose but not enough for Labour to win a decisive majority. To ‘seal the deal’ he needs to inject the sense of a party bristling with ideas. That electing them will bring real change.
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
Shocked to find out that egg chucker has a long history of being arrested and is an eco- fascist that is still a student in his mid 20s. Only thing missing from the bingo card is that he spends his summers travelling to places like Bali with his private school chums and that his parents are multi-millionaires.
Pater owns an island in the Caribbean too.
Seriously, I wonder whether the authorities will try not to name him this time. They might follow Jacinda Ardern's move wrt the terrorist murderer Brenton Tarrant. Even if it was only an egg.
According to the BBC's royal correspondent, "I was standing only a few feet away, there was nothing obviously shouted and nothing seemed to land near the King. Although steered, he didn't seem stirred."
It might be hard to make a common assault charge stick, given testimony like that. Was the king caused to be apprehensive that he would imminently suffer an act of actual violence? That's what the prosecution need to prove in a common assault case when a defendant pleads not guilty
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.
It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.
The Vanarama National League have been on the phone, they are asking why one of their matches is being shown in place of the last 16 match at the WC.....
Bit of a slur on non-league football. At last there's generally a bit of action. If often accidentally.
The finishing has been non-league football level....
Esp Morocco. Who I'm rooting for. But I suppose Spain will come through.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.
It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.
The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.
It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.
The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.
It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.
Some metonyms are also subtly aimed political messages which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular demographic group. Others are just metonyms.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.
It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.
The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.
It's not necessarily racist.
But some of it is driven by racism.
And the SNP foster and benefit from that element.
Excellent evideence against that is that the party has a very large component of English incomers for independence. They have their own group.
The Vanarama National League have been on the phone, they are asking why one of their matches is being shown in place of the last 16 match at the WC.....
Bit of a slur on non-league football. At last there's generally a bit of action. If often accidentally.
The finishing has been non-league football level....
Esp Morocco. Who I'm rooting for. But I suppose Spain will come through.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.
It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.
The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.
It’s not a true or instant assumption. But the undeniable truth is that in a Venn diagram the Scottish Anglophobe set (if such an attitude can even be called racist) is almost wholly contained within Scottish Nationalist set, even if the latter is a lot bigger.
Superb result for Morocco! Delighted for them and their fans. They’ve been excellent in this World Cup - top the group and knock out a former winner in the round of 16. They’ll feel they can win their next too.
On which, this means one of Morocco, Portugal or Switzerland will definitely be in the semis. I hope it’s not Portugal. Morocco will be the neutral’s favourite (sorry Switzerland).
Shocked to find out that egg chucker has a long history of being arrested and is an eco- fascist that is still a student in his mid 20s. Only thing missing from the bingo card is that he spends his summers travelling to places like Bali with his private school chums and that his parents are multi-millionaires.
An Extinction Rebellion activist wept as she was warned she could face jail along with six other women for causing almost £100,000 in damage to Barclay's London headquarters.
Carol Wood cried as she was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court today of causing criminal damage over the incident on April 7 last year, when the seven XR activists smashed the windows of the bank's Canary Wharf office.
NEW: Govt to lift ban on onshore wind farms to avoid another Tory rebellion. Decisions will revert to local communities and there will be no requirement for near unanimous support for new wind farms to go ahead https://twitter.com/Daniel_J_Martin/status/1600183090437029896
Bollocks. Should have found somewhere to place my bet that wasn't 90 mins only. Why do they prefer that?
Because the draw is underbet (partisans back their side to win)? Because it is easier to disguise high bookmaker margins among three results? Even on normal league games, big hitters prefer Asian handicap betting which eliminates the draw by giving one side a fractional head start.
The Vanarama National League have been on the phone, they are asking why one of their matches is being shown in place of the last 16 match at the WC.....
Bit of a slur on non-league football. At last there's generally a bit of action. If often accidentally.
The finishing has been non-league football level....
Esp Morocco. Who I'm rooting for. But I suppose Spain will come through.
Leon is that u?
I really did think Spain would win the pens - but I don't think it quite enough to seize the crown.
Bollocks. Should have found somewhere to place my bet that wasn't 90 mins only. Why do they prefer that?
Because the draw is underbet (partisans back their side to win)? Because it is easier to disguise high bookmaker margins among three results? Even on normal league games, big hitters prefer Asian handicap betting which eliminates the draw by giving one side a fractional head start.
NEW: Govt to lift ban on onshore wind farms to avoid another Tory rebellion. Decisions will revert to local communities and there will be no requirement for near unanimous support for new wind farms to go ahead https://twitter.com/Daniel_J_Martin/status/1600183090437029896
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.
Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?
A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.
Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.
Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.
Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.
It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.
The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.
It's not necessarily racist.
But some of it is driven by racism.
And the SNP foster and benefit from that element.
Excellent evideence against that is that the party has a very large component of English incomers for independence. They have their own group.
Um, not necessarily. Many of Magic Grandpa's former fans are English Anglophobes, after all.
OGH's headline is factually incorrect, although it is largely accurate from perspective of most Brit bettors.
Note that there are number of recounts for various offices, either still ongoing or yet to commence, across USA from sea to shining sea.
For example - and for comic relief - in WA 3rd Congressional, Putinist loser Joe Kent has requested a machine recount, which won't happen until the WA Secretary of State certifies the election later this week.
Basically just more grifting by a MAGA-maniac grifter, emulating his role model the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo. BUT meaning that the Georgia runnoff - which itself will not be certified today obviously - is NOT the "Final Final Chapter" for the 2022 US midterm elections.
I understand Kari Lake is claiming a Steal.
I understand that Kari Lake is Putinist idiot.
Good discussion of AZ election, recount & etc., etc. situation post-certification of 2022 general.
Shocked to find out that egg chucker has a long history of being arrested and is an eco- fascist that is still a student in his mid 20s. Only thing missing from the bingo card is that he spends his summers travelling to places like Bali with his private school chums and that his parents are multi-millionaires.
An Extinction Rebellion activist wept as she was warned she could face jail along with six other women for causing almost £100,000 in damage to Barclay's London headquarters.
Carol Wood cried as she was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court today of causing criminal damage over the incident on April 7 last year, when the seven XR activists smashed the windows of the bank's Canary Wharf office.
Bringing specialist tools for the express purpose of vandalism rather than, say, just bringing along a can of paint and throwing it over something, feels like the sort of thing that might well persuade a jury your intentions were beyond the 'well its for a good cause so we'll acquit' phase.
Comments
More humane - and more royal - than being savaged by a dead sheep!
If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway
1. The Senate Committees would be majority Democrat rather than 50/50 and deadlocked as now. So the Senate will be more productive. Vacancies will be filled.
2. Kamala Harris won't have to hang around Washingtom with her casting vote and she can get on with her VP job. Might make a difference if Biden doesn't stand.
3. Manchin can't block the Democrats.
These are consequential differences.
EDIT I see RichardN got there before me.
I hope she gets reminded.....
Four van loads of Metropolitan Police officers walked alongside around 20 activists from the eco group this morning as they evaded arrest once again with their "slow march" tactic.
The protesters turned out in Southwark, south London, on Tuesday just after 8am and blocked three lanes of traffic.
One lorry driver stuck at the front of the blockade sounded his deafening air horn at the protesters, prompting a strolling police officer to rush over to him and order him to "pack it in".
The lorry driver told The Telegraph: "The police officer told me my air horn was hurting his ears - w------ aren't they.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/06/police-officers-walk-alongside-just-stop-oil-protesters-road/
How law abiding citizens lose trust in the police.....
You'd think he'd be more friendly.
This is another step up for @nanopore
and I know its been a time in R&D. Duplex means getting both strands of a single molecule reading one after the other (using some molecular biology dark arts); calling it *jointly* reduces error by ~an order of magnitude (Q20->Q30).
https://mobile.twitter.com/ewanbirney/status/1600160252975992832
And politely suggest its best not to use 'Celtic' as a synonym of the non-English nations. It's not accurate for Scotland (even if one means the Highlands and Western Islands, which is obviously not the case here), and a lot of people in NI would take great offence.
Honestly, there are good sound reasons to oppose monarchy or at the least (if still supportive) point out where there is trouble on the horizon (commonwealth realms, Harry and Meghan, being an anachronism), so why do people go for such shit ones?
The enemy for Charles is apathy, and if he doesn't keep his mouth shut, not getting excited about pending revolution because someone threw an egg.
Without being too grumpy old man about it, I confess I didn't know what the original purpose of Instagram was. I thought it's niche was that young people wanted a place away from their grandparents on Facebook.
Except for some of the specimens here:
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2022/dec/06/which-bit-of-the-turkey-is-this-supposed-to-be-i-ate-12-christmas-dinners-in-12-days-here-are-the-best-and-worst
Tsar Alexander II was assassinated but he didn't have a problem like that.
It doesn't look good. There's a contradiction there. It could grow.
When has any other king had that kind of thing? What is the closest example you can cite? It's not like a city mayor who gets booed everywhere he goes and it doesn't affect his position much.
Being "king" is all about the formal respect that is shown to the person. (Paul Keating got into awful trouble for putting his hand on the late queen's back.) The king gets ritual respect shown to him all over the place - in courtrooms, on banknotes, in the armed forces (two of which are called "royal"), in what senior barristers call their rank, in what the government's summary of its proposed legislation is called, etc. etc. The plan is that the king will be the main focus of a big televised event next year too, bigger than any model's strut up a catwalk. Yet he can't go for a simple walkabout without getting his bonce egged. Or his coat. OK neither his head nor his clothes have been egged so far, but it's only a matter of time before an egg hits its target. See if they can stop photos getting out. That'll be new.
Though the culprit should be dealt with as they are. If his special branch team allows an egg to hit him then they are at fault not the King as it could easily be a gun. Hence so far they are careful enough to stop it.
Had an egg been thrown at the Queen in the UK the crowd would probably have lynched the thrower, the King may not get that level of respect but the thrower of the last egg has still had death threats against them
You're ignoring fiscal policy, taxation (almost all), immigration, ...
I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.
The first several chapters, which describe the current state of play, are totally damning about the decline of the last 10 years or so.
Grim, grim reading for anyone who cares about the UK.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/06/politics/january-6-committee-criminal-referrrals/index.html
Wake me up when the quarter-finals start.
Or maybe even just the finals.
At last there's generally a bit of action. If often accidentally.
Even though there are some fairly good Turkish restaurants here, to my mind, they're not even close to those in Turkey.
As to eating turkey - works best cold, the next day, after roasting.
Warning: it is far worse than the awful George Floyd video. You will never unsee it
https://reason.com/2022/11/28/arizona-town-to-pay-8-million-to-widow-of-daniel-shaver-shot-while-crawling-unarmed-toward-police/
The cop who did it was ACQUITTED and retired on full pension with disability allowance because of the PTSD he “suffered” after doing this
They won’t float anything which smacks of socialism (the game is eliminating electoral hazard not introducing it) or requires serious extra money (we’re strapped and people know it), therefore let’s dish up a slice of constitutional reform guaranteed to get most heads nodding along – power devolved from the centre, more for the regions, for the home nations, REAL levelling up, an end to the unelected HoL, less privilege, more accountability, democracy, decisions made as close as possible to those impacted. Yep, yep, yep, say one and all.
It's politically risk-free. It burnishes Labour’s appeal in the desired way (fresh, radical, serious) but there’s no blood. It costs nothing – so none of your "how are you going to pay for this, borrowing or new taxes?" nonsense – and hardly a single target voter will be angry or worried or alienated. Regardless of where it goes it creates a whole lane of discussion that is uncomfortable for the Tories. Nothing to attack, they are forced to defend a stale dysfunctional status quo, which serves to highlight they are an integral part of it. Nice work, Keir. And Gordon.
Seriously, I wonder whether the authorities will try not to name him this time. They might follow Jacinda Ardern's move wrt the terrorist murderer Brenton Tarrant. Even if it was only an egg.
According to the BBC's royal correspondent, "I was standing only a few feet away, there was nothing obviously shouted and nothing seemed to land near the King. Although steered, he didn't seem stirred."
It might be hard to make a common assault charge stick, given testimony like that. Was the king caused to be apprehensive that he would imminently suffer an act of actual violence? That's what the prosecution need to prove in a common assault case when a defendant pleads not guilty
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/dec/06/queensland-graziers-unearth-100m-year-old-plesiosaur-remains-likened-to-rosetta-stone
But some of it is driven by racism.
And the SNP foster and benefit from that element.
Spain were just poor. Who'd have thought their group wouldn't produce a quarter finalist?
Morocco!!!
The regulation SF opponents awaiting the France v England winners now Portugal.
On which, this means one of Morocco, Portugal or Switzerland will definitely be in the semis. I hope it’s not Portugal. Morocco will be the neutral’s favourite (sorry Switzerland).
Carol Wood cried as she was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court today of causing criminal damage over the incident on April 7 last year, when the seven XR activists smashed the windows of the bank's Canary Wharf office.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11504755/Extinction-Rebellion-activist-weeps-faces-jail-causing-100k-damage-Barclays-HQ.html
https://twitter.com/Daniel_J_Martin/status/1600183090437029896
Good discussion of AZ election, recount & etc., etc. situation post-certification of 2022 general.
Such merciless drama