🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)
Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders. Not at all surprised.
For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.
Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.
All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.
I think you are right. The North does contain a higher proportion of ageing working class voters of a socially conservative bent. But that is a function of long term demography. The kids I teach, and their parents, in a very stereotypically Red Wall area, are no less "woke" than anywhere else. It's as much a function of the recent age polarisation of voting behaviour as anything geographical.
Totally agree. Re-engineering the electoral definition risks pithiness but to try anyway:
A Red Wall voter is one who voted Con last time primarily because they (i) wanted Brexit or (ii) liked 'Boris' or (iii) disliked Jez, or a combo/all of these.
A Red Wall seat is one that went Con from Lab last time because there were enough of the above voters in it to make the difference.
Red Wall voters are in every seat in England.
Red Wall seats are mainly (but not exclusively) in the north and the midlands.
The problem with this argument from Boris allies on NI is:
1. Any deal looks likely to be better for both UK & NI than anything Boris achieved 2. Boris literally tried to negotiate channels with the threat of NIP Bill & failed to make any real progress
A16 is why the EU is negotiating, Boris has a point. Taking it off the table means we need to ensure we won't ever need to open it back up again. Without A16 in the NI protocol the EU would be doing precisely zero and telling the UK to stick to the deal that was agreed as they had been attempting to do after Brexit until the government suggested it would pull the trigger in A16 and had legal opinion to show it was justified and supposedly legal opinion for the EC showed they'd probably lose in court if they tried to challenge it.
Whatever one thinks of Boris or Frost, they absolutely played a blinder by putting A16 into the protocol and having the EU agree to it. That has been the overriding factor in these renegotiations, the talk of being allies and spirit of cooperation is just bullshit talk, it's the fear of losing in court that is behind the EU giving so many big concessions.
That the EU are holding out for an agreement which doesn't include a unilateral mechanism for either side to suspend the deal shows that it is the motivating factor for the renegotiation. The deal has got to be very, very good to give it up. I think it might be but we need to be absolutely sure.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Are you buying AK47s or M16s?
Both have been out of production for a while…
No, I will respect tradition - put out a tender, and award the contract to someone incompetent at both bribing people and providing the contracted service
So pea shooters, then?
I was assuming you were buying second hand, anyway.
In any case, it's irrelevant. The important thing is not to have a policy, as it will be a clusterfuck.
Just let schools carry on. If they teach effectively, result, and if they don't, you've probably not lost anything.
No - brand new and unaffordable. Bigger the price, bigger the bribe.
What about hiring the DfE to destroy education in Peru? Since they will screw that up…
It's a plan, as long as they're not allowed to return to Britain afterwards.
Twitter rumour that the current FAV Angus Robertson (5/4) will not be a candidate.
Some of his close allies have backed Yousaf. Not sure why, I would've thought he'd be the unexciting, continuity candidate to hold things together until the likes of Mairi McAllan are ready.
Skeletons? He was aware of the Edinburgh Airport incident.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Difficult. I would suggest that, on balance and all things being considered, it would probably be a good idea if you had an education before trying to be President of Peru. . At least some basic numeracy anyway. An idea of Peruvian history might also be a help but probably not essential. The ability to read and write is probably optional as you can get someone to do that for you.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Are you buying AK47s or M16s?
Both have been out of production for a while…
No, I will respect tradition - put out a tender, and award the contract to someone incompetent at both bribing people and providing the contracted service
Sadly, the AK47 has not been out of production, except in Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed they had, by then, licenced 14 nations to manufacture them - Korea, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, to name but three. Those sites carried on making them, and still are. The weapon consists of just 14 parts, easily assembled, replaced and replicated. That's why it's so popular. For more on the subject, read "The Gun" by AJ Chivers. it's an enthralling read, and a very different way of approaching the history of the second half of the twentieth century. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a gun nut - just a historian.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.
I can entirely relate to that. My wife says the same thing about me.
Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.
Facebook to charge $12/m for blue ticks. Elon, once again paving that path. I'm sure Google will follow suit for YouTube and TikTok will also monetise.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Difficult. I would suggest that, on balance and all things being considered, it would probably be a good idea if you had an education before trying to be President of Peru. . At least some basic numeracy anyway. An idea of Peruvian history might also be a help but probably not essential. The ability to read and write is probably optional as you can get someone to do that for you.
None of those have been requirement for previous Presidents of Peru. Why the radical change?
Next you’ll suggest not selling the country to foreigners at a terrible price.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
Is that indicating Scots would prefer England?
No, just the one Aussie flag for the whole of UK I think. Edit: slightly disappoingtingly, wqould have been interesting to see how the four nation thought.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
I read that as 50%+1 in any Westminster or Holyrood election.
Another point: having a legal requirement to vote would clash with current Conservative Party policies to disenfranchise people on the sly.
They’d only make it compulsory for Conservatives….
Who exactly are the Conservatives disenfranchising? They won't even do the eminently sensible thing of stopping foreigners voting in national elections.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.
I can entirely relate to that. My wife says the same thing about me.
Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.
Facebook to charge $12/m for blue ticks. Elon, once again paving that path. I'm sure Google will follow suit for YouTube and TikTok will also monetise.
Meta are already copying Twitter.
On both platforms what I want as a user is a chronological stream of posts by people I elect to follow.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Difficult. I would suggest that, on balance and all things being considered, it would probably be a good idea if you had an education before trying to be President of Peru. . At least some basic numeracy anyway. An idea of Peruvian history might also be a help but probably not essential. The ability to read and write is probably optional as you can get someone to do that for you.
None of those have been requirement for previous Presidents of Peru. Why the radical change?
Next you’ll suggest not selling the country to foreigners at a terrible price.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Difficult. I would suggest that, on balance and all things being considered, it would probably be a good idea if you had an education before trying to be President of Peru. . At least some basic numeracy anyway. An idea of Peruvian history might also be a help but probably not essential. The ability to read and write is probably optional as you can get someone to do that for you.
There was a nineteenth century president of Peru - I forget which one - whose proud mother was heard to say, on the day of his inauguration, that if she had known he was going to become President, she would have sent him to school.
Starmer seems to have got to the place where he consistently makes good strategic decisions. It makes it so remarkable in retrospect that he made such poor ones in the Brexit aftermath.
The decisions that Starmer made in the aftermath of Brexit have to be viewed in terms of what was necessary to put him in a position where he could easily defeat Corbyn's annointed successor in 2019 and bring the Labour Party back from the brink. He deserves credit for making the right strategic choice.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)
Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders. Not at all surprised.
For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.
Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.
All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.
what do you consider those values to be ?
Socially conservative, insular, down to earth, patriotic, this type of thing.
There's an underlying tension now between the SNP's dual roles as secessionist insurgents and party of govt, which writers within the independence movement have emphasised in the past week.
Regan is placing herself on one side of that tension, that may not serve her well.
First and foremost they should be working for independence, with good government and policies to bing it about. Current lot are crap at both, just pocket liners and jobs for their cronies.
🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)
Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders. Not at all surprised.
For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.
Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.
All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.
what do you consider those values to be ?
Socially conservative, insular, down to earth, patriotic, this type of thing.
I thought you were describing yourself for a minute Kinabalu.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
I read that as 50%+1 in any Westminster or Holyrood election.
Yes and that should be their manifesto number 1 for all future elections.
Facebook to charge $12/m for blue ticks. Elon, once again paving that path. I'm sure Google will follow suit for YouTube and TikTok will also monetise.
Meta are already copying Twitter.
On both platforms what I want as a user is a chronological stream of posts by people I elect to follow.
Facebook to charge $12/m for blue ticks. Elon, once again paving that path. I'm sure Google will follow suit for YouTube and TikTok will also monetise.
Meta are already copying Twitter.
On both platforms what I want as a user is a chronological stream of posts by people I elect to follow.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
There's an underlying tension now between the SNP's dual roles as secessionist insurgents and party of govt, which writers within the independence movement have emphasised in the past week.
Regan is placing herself on one side of that tension, that may not serve her well.
First and foremost they should be working for independence, with good government and policies to bing it about. Current lot are crap at both, just pocket liners and jobs for their cronies.
Just like any main political party in the U.K. insurgents always go native
Facebook to charge $12/m for blue ticks. Elon, once again paving that path. I'm sure Google will follow suit for YouTube and TikTok will also monetise.
Meta are already copying Twitter.
On both platforms what I want as a user is a chronological stream of posts by people I elect to follow.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Are you buying AK47s or M16s?
Both have been out of production for a while…
No, I will respect tradition - put out a tender, and award the contract to someone incompetent at both bribing people and providing the contracted service
Sadly, the AK47 has not been out of production, except in Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed they had, by then, licenced 14 nations to manufacture them - Korea, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, to name but three. Those sites carried on making them, and still are. The weapon consists of just 14 parts, easily assembled, replaced and replicated. That's why it's so popular. For more on the subject, read "The Gun" by AJ Chivers. it's an enthralling read, and a very different way of approaching the history of the second half of the twentieth century. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a gun nut - just a historian.
Big differences in quality too - the Hungarian AK-47s apparently the best while the Chinese ones are supposed to be very low quality (interesting read across maybe to their wider military thinking).
Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
There is an argument (not a good one I grant) that if the SNP take the stance that some number of votes on a GE means Indy, WM could claim it means "the end of devolution" so we'll close Holyrood.
🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)
Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders. Not at all surprised.
For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.
Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.
All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.
The move away from Labour to the Conservatives in Midlands and Northern seats didn't begin in 2016 or 2019 - it began long before that.
In Sedgefield, for example, the Conservative vote rose at every election from 2005 to 2019 from 14% to 47% - that's a serious long term move of voters. The previous incarnation of Sedgefield (until 1970) regularly saw Conservative votes in the high 30s in straight fights with Labour.
A long time ago, I had started doing a spreadsheet with the swings in each region by seat back to 2005 (yes, there are boundaries changes but my view they all got washed out in the regional mix).
It showed exactly what you say. Labour's foundations had been crumbling long before 2019. 2005 was when the trend first became apparent.
Yet now the swing back to Labour in England is in the region of 18%. The Redfield & Wilton Sub Sample (small) has a swing of 16% in the North East which mirrors the overall Red Wall swing.
🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)
Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders. Not at all surprised.
For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.
Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.
All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.
I think you are right. The North does contain a higher proportion of ageing working class voters of a socially conservative bent. But that is a function of long term demography. The kids I teach, and their parents, in a very stereotypically Red Wall area, are no less "woke" than anywhere else. It's as much a function of the recent age polarisation of voting behaviour as anything geographical.
Totally agree. Re-engineering the electoral definition risks pithiness but to try anyway:
A Red Wall voter is one who voted Con last time primarily because they (i) wanted Brexit or (ii) liked 'Boris' or (iii) disliked Jez, or a combo/all of these.
A Red Wall seat is one that went Con from Lab last time because there were enough of the above voters in it to make the difference.
Red Wall voters are in every seat in England.
Red Wall seats are mainly (but not exclusively) in the north and the midlands.
It's worth noting the impact of the end of coal-mining. Most seats in former coalfields began shifting to the Conservatives at a rate of knots, about a generation after the pits closed.
First, it was places like Northern Somerset, Forest of Dean, Leicestershire. Then Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Then, South Yorkshire and Durham.
While I would expect a swing back to Labour in such seats, it will probably be well below the national average.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Difficult. I would suggest that, on balance and all things being considered, it would probably be a good idea if you had an education before trying to be President of Peru. . At least some basic numeracy anyway. An idea of Peruvian history might also be a help but probably not essential. The ability to read and write is probably optional as you can get someone to do that for you.
None of those have been requirement for previous Presidents of Peru. Why the radical change?
Next you’ll suggest not selling the country to foreigners at a terrible price.
Have you no respect for tradition?
You mean, like a UK PM?
No. Peruvian politicians are in another league.
Their COVID response was to buy the Chinese vaccine that didn’t work. Then write into the agreement that they are their families got the useless vaccine first. Publicly available contract….. then they got screwed on the bribe for this.
🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)
Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders. Not at all surprised.
For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.
Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.
All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.
The move away from Labour to the Conservatives in Midlands and Northern seats didn't begin in 2016 or 2019 - it began long before that.
In Sedgefield, for example, the Conservative vote rose at every election from 2005 to 2019 from 14% to 47% - that's a serious long term move of voters. The previous incarnation of Sedgefield (until 1970) regularly saw Conservative votes in the high 30s in straight fights with Labour.
A long time ago, I had started doing a spreadsheet with the swings in each region by seat back to 2005 (yes, there are boundaries changes but my view they all got washed out in the regional mix).
It showed exactly what you say. Labour's foundations had been crumbling long before 2019. 2005 was when the trend first became apparent.
Yet now the swing back to Labour in England is in the region of 18%. The Redfield & Wilton Sub Sample (small) has a swing of 16% in the North East which mirrors the overall Red Wall swing.
I expect that it will be nothing like that big on the day.
I'd suggest it's somewhat similar to the situation in 1967-1969, where the Tories regained a lot of ground in traditionally Orange areas of Merseyside, Lancashire, and Glasgow, which had once been solid for them, then swung heavily to Labour, but the swings were nowhere near as high in 1970.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.
I can entirely relate to that. My wife says the same thing about me.
Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.
This is noticeably a man thing. Women are less likely to feel the need to pretend to know or understand things which they don't. In fact they are more prone to the opposite - pretending to not know or understand things which they do.
PB being almost all men has tons of pretend expertise* going on. Who here has not done the quick and desperate google/wiki to keep oneself afloat in a tumble about something that's going off the rails?
Really? ,,, I don't believe you.
Yes, ok, and there's plenty of real expertise too. I know that. Easy to tell the difference, too, so no harm done by the bluffers.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)
Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders. Not at all surprised.
For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.
Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.
All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.
The move away from Labour to the Conservatives in Midlands and Northern seats didn't begin in 2016 or 2019 - it began long before that.
In Sedgefield, for example, the Conservative vote rose at every election from 2005 to 2019 from 14% to 47% - that's a serious long term move of voters. The previous incarnation of Sedgefield (until 1970) regularly saw Conservative votes in the high 30s in straight fights with Labour.
A long time ago, I had started doing a spreadsheet with the swings in each region by seat back to 2005 (yes, there are boundaries changes but my view they all got washed out in the regional mix).
It showed exactly what you say. Labour's foundations had been crumbling long before 2019. 2005 was when the trend first became apparent.
Yet now the swing back to Labour in England is in the region of 18%. The Redfield & Wilton Sub Sample (small) has a swing of 16% in the North East which mirrors the overall Red Wall swing.
I expect that it will be nothing like that big on the day.
You may be right - you may not. I can only tell you what the polls are saying now. I think the May locals will be quite informative (not this year's as much as next year's).
Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
There is an argument (not a good one I grant) that if the SNP take the stance that some number of votes on a GE means Indy, WM could claim it means "the end of devolution" so we'll close Holyrood.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
The idea of "using" the right to self determination as a means of construing the terms of the Scotland Act was attempted by those representing the SNP in their written submissions to the Referendum decision in the Supreme Court. The argument was that the right to self determination meant that the Scotland Act had to be construed in a way consistent with that obligation or right. To say that it got nowhere in the judgment is being polite.
🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)
Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders. Not at all surprised.
For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.
Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.
All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.
what do you consider those values to be ?
Socially conservative, insular, down to earth, patriotic, this type of thing.
I thought you were describing yourself for a minute Kinabalu.
Well I'm pretty insular and down-to-earth but not socially conservative or patriotic. So 2 out of 4 there - not too shabby.
a union means people are free to vote to join or leave
We voted in 2014
Don't you respect the result?
that was over 8 years ago , a free country can have a vote when a majority want it. We have a vote every 4 or 5 years for Westminster or did that escape you. If the arseholes in Westminster wanted another referendum do you think the EU could ban it
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
The idea of "using" the right to self determination as a means of construing the terms of the Scotland Act was attempted by those representing the SNP in their written submissions to the Referendum decision in the Supreme Court. The argument was that the right to self determination meant that the Scotland Act had to be construed in a way consistent with that obligation or right. To say that it got nowhere in the judgment is being polite.
So you agree we are a colony being held captive by a belligerent bigger neighbour and not in a voluntary union then David. An English court can just decide our future.
Roald Dahl's works might have been bowdlerised but he was lucky not to be cancelled for raging antisemitism.
Is it "raging" if its just a couple of comments? I feel like raging racists can't shut up about it because it is a central part of their identity.
Quite a few racists don’t bang on about it in everything they write.
In a complete set of the works of Rudyard Kipling I have, you have the following -
- a fictional story, written obviously for a real incident, where a Indian child are her actions are described with great sensitivity, compassion and kindness. She is seen as a person - and one of value to the world. Nor racism present.
- in the next section there is a journalistic account of encountering an white woman living with an Indian. The racist diatribe that followed was Der Sturmer grade - complete with a reference to “treason to the race”.
One of Kipling's poems ('If') is set for GCSE English.
Most pupils I teach don't see anything racist in it.
Then, when we've discussed it for a while, I let them read 'White Man's Burden.'
Suddenly they note a great deal more subtext to that line 'then yours is the Earth and everything that's in it!'
Given the fate of his son, and Kipling's part in it, it also reads as mordant irony.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.
I can entirely relate to that. My wife says the same thing about me.
Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.
This is noticeably a man thing. Women are less likely to feel the need to pretend to know or understand things which they don't. In fact they are more prone to the opposite - pretending to not know or understand things which they do.
PB being almost all men has tons of pretend expertise* going on. Who here has not done the quick and desperate google/wiki to keep oneself afloat in a tumble about something that's going off the rails?
Really? ,,, I don't believe you.
Yes, ok, and there's plenty of real expertise too. I know that. Easy to tell the difference, too, so no harm done by the bluffers.
Yes, nothing more annoying than someone who thinks they know everything but actually knows nothing. I have had a lot of experience of this in my career. In my last formal job interview one of the questions was can I suffer fools gladly, it is an essential human quality as a public servant.
The only point I would make here is that feigning ignorance is also often a successful negotiating strategy. Depends on the situation.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.
I can entirely relate to that. My wife says the same thing about me.
Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.
This is noticeably a man thing. Women are less likely to feel the need to pretend to know or understand things which they don't. In fact they are more prone to the opposite - pretending to not know or understand things which they do.
PB being almost all men has tons of pretend expertise* going on. Who here has not done the quick and desperate google/wiki to keep oneself afloat in a tumble about something that's going off the rails?
Really? ,,, I don't believe you.
Yes, ok, and there's plenty of real expertise too. I know that. Easy to tell the difference, too, so no harm done by the bluffers.
Yes, nothing more annoying than someone who thinks they know everything but actually knows nothing. I have had a lot of experience of this in my career. In my last formal job interview one of the questions was can I suffer fools gladly, it is an essential human quality as a public servant.
The only point I would make here is that feigning ignorance is also often a successful negotiating strategy. Depends on the situation.
"Don't suffer fools gladly" is an interesting one. As a general rule it's a compliment if said about somebody else - but if a person describes themselves that way you should run a mile.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
I’d say there’s a certain lazy cnuts can’t be arsed learning a new language factor in there.
The result is clearly respected as Scotland is not independent.
Not respecting the result is what Westminster has been doing with the last umpteen Scottish elections. There is nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement that places any time restriction on when a second referendum can take place, and the Smith agreement specifically states that nothing in that prevents Scotland becoming independent if that is what the people want. That is what the Brit Nat unionists are afraid to test.
In theory there could be a vote in Northern Ireland every 7 years. I don't doubt that perfidious Albion will try to renege on that arrangement as well, careless as with Brexit, of the consequences.
The reality is that Brit Nat unionists want to hold on to Scotland as long as possible without the trouble of actually proving electorally that is what Scotland wants. Just another shameful episode in de facto England's treatment of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.
I can entirely relate to that. My wife says the same thing about me.
Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.
This is noticeably a man thing. Women are less likely to feel the need to pretend to know or understand things which they don't. In fact they are more prone to the opposite - pretending to not know or understand things which they do.
PB being almost all men has tons of pretend expertise* going on. Who here has not done the quick and desperate google/wiki to keep oneself afloat in a tumble about something that's going off the rails?
Really? ,,, I don't believe you.
Yes, ok, and there's plenty of real expertise too. I know that. Easy to tell the difference, too, so no harm done by the bluffers.
Yes, nothing more annoying than someone who thinks they know everything but actually knows nothing. I have had a lot of experience of this in my career. In my last formal job interview one of the questions was can I suffer fools gladly, it is an essential human quality as a public servant.
The only point I would make here is that feigning ignorance is also often a successful negotiating strategy. Depends on the situation.
"Don't suffer fools gladly" is an interesting one. As a general rule it's a compliment if said about somebody else - but if a person describes themselves that way you should run a mile.
It appears true of a significant portion of the Idaho electorate. Though in this case, 'fool' is being generous.
Today I introduced a bill to ban all messenger ribonucleic acid technology (mRNA) in the State of Idaho, and we passed the Freedom in Education Savings Account out of the Senate Education Committee to fund students and not systems, putting families in control over their ed $. https://mobile.twitter.com/nichols_senator/status/1626106794916601856
Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
There is an argument (not a good one I grant) that if the SNP take the stance that some number of votes on a GE means Indy, WM could claim it means "the end of devolution" so we'll close Holyrood.
Music to my ears! I hope that line of thought flourishes.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
The idea of "using" the right to self determination as a means of construing the terms of the Scotland Act was attempted by those representing the SNP in their written submissions to the Referendum decision in the Supreme Court. The argument was that the right to self determination meant that the Scotland Act had to be construed in a way consistent with that obligation or right. To say that it got nowhere in the judgment is being polite.
So you agree we are a colony being held captive by a belligerent bigger neighbour and not in a voluntary union then David. An English court can just decide our future.
It wasn't an English court Malcolm, it was a Scottish court with 2 Scottish Judges in charge. The law is really clear and Nicola was wasting everyone's time with the reference.
But the law is one thing and politics are something else. Scotland must have a way of forcing a referendum if the majority of Scots vote for it. That is not a legal argument but a political one but it is real for all that. It's why I took the view that the Nationalists had earned their referendum, even although I don't want it. I take the point that the UK is entitled not to be continually disrupted by referendum after referendum. But a political solution needs to be found and politicians need to start behaving like adults rather than brats.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
I’d say there’s a certain lazy cnuts can’t be arsed learning a new language factor in there.
People want to move to richer, warmer places where they speak a language they already know.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
The Dutch choose Canada. An interesting choice. Perhaps Britain has more in common with the Netherlands than we realise?
The choice of Switzerland by most of Western Europe is really interesting, particularly in contrast to the choice of Germany by most of Eastern Europe.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
The UN and Australian government quoted upthread. If you have better sources…..
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.
Since Boris stuffed Northern Ireland in the Brexit agreement, the government says UK at every opportunity to make it seem like they care about the province.
In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.
Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.
Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.
Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.
I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.
I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.
Any suggestions for education policy?
Are you buying AK47s or M16s?
Both have been out of production for a while…
No, I will respect tradition - put out a tender, and award the contract to someone incompetent at both bribing people and providing the contracted service
M16? The original designation for the M25 between South Mimms (A1 junction) and the Dartford Crossing.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
Roald Dahl's works might have been bowdlerised but he was lucky not to be cancelled for raging antisemitism.
Is it "raging" if its just a couple of comments? I feel like raging racists can't shut up about it because it is a central part of their identity.
Quite a few racists don’t bang on about it in everything they write.
In a complete set of the works of Rudyard Kipling I have, you have the following -
- a fictional story, written obviously for a real incident, where a Indian child are her actions are described with great sensitivity, compassion and kindness. She is seen as a person - and one of value to the world. Nor racism present.
- in the next section there is a journalistic account of encountering an white woman living with an Indian. The racist diatribe that followed was Der Sturmer grade - complete with a reference to “treason to the race”.
One of Kipling's poems ('If') is set for GCSE English.
Most pupils I teach don't see anything racist in it.
Then, when we've discussed it for a while, I let them read 'White Man's Burden.'
Suddenly they note a great deal more subtext to that line 'then yours is the Earth and everything that's in it!'
But, again, so what?
Such attitudes were commonplace back then. Also, Kipling's were complex. He was certainly an imperialist, but he thought that progressive and was capable of much tenderness and sensitivity as well as @Malmesbury points out.
I'm tired of this dogma towards historic figures who don't share exactly the same views that have been contemporary here in the last 4 years.
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
You'd need for the US to get involved and threaten the UK government to enter negotiations, just as Eisenhower compelled us to withdraw from Suez on threat of selling of their pound sterling bonds. But I'm somewhat more than a tad sceptical that the SNP winning 50% + 1 at the GE would lead to this, particularly given Scottish independence is very much against US foreign policy interests. And even if did it happen, you can bet that nuke subs to remain on the Clyde would be a precondition for US support.
I’m interested in the corollary of this position. Given that negotiations will almost certainly last until after the next election to one of the two parliaments, does it follow that the mandate is lost if pro-independence parties fail to secure 50% of the vote at that point?
I’m interested in the corollary of this position. Given that negotiations will almost certainly last until after the next election to one of the two parliaments, does it follow that the mandate is lost if pro-independence parties fail to secure 50% of the vote at that point?
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.
Actually, Malc also has a point if you believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. One of the core principles of Parliament is that it cannot bind its successors to its decisions. Yet that is exactly what happened in 1707 with the Act of Union (and in Ireland in 1801) and which dissolved the Scottish Parliament, thus effectively binding its successors.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.
Actually, Malc also has a point if you believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. One of the core principles of Parliament is that it cannot bind its successors to its decisions. Yet that is exactly what happened in 1707 with the Act of Union (and in Ireland in 1801) and which dissolved the Scottish Parliament, thus effectively binding its successors.
It evidently didn’t bind its successors, since there is again a Scottish Parliament.
Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’. I’d say Labour themselves made a very decent contribution to the turning (off).
If the SNP are treating it as a “de facto referendum”, will they have any other policies in their manifesto?
If YES, will they claim all those votes for independence as votes to support all the other policies in their platform? (So people with strong feelings against, say, their nuclear disarmament platform, their trans platform, their economic platform, etc - should they be treated as supporting it?)
If NO, what will they do in Holyrood if they win power but fall short of 50%+1? Or what policies will they push for in Westminster?
This is the awkwardness with trying to conflate a single-issue vote with an election of a full platform.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.
You too are missing the point I was making. I wasn't commenting for or against the argument for independence on the basis he was suggesting - though as it happens my personal opinion is if the Scottish Parliament requests a referendum, as they have, it should be granted - I was curious what, besides talking about International Law, would they attempt to do.
It wasn't a demand for a detailed plan to achieve independence, but there must be at least some potential options on what to do if, as is likely, the UK government doesn't accept the international law argument. As Sean F notes below, countries have a vested interest in not underming the boundaries of other countries.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
You have a strong moral case to leave the UK, if that’s clearly what most Scots want.
But, international law won’t help. Governments have a very strong mutual interest in treating national boundaries as settled.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
If Trump is not in jail he very probably wins the nomination. Since he won't be in jail by the time of the election even if he does finally get charged with something, he's in a pretty strong situation.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
The idea of "using" the right to self determination as a means of construing the terms of the Scotland Act was attempted by those representing the SNP in their written submissions to the Referendum decision in the Supreme Court. The argument was that the right to self determination meant that the Scotland Act had to be construed in a way consistent with that obligation or right. To say that it got nowhere in the judgment is being polite.
IIRC it was dismissed on mainly the grounds that Scotland was neither oppressed or lacked the democratic means to build the society Scots people wanted. Undermining those grounds would strengthen any appeal to the international community.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.
Actually, Malc also has a point if you believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. One of the core principles of Parliament is that it cannot bind its successors to its decisions. Yet that is exactly what happened in 1707 with the Act of Union (and in Ireland in 1801) and which dissolved the Scottish Parliament, thus effectively binding its successors.
It evidently didn’t bind its successors, since there is again a Scottish Parliament.
But not with the same powers nor is it legally recognised as its successor. If it was, it would be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide on a referendum.
Starmer seems to have got to the place where he consistently makes good strategic decisions. It makes it so remarkable in retrospect that he made such poor ones in the Brexit aftermath.
Not sure the SNP statement really changes the dial with Starmer. The reason why it worked so well with Miliband was that it played exactly into popular conceptions about EM being weak in character, conniving and a bit of a nerd who could be bullied - which is what that poster encapsulated.
Nobody sees Starmer as that. The underlying core issue - and one which is captured by people saying they don't know what he stands for- is that people feel that he can't be trusted. A stereotype I know but a lot of RW voters do not live in a world of perfect information. They have to make a lot of fairly important decisions based on a judgement call of what makes sense and whether, importantly, someone can be trusted.
If you asked many voters what SKS thinks, my feel is that most would say their fear is that he might be making the right noises now re being sensitive to get elected but the moment he gets into power it will be unlimited immigration and compulsory trans lessons in schools (obviously not but...)
So he needs to address that. I reckon he would get far more traction with RW voters if he came out swinging the bat for Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling, and saying that, while he respects trans rights, abuse such as the two aforesaid have suffered is unacceptable and will be treated in the same way he treats anti-semitism. The fact he doesn't, and struggles to define what is a woman, to many voters screams someone not to be trusted
I disagree - I don't think Starmer should offer any further comment on the trans issue, while continuing to maintain that everyone should be able to express their opinions without intimidation. It's a fringe issue for most people and the Tory interest in it reflects their lack of grip on the subjects that actually matter to most people - the cost of the living and the NHS.
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.
Actually, Malc also has a point if you believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. One of the core principles of Parliament is that it cannot bind its successors to its decisions. Yet that is exactly what happened in 1707 with the Act of Union (and in Ireland in 1801) and which dissolved the Scottish Parliament, thus effectively binding its successors.
It evidently didn’t bind its successors, since there is again a Scottish Parliament.
But not with the same powers nor is it legally recognised as its successor. If it was, it would be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide on a referendum.
The first item of business in 1997 was to emphasise its continuity wuth the one temporarily dissolved in 1707.
Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’.
I think you are rather searching for a reason to get offended there. Are there really political parties, except at their lowest points, known for going 'People were right to vote for someone else'?
Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
What does 'use international law' mean in this context?
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.
That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.
Actually, Malc also has a point if you believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. One of the core principles of Parliament is that it cannot bind its successors to its decisions. Yet that is exactly what happened in 1707 with the Act of Union (and in Ireland in 1801) and which dissolved the Scottish Parliament, thus effectively binding its successors.
It evidently didn’t bind its successors, since there is again a Scottish Parliament.
But not with the same powers nor is it legally recognised as its successor. If it was, it would be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide on a referendum.
There’s nothing preventing the UK Parliament, the successor to the two dissolved parliaments, from legislating to that effect.
I am disappointed not to have been adopted as the Conservative candidate for the new Weald of Kent seat. I am now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work for the people of Ashford and support the Government.
Starmer seems to have got to the place where he consistently makes good strategic decisions. It makes it so remarkable in retrospect that he made such poor ones in the Brexit aftermath.
Not sure the SNP statement really changes the dial with Starmer. The reason why it worked so well with Miliband was that it played exactly into popular conceptions about EM being weak in character, conniving and a bit of a nerd who could be bullied - which is what that poster encapsulated.
Nobody sees Starmer as that. The underlying core issue - and one which is captured by people saying they don't know what he stands for- is that people feel that he can't be trusted. A stereotype I know but a lot of RW voters do not live in a world of perfect information. They have to make a lot of fairly important decisions based on a judgement call of what makes sense and whether, importantly, someone can be trusted.
If you asked many voters what SKS thinks, my feel is that most would say their fear is that he might be making the right noises now re being sensitive to get elected but the moment he gets into power it will be unlimited immigration and compulsory trans lessons in schools (obviously not but...)
So he needs to address that. I reckon he would get far more traction with RW voters if he came out swinging the bat for Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling, and saying that, while he respects trans rights, abuse such as the two aforesaid have suffered is unacceptable and will be treated in the same way he treats anti-semitism. The fact he doesn't, and struggles to define what is a woman, to many voters screams someone not to be trusted
I disagree - I don't think Starmer should offer any further comment on the trans issue, while continuing to maintain that everyone should be able to express their opinions without intimidation. It's a fringe issue for most people and the Tory interest in it reflects their lack of grip on the subjects that actually matter to most people - the cost of the living and the NHS.
Bit late, surely, at least up here. What's he going to do, order Slab to do a u-turn? Which would lose him the lefties in Scotland.
Starmer seems to have got to the place where he consistently makes good strategic decisions. It makes it so remarkable in retrospect that he made such poor ones in the Brexit aftermath.
Not sure the SNP statement really changes the dial with Starmer. The reason why it worked so well with Miliband was that it played exactly into popular conceptions about EM being weak in character, conniving and a bit of a nerd who could be bullied - which is what that poster encapsulated.
Nobody sees Starmer as that. The underlying core issue - and one which is captured by people saying they don't know what he stands for- is that people feel that he can't be trusted. A stereotype I know but a lot of RW voters do not live in a world of perfect information. They have to make a lot of fairly important decisions based on a judgement call of what makes sense and whether, importantly, someone can be trusted.
If you asked many voters what SKS thinks, my feel is that most would say their fear is that he might be making the right noises now re being sensitive to get elected but the moment he gets into power it will be unlimited immigration and compulsory trans lessons in schools (obviously not but...)
So he needs to address that. I reckon he would get far more traction with RW voters if he came out swinging the bat for Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling, and saying that, while he respects trans rights, abuse such as the two aforesaid have suffered is unacceptable and will be treated in the same way he treats anti-semitism. The fact he doesn't, and struggles to define what is a woman, to many voters screams someone not to be trusted
I disagree - I don't think Starmer should offer any further comment on the trans issue, while continuing to maintain that everyone should be able to express their opinions without intimidation. It's a fringe issue for most people and the Tory interest in it reflects their lack of grip on the subjects that actually matter to most people - the cost of the living and the NHS.
You say he is "continuing to maintain that everyone should be able to express their opinions without intimidation" but his actions are clearly not doing that - he's allowed Duffield to be bullied remorselessly. He has done nothing against, being blunt, thugs like Russell-Moyle who deliberately intimidate women and then issue weasel words of apology. Contrast with the line he takes when anti-semitism gets aired.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
If Trump is not in jail he very probably wins the nomination. Since he won't be in jail by the time of the election even if he does finally get charged with something, he's in a pretty strong situation.
And why I think RDS won't challenge - challenge now and he risks losing the Trumpsters. However, align with him and he can be picked as his chosen heir
I am disappointed not to have been adopted as the Conservative candidate for the new Weald of Kent seat. I am now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work for the people of Ashford and support the Government.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’.
I think you are rather searching for a reason to get offended there. Are there really political parties, except at their lowest points, known for going 'People were right to vote for someone else'?
Not why sure why you cropped my post but that’s not what I’m saying at all, I’m pointing out the lack of reflection from Labour in the part they played in Scottish voters turning to other parties. Since I’m someone who stopped voting Labour to vote for other parties, I think I can speak with a little authority on the matter.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
I'd also note that if Biden runs again, he's highly unlikely to be challenged.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
I'd also note that if Biden runs again, he's highly unlikely to be challenged.
True. FWIW, I think Biden will run again and 2024 will be a re-run of 2020
I am disappointed not to have been adopted as the Conservative candidate for the new Weald of Kent seat. I am now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work for the people of Ashford and support the Government.
Comments
A Red Wall voter is one who voted Con last time primarily because they (i) wanted Brexit or (ii) liked 'Boris' or (iii) disliked Jez, or a combo/all of these.
A Red Wall seat is one that went Con from Lab last time because there were enough of the above voters in it to make the difference.
Red Wall voters are in every seat in England.
Red Wall seats are mainly (but not exclusively) in the north and the midlands.
Whatever one thinks of Boris or Frost, they absolutely played a blinder by putting A16 into the protocol and having the EU agree to it. That has been the overriding factor in these renegotiations, the talk of being allies and spirit of cooperation is just bullshit talk, it's the fear of losing in court that is behind the EU giving so many big concessions.
That the EU are holding out for an agreement which doesn't include a unilateral mechanism for either side to suspend the deal shows that it is the motivating factor for the renegotiation. The deal has got to be very, very good to give it up. I think it might be but we need to be absolutely sure.
(And for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a gun nut - just a historian.
Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.
Next you’ll suggest not selling the country to foreigners at a terrible price.
Have you no respect for tradition?
On both platforms what I want as a user is a chronological stream of posts by people I elect to follow.
And both of them have completely fucked that up.
I understand they are trying to maximise their ad revenue but there comes a point at which not seeing ads is more valuable to me than seeing updates
The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?
This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.
Mind you, it would get many of the nutters off it. But they would just go elsewhere.
First, it was places like Northern Somerset, Forest of Dean, Leicestershire. Then Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Then, South Yorkshire and Durham.
While I would expect a swing back to Labour in such seats, it will probably be well below the national average.
Their COVID response was to buy the Chinese vaccine that didn’t work. Then write into the agreement that they are their families got the useless vaccine first. Publicly available contract….. then they got screwed on the bribe for this.
I'd suggest it's somewhat similar to the situation in 1967-1969, where the Tories regained a lot of ground in traditionally Orange areas of Merseyside, Lancashire, and Glasgow, which had once been solid for them, then swung heavily to Labour, but the swings were nowhere near as high in 1970.
PB being almost all men has tons of pretend expertise* going on. Who here has not done the quick and desperate google/wiki to keep oneself afloat in a tumble about something that's going off the rails?
Really? ,,, I don't believe you.
Yes, ok, and there's plenty of real expertise too. I know that. Easy to tell the difference, too, so no harm done by the bluffers.
Don't you respect the result?
You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?
The only point I would make here is that feigning ignorance is also often a successful negotiating strategy. Depends on the situation.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
We voted in 2014
Don't you respect the result?
The result is clearly respected as Scotland is not independent.
Not respecting the result is what Westminster has been doing with the last umpteen Scottish elections. There is nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement that places any time restriction on when a second referendum can take place, and the Smith agreement specifically states that nothing in that prevents Scotland becoming independent if that is what the people want. That is what the Brit Nat unionists are afraid to test.
In theory there could be a vote in Northern Ireland every 7 years. I don't doubt that perfidious Albion will try to renege on that arrangement as well, careless as with Brexit, of the consequences.
The reality is that Brit Nat unionists want to hold on to Scotland as long as possible without the trouble of actually proving electorally that is what Scotland wants. Just another shameful episode in de facto England's treatment of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Though in this case, 'fool' is being generous.
Today I introduced a bill to ban all messenger ribonucleic acid technology (mRNA) in the State of Idaho, and we passed the Freedom in Education Savings Account out of the Senate Education Committee to fund students and not systems, putting families in control over their ed $.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nichols_senator/status/1626106794916601856
But the law is one thing and politics are something else. Scotland must have a way of forcing a referendum if the majority of Scots vote for it. That is not a legal argument but a political one but it is real for all that. It's why I took the view that the Nationalists had earned their referendum, even although I don't want it. I take the point that the UK is entitled not to be continually disrupted by referendum after referendum. But a political solution needs to be found and politicians need to start behaving like adults rather than brats.
Shocker.
The choice of Switzerland by most of Western Europe is really interesting, particularly in contrast to the choice of Germany by most of Eastern Europe.
on offer.
I stumbled home and watched a bit of the coverage before turning off in despair and mild alcohol-induced nausea.
Such attitudes were commonplace back then. Also, Kipling's were complex. He was certainly an imperialist, but he thought that progressive and was capable of much tenderness and sensitivity as well as @Malmesbury points out.
I'm tired of this dogma towards historic figures who don't share exactly the same views that have been contemporary here in the last 4 years.
And even if did it happen, you can bet that nuke subs to remain on the Clyde would be a precondition for US support.
At least Sir Keir knew enough to drop the UJs,
If YES, will they claim all those votes for independence as votes to support all the other policies in their platform? (So people with strong feelings against, say, their nuclear disarmament platform, their trans platform, their economic platform, etc - should they be treated as supporting it?)
If NO, what will they do in Holyrood if they win power but fall short of 50%+1?
Or what policies will they push for in Westminster?
This is the awkwardness with trying to conflate a single-issue vote with an election of a full platform.
It wasn't a demand for a detailed plan to achieve independence, but there must be at least some potential options on what to do if, as is likely, the UK government doesn't accept the international law argument. As Sean F notes below, countries have a vested interest in not underming the boundaries of other countries.
But, international law won’t help. Governments have a very strong mutual interest in treating national boundaries as settled.
https://twitter.com/PipsFunFacts/status/1626672143969706017
https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1627312128276197377?s=20
https://order-order.com/2023/02/19/exclusive-damian-green-candidature-rejected-by-his-conservative-constituency-executive/
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3866
https://archive.ph/xJQ85
Unsurprisingly, given the war, they were not close.