If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
I think within England there will be significant variation. Probably most in London for In.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
Yep "once in a generation" or whenever the UK does something we (the SNP) don't agree with.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
"Yes, it was clear that the 1957 Treaty of Rome led to political union."
It was not.
In fact, when Tony Benn protested that was the case, it was denied. I and 99.9% of the population did not read the 1957 treaty.
They were working on the basis of "Softy, softly, catchee monkey".
I took quite an interest in it at the time so if I was fooled, so were many others.
That debate contains an entire shoal of red herrings.
While it's obviously true that the Treaty of Rome included and includes the infamous 'ever closer union' clause, it is of itself merely a stated objective. Certainly it has symbolic importance and has been a rallying point for Federalists but the integrationist process exists and existed because of the policies of individuals, not the clauses of treaties which are neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the end they aim for.
Removing the ever closer union commitment wouldn't necessarily prevent further development in that direction; nor will keeping it mean that it happens. It all depends on the political leaders (and the people they represent) pushing, resisting or rowing back on it.
The clue to the EU referendum is the MORI Issues Index.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
If that doesn't happen - forget it.
Referendum campaigns can generate an unexpected degree of excitement and interest, like the referenda on Scottish independence, or Irish gay marriage.
For that to happen they need to be issues everyone can very easily relate to.
Being in the EU just isn't like that - it's an academic / technical issue way, way, way removed from most people lives.
Ask people "How would your life change if we left the EU?"
90%+ wouldn't be able to give any answer. I certainly couldn't give an answer - I can't imagine it affecting me in any way whatsoever.
Would the NHS change? Schools? Transport? Tax rates? Benefits? There's nothing tangible to get a grip of.
One could say the same about either Scottish independence or gay marriage. Yes or No wouldn't have made any difference to the issues you list.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
Oh FFS the Nats will call anything a legitimate excuse for another referendum, Sam Cams' dress, the Camptown races, Andy Murray loses a match.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose since the twats still haven't figured what they're going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
I think within England there will be significant variation. Probably most in London for In.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
Yep "once in a generation" or whenever the UK does something we (the SNP) don't agree with.
Cameron, and others, often repeated during the IndyRef campaign that Scotland could not be guaranteed to remain in the EU after a "Yes" vote. The duplicity of going from "Vote No to stay in the EU" to "we are taking you out of the EU whether you like it or not" would certainly be a justification for a second referendum.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Calum: while I wish you were right, the truth is that this story has very little resonance outside Scotland. Not one single person - outside PB - has mentioned this to me or has given any indication about caring.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Apologies I meant to say he's getting it from all quarters in Scotland, the Scottish MSM are covering it, with any newspaper which has expressed a view indicating he should be resigning. It appears that the LibDems have very few, if any, MSM supporters.
If Carmichael hangs on the LibDems are likely to suffer in Holyrood 2016, their 2 constituency MSPs are at risk already because of this affair, even their 3 remaining list seats can't be taken for granted.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
Oh FFS the Nats will call anything a legitimate excuse for another referendum, Sam Cams' dress, the Camptown races, Andy Murray loses a match.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose sincxe the twats still haven't figured what they;re going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
Well I have more sympathy for the SNP's position than you, but I agree it is unlikely to be an issue in practice. No matter which way you cut up scepter'd isle you are unlikely to change the result more than a few percent and the chances that it falls over the dividing line as above is remote.
"Yes, it was clear that the 1957 Treaty of Rome led to political union."
It was not.
In fact, when Tony Benn protested that was the case, it was denied. I and 99.9% of the population did not read the 1957 treaty.
They were working on the basis of "Softy, softly, catchee monkey".
I took quite an interest in it at the time so if I was fooled, so were many others.
Sometimes taking a close interest in something can hinder comprehension of the bigger picture. To a casual observer the consequences of a treaty promising ever closer union were probably more obvious.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
Oh FFS the Nats will call anything a legitimate excuse for another referendum, Sam Cams' dress, the Camptown races, Andy Murray loses a match.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose sincxe the twats still haven't figured what they;re going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
Well I have more sympathy for the SNP's position than you, but I agree it is unlikely to be an issue in practice. No matter which way you cut up scepter'd isle you are unlikely to change the result more than a few percent and the chances that it falls over the dividing line as above is remote.
Maybe you'll have a little less sympathy during the next droneathon campaign of Indyref2.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Calum: while I wish you were right, the truth is that this story has very little resonance outside Scotland. Not one single person - outside PB - has mentioned this to me or has given any indication about caring.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Apologies I meant to say he's getting it from all quarters in Scotland, the Scottish MSM are covering it, with any newspaper which has expressed a view indicating he should be resigning. It appears that the LibDems have very few, if any, MSM supporters.
If Carmichael hangs on the LibDems are likely to suffer in Holyrood 2016, their 2 constituency MSPs are at risk already because of this affair, even their 3 remaining list seats can't be taken for granted.
It is highly significant that previously strongly Unionist newspapers such as the Scotsman have come out against him.
Germany and France have forged a pact to integrate the eurozone without reopening the EU’s treaties, in a blow to David Cameron’s referendum campaign.
Sidestepping Britain’s demands to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty and Britain’s place in the EU, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, François Hollande, have sealed an agreement aimed at fashioning a tighter political union among the single-currency countries while operating within the confines of the existing treaty.
Au contraire, the Guardian. Cameron has a chance to push the two speed Europe thing, which was always the plan. You can move towards fiscal union, fine; but the Eurozone and not the EU is the proper vehicle for that.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Calum: while I wish you were right, the truth is that this story has very little resonance outside Scotland. Not one single person - outside PB - has mentioned this to me or has given any indication about caring.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Apologies I meant to say he's getting it from all quarters in Scotland, the Scottish MSM are covering it, with any newspaper which has expressed a view indicating he should be resigning. It appears that the LibDems have very few, if any, MSM supporters.
If Carmichael hangs on the LibDems are likely to suffer in Holyrood 2016, their 2 constituency MSPs are at risk already because of this affair, even their 3 remaining list seats can't be taken for granted.
A calculated risk I suppose - they must have figured those seats are at risk anyway, and they've decided they cannot give up one of the few MP seats they hold when chances are the MSPs were up against in any case, and if they can contrive a way to hold on with those, they can overcome this story by the time that vote occurs.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Calum: while I wish you were right, the truth is that this story has very little resonance outside Scotland. Not one single person - outside PB - has mentioned this to me or has given any indication about caring.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Apologies I meant to say he's getting it from all quarters in Scotland, the Scottish MSM are covering it, with any newspaper which has expressed a view indicating he should be resigning. It appears that the LibDems have very few, if any, MSM supporters.
If Carmichael hangs on the LibDems are likely to suffer in Holyrood 2016, their 2 constituency MSPs are at risk already because of this affair, even their 3 remaining list seats can't be taken for granted.
It is highly significant that previously strongly Unionist newspapers such as the Scotsman have come out against him.
Why ? What's going to happen ? The seas dry up, the sun goes out or political anoraks get all excited while everyone else goes back to watching the X Factor ?
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
This was published in the Sunday post yesterday - 54% IN, 25% OUT and 21% DKN:
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
I think within England there will be significant variation. Probably most in London for In.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
Yep "once in a generation" or whenever the UK does something we (the SNP) don't agree with.
Cameron, and others, often repeated during the IndyRef campaign that Scotland could not be guaranteed to remain in the EU after a "Yes" vote. The duplicity of going from "Vote No to stay in the EU" to "we are taking you out of the EU whether you like it or not" would certainly be a justification for a second referendum.
Did Cam ever say "vote no to stay in the EU"? I think it is legitimate to point out where uncertainties exist in your opponents position.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
Oh FFS the Nats will call anything a legitimate excuse for another referendum, Sam Cams' dress, the Camptown races, Andy Murray loses a match.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose sincxe the twats still haven't figured what they;re going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
Well I have more sympathy for the SNP's position than you, but I agree it is unlikely to be an issue in practice. No matter which way you cut up scepter'd isle you are unlikely to change the result more than a few percent and the chances that it falls over the dividing line as above is remote.
Maybe you'll have a little less sympathy during the next droneathon campaign of Indyref2.
I think that we have to have a droneathon on Brexit first...
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
This was published in the Sunday post yesterday - 54% IN, 25% OUT and 21% DKN:
Here's a thought. Would the SNP push for another referendum if the position was reversed, rUK voted In, but Scotland voted out (suspend your disbelief for a moment here)?
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
Oh FFS the Nats will call anything a legitimate excuse for another referendum, Sam Cams' dress, the Camptown races, Andy Murray loses a match.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose sincxe the twats still haven't figured what they;re going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
Well I have more sympathy for the SNP's position than you, but I agree it is unlikely to be an issue in practice. No matter which way you cut up scepter'd isle you are unlikely to change the result more than a few percent and the chances that it falls over the dividing line as above is remote.
Maybe you'll have a little less sympathy during the next droneathon campaign of Indyref2.
I think that we have to have a droneathon on Brexit first...
The kippers are too busy squabbling amongst themselves for top class droning.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
This was published in the Sunday post yesterday - 54% IN, 25% OUT and 21% DKN:
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
This was published in the Sunday post yesterday - 54% IN, 25% OUT and 21% DKN:
Here's a thought. Would the SNP push for another referendum if the position was reversed, rUK voted In, but Scotland voted out (suspend your disbelief for a moment here)?
They'd push for a referendum if Cameron said tomayto and Sturgeon said tomatto.
Here's a thought. Would the SNP push for another referendum if the position was reversed, rUK voted In, but Scotland voted out (suspend your disbelief for a moment here)?
They'd push for a referendum if Cameron said tomayto and Sturgeon said tomatto.
I think they are now pushing for a referendum solely based on that comment.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
I think within England there will be significant variation. Probably most in London for In.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
Yep "once in a generation" or whenever the UK does something we (the SNP) don't agree with.
Cameron, and others, often repeated during the IndyRef campaign that Scotland could not be guaranteed to remain in the EU after a "Yes" vote. The duplicity of going from "Vote No to stay in the EU" to "we are taking you out of the EU whether you like it or not" would certainly be a justification for a second referendum.
Did Cam ever say "vote no to stay in the EU"? I think it is legitimate to point out where uncertainties exist in your opponents position.
Quite. No he didn't. What he rightly said was that a country becoming independent would not gain automatic membership, which it wouldn't.
The proposed referendum was a known unknown at the time of the Scottish vote and those who said last September's referendum would be definitive for twenty years or more can't reasonably use it to shorten the timescale of IndyRef2.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
This was published in the Sunday post yesterday - 54% IN, 25% OUT and 21% DKN:
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
Oh FFS the Nats will call anything a legitimate excuse for another referendum, Sam Cams' dress, the Camptown races, Andy Murray loses a match.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose sincxe the twats still haven't figured what they;re going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
Well I have more sympathy for the SNP's position than you, but I agree it is unlikely to be an issue in practice. No matter which way you cut up scepter'd isle you are unlikely to change the result more than a few percent and the chances that it falls over the dividing line as above is remote.
Maybe you'll have a little less sympathy during the next droneathon campaign of Indyref2.
I think that we have to have a droneathon on Brexit first...
The kippers are too busy squabbling amongst themselves for top class droning.
I think the BOOers will struggle to agree on what they want out of.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
I think within England there will be significant variation. Probably most in London for In.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
Yep "once in a generation" or whenever the UK does something we (the SNP) don't agree with.
Cameron, and others, often repeated during the IndyRef campaign that Scotland could not be guaranteed to remain in the EU after a "Yes" vote. The duplicity of going from "Vote No to stay in the EU" to "we are taking you out of the EU whether you like it or not" would certainly be a justification for a second referendum.
Did Cam ever say "vote no to stay in the EU"? I think it is legitimate to point out where uncertainties exist in your opponents position.
Quite. No he didn't. What he rightly said was that a country becoming independent would not gain automatic membership, which it wouldn't.
The proposed referendum was a known unknown at the time of the Scottish vote and those who said last September's referendum would be definitive for twenty years or more can't reasonably use it to shorten the timescale of IndyRef2.
I am sure 99% of people expressed no opinion on if/when there should be a second referendum.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Calum: while I wish you were right, the truth is that this story has very little resonance outside Scotland. Not one single person - outside PB - has mentioned this to me or has given any indication about caring.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Apologies I meant to say he's getting it from all quarters in Scotland, the Scottish MSM are covering it, with any newspaper which has expressed a view indicating he should be resigning. It appears that the LibDems have very few, if any, MSM supporters.
If Carmichael hangs on the LibDems are likely to suffer in Holyrood 2016, their 2 constituency MSPs are at risk already because of this affair, even their 3 remaining list seats can't be taken for granted.
It is highly significant that previously strongly Unionist newspapers such as the Scotsman have come out against him.
Why ? What's going to happen ? The seas dry up, the sun goes out or political anoraks get all excited while everyone else goes back to watching the X Factor ?
Well, it simply means that what happens in Warwickshire is no guide to what is happening in Scotland.
Someone was asking about the framing of the 1975 referendum question. It was:
"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"
That was me. Thanks.
Interesting to note that the Yes answer to that question was for the status quo, as opposed to AV and Scoland referendums where the Yes answer was for the change and No was for the status quo. I would suggest that the 1975 question asked today of the EU would be seen as favouring the In campaign by their opponents.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
Oh FFS the Nats will call anything a legitimate excuse for another referendum, Sam Cams' dress, the Camptown races, Andy Murray loses a match.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose sincxe the twats still haven't figured what they;re going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
Well I have more sympathy for the SNP's position than you, but I agree it is unlikely to be an issue in practice. No matter which way you cut up scepter'd isle you are unlikely to change the result more than a few percent and the chances that it falls over the dividing line as above is remote.
Maybe you'll have a little less sympathy during the next droneathon campaign of Indyref2.
I think that we have to have a droneathon on Brexit first...
The kippers are too busy squabbling amongst themselves for top class droning.
I was one of those that I think @Carnyx was talking about who changed their position on the Indyref , started off agin the idea of 16-18 year olds voting and came out in favour.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
You were indeed. I was very impressed by your posting about it at the time.
foxinsoxuk - Heh. I agree you could drive a coach and horses through that wording, which is why I would favour a full ban. ------ Someone was asking about the framing of the 1975 referendum question. It was:
"Does you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Calum: while I wish you were right, the truth is that this story has very little resonance outside Scotland. Not one single person - outside PB - has mentioned this to me or has given any indication about caring.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Apologies I meant to say he's getting it from all quarters in Scotland, the Scottish MSM are covering it, with any newspaper which has expressed a view indicating he should be resigning. It appears that the LibDems have very few, if any, MSM supporters.
If Carmichael hangs on the LibDems are likely to suffer in Holyrood 2016, their 2 constituency MSPs are at risk already because of this affair, even their 3 remaining list seats can't be taken for granted.
It is highly significant that previously strongly Unionist newspapers such as the Scotsman have come out against him.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
I think within England there will be significant variation. Probably most in London for In.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
Yep "once in a generation" or whenever the UK does something we (the SNP) don't agree with.
Cameron, and others, often repeated during the IndyRef campaign that Scotland could not be guaranteed to remain in the EU after a "Yes" vote. The duplicity of going from "Vote No to stay in the EU" to "we are taking you out of the EU whether you like it or not" would certainly be a justification for a second referendum.
Did Cam ever say "vote no to stay in the EU"? I think it is legitimate to point out where uncertainties exist in your opponents position.
Quite. No he didn't. What he rightly said was that a country becoming independent would not gain automatic membership, which it wouldn't.
The proposed referendum was a known unknown at the time of the Scottish vote and those who said last September's referendum would be definitive for twenty years or more can't reasonably use it to shorten the timescale of IndyRef2.
I am sure 99% of people expressed no opinion on if/when there should be a second referendum.
Maybe not but those who did should stick to it, and those who did included the leaders of both the Yes and No campaigns. For example:
It's grossly unfair that the Scottish independence debate was framed in terms of 'Yes' and 'No' but the British independence debate is framed in terms of 'In' and 'Out'.
"Yes, it was clear that the 1957 Treaty of Rome led to political union."
It was not.
In fact, when Tony Benn protested that was the case, it was denied. I and 99.9% of the population did not read the 1957 treaty.
They were working on the basis of "Softy, softly, catchee monkey".
I took quite an interest in it at the time so if I was fooled, so were many others.
That debate contains an entire shoal of red herrings.
While it's obviously true that the Treaty of Rome included and includes the infamous 'ever closer union' clause, it is of itself merely a stated objective. Certainly it has symbolic importance and has been a rallying point for Federalists but the integrationist process exists and existed because of the policies of individuals, not the clauses of treaties which are neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the end they aim for.
Removing the ever closer union commitment wouldn't necessarily prevent further development in that direction; nor will keeping it mean that it happens. It all depends on the political leaders (and the people they represent) pushing, resisting or rowing back on it.
Actually David that is not correct.
As Charles Moore pointed out many years ago when writing on this subject, the 'Ever Closer Union' phrase in the Treaty of Rome and its subsequent adoption in later Treaties is not, as many seem to think, simply an aspiration or a nice bit of flowery language at the start of the treaty. It has legal standing and is the basis for the doctrine of “acquis communautaire” which is the guiding principle of the European Court of Justice. The Court has a legal obligation to reference the principle of “acquis communautaire” when making decisions and as such it's decisions will inevitably progress in the direction of ever closer union.
At the time of the 1975 referendum and ever since, proponents of UK membership of the EEC/EU have attempted to portray the phrase as lacking any real meaning or power. This is not the case.
So no Yorkshire teams in the Premier League next season. Truly a second class county.
Football, pah, cricket is the only true great sport alongside Rugby Union.
Chuffed to buggery that England aren't nicking our coach now.
Test Cricket, a game invented, played and watched by people with FAR too much time on their hands?
Sunil, stop it! That was the best Test Match since 2005 and went like a flash!!
It was a great match. My only slight disappointment - without taking anything away from Ali who richly deserved those fabulous catches - was that Stokes couldn't get those last 2 wickets and so have a 'fivefor' to add to his century at Lords.
So no Yorkshire teams in the Premier League next season. Truly a second class county.
Football, pah, cricket is the only true great sport alongside Rugby Union.
Chuffed to buggery that England aren't nicking our coach now.
Test Cricket, a game invented, played and watched by people with FAR too much time on their hands?
Sunil, stop it! That was the best Test Match since 2005 and went like a flash!!
It was a great match. My only slight disappointment - without taking anything away from Ali who richly deserved those fabulous catches - was that Stokes couldn't get those last 2 wickets and so have a 'fivefor' to add to his century at Lords.
Agree Richard, Stokes was awesome and as one of the few to come back from Australia with any credit has really enhanced his reputation as a great all-rounder! Sunil, you are a bad man. many of us postponed most of our engagements, bodily functions and communications since Thursday...
It's grossly unfair that the Scottish independence debate was framed in terms of 'Yes' and 'No' but the British independence debate is framed in terms of 'In' and 'Out'.
One assumes that we will have Yes and No campaigns established once there is agreement on the referendum question.
"Yes, it was clear that the 1957 Treaty of Rome led to political union."
It was not.
In fact, when Tony Benn protested that was the case, it was denied. I and 99.9% of the population did not read the 1957 treaty.
They were working on the basis of "Softy, softly, catchee monkey".
I took quite an interest in it at the time so if I was fooled, so were many others.
That debate contains an entire shoal of red herrings.
While it's obviously true that the Treaty of Rome included and includes the infamous 'ever closer union' clause, it is of itself merely a stated objective. Certainly it has symbolic importance and has been a rallying point for Federalists but the integrationist process exists and existed because of the policies of individuals, not the clauses of treaties which are neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the end they aim for.
Removing the ever closer union commitment wouldn't necessarily prevent further development in that direction; nor will keeping it mean that it happens. It all depends on the political leaders (and the people they represent) pushing, resisting or rowing back on it.
Actually David that is not correct.
As Charles Moore pointed out many years ago when writing on this subject, the 'Ever Closer Union' phrase in the Treaty of Rome and its subsequent adoption in later Treaties is not, as many seem to think, simply an aspiration or a nice bit of flowery language at the start of the treaty. It has legal standing and is the basis for the doctrine of “acquis communautaire” which is the guiding principle of the European Court of Justice. The Court has a legal obligation to reference the principle of “acquis communautaire” when making decisions and as such it's decisions will inevitably progress in the direction of ever closer union.
At the time of the 1975 referendum and ever since, proponents of UK membership of the EEC/EU have attempted to portray the phrase as lacking any real meaning or power. This is not the case.
OK, I'll accept that. But even so, the ECJ has only limited scope for discretion; likewise the Commission. The big leaps forward - the Single Market, the Euro etc. - were the results of intergovernmental treaties. Put another way, had the governments not those treaties, the EEC - and it would still be the EEC - would be a very different beast from that which it is.
OK, I'll accept that. But even so, the ECJ has only limited scope for discretion; likewise the Commission. The big leaps forward - the Single Market, the Euro etc. - were the results of intergovernmental treaties. Put another way, had the governments not those treaties, the EEC - and it would still be the EEC - would be a very different beast from that which it is.
The problem being, as has been mentioned before, that it is the ECJ which interprets those treaties and sets the legal benchmark accordingly. And that benchmark is based upon the principle of Ever Closer Union. Short of withdrawal, there is little scope for any real change in our membership of the EU. Hence the reason Cameron is looking for apparently symbolic but synthetic changes which will in fact change nothing.
A classic example of this was Major's claims about 'subsidiarity' which were circumvented and effectively neutered because of the way they were interpreted and enacted by the EU.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
We have overlooked something that might affect the EU negotiations, Poland has elected a UKIP-type guy for president yesterday or as the Telegraph puts it "Poland is on “the velvet road to dictatorship”:
Will that favour a hard line negotiation or not, will Tory euroskeptics find an ally or the EU will need to push back harder if Poland also wants more power?
Tyke Not really, Max Hastings just been on saying Churchill alone was prepared to fight Hitler rather than do a deal with him, however he was not suited to the post-war desires of the electorate for a welfare state and NHS which led to Attlee's victory
OK, I'll accept that. But even so, the ECJ has only limited scope for discretion; likewise the Commission. The big leaps forward - the Single Market, the Euro etc. - were the results of intergovernmental treaties. Put another way, had the governments not those treaties, the EEC - and it would still be the EEC - would be a very different beast from that which it is.
The problem being, as has been mentioned before, that it is the ECJ which interprets those treaties and sets the legal benchmark accordingly. And that benchmark is based upon the principle of Ever Closer Union. Short of withdrawal, there is little scope for any real change in our membership of the EU. Hence the reason Cameron is looking for apparently symbolic but synthetic changes which will in fact change nothing.
A classic example of this was Major's claims about 'subsidiarity' which were circumvented and effectively neutered because of the way they were interpreted and enacted by the EU.
I don't think that is necessarily true Richard. We had the pillars in Maastricht which accepted that the EU and Nation States would have different competencies in different areas. What we need now is a treaty that is flexible enough to allow much greater fiscal integration in the EZ so that their economy works as more than a subsidy machine for German exports and an alternative looser form of membership where their decisions are not allowed to affect us and anyone else who stays out of the Euro.
I think that is possible if not easy to achieve. We want the City of London to have unfettered access to their financial markets and they want us to remain as their largest/second largest export market for their goods. There is enough common interest there to get a deal. If there isn't well, cheerio.
Tyke Not really, Max Hastings just been on saying Churchill alone was prepared to fight Hitler rather than do a deal with him, however he was not suited to the post-war desires of the electorate for a welfare state and NHS which led to Attlee's victory
Churchill was the right man in 1940, but the wrong man for peace. Just look at how lame his 1951 administration was, the electorate got it right.
Tyke Not really, Max Hastings just been on saying Churchill alone was prepared to fight Hitler rather than do a deal with him, however he was not suited to the post-war desires of the electorate for a welfare state and NHS which led to Attlee's victory
what I am finding from this doc,churchill was crap in ww1,he was a drunk,crap at most speeches,war monger,hated the working classes,he's a racist and so on.
What the hell has half the things brought up in the doc has to do with him losing the 45 election.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
I'm not watching it (Avengers a much better choice in those precious minutes after the little 'un decided that sleep is better than play), but it seems fair enough. A few months ago there were a whole series of programs which were very sympathetic towards Churchill (to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his death). They did not necessarily tell the whole story though, because he was both great and flawed.
He made many, many mistakes throughout his career, mistakes that nowadays would destroy a politician's career. Yet because it did not destroy his career, we were lucky enough to have him when we really needed him. Perhaps that's something worth thinking about.
So no Yorkshire teams in the Premier League next season. Truly a second class county.
Football, pah, cricket is the only true great sport alongside Rugby Union.
Chuffed to buggery that England aren't nicking our coach now.
Test Cricket, a game invented, played and watched by people with FAR too much time on their hands?
The last ever timeless Test was the fifth Test between England and South Africa at Durban in 1939,[1] which was abandoned as a draw after nine days of play spread over twelve days, otherwise the England team would have missed the boat for home.[2] This match had started on 3 March. South Africa had set a target of 696 for England to win. By the time England had to leave to catch their boat home, on 14 March, England had reached 654 for 5 (the highest ever first-class fourth innings score).[3] This is the longest Test cricket match on record.
Isn't it strange that one or two quotes from Mass Observation diaries are treated as indisputable facts about the war. These people were self-selecting and self-important. It's like taking quotes from comments on the Guardian website today.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
[snip]
Calum: while I wish you were right, the truth is that this story has very little resonance outside Scotland. Not one single person - outside PB - has mentioned this to me or has given any indication about caring.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Apologies I meant to say he's getting it from all quarters in Scotland, the Scottish MSM are covering it, with any newspaper which has expressed a view indicating he should be resigning. It appears that the LibDems have very few, if any, MSM supporters.
If Carmichael hangs on the LibDems are likely to suffer in Holyrood 2016, their 2 constituency MSPs are at risk already because of this affair, even their 3 remaining list seats can't be taken for granted.
It is highly significant that previously strongly Unionist newspapers such as the Scotsman have come out against him.
I had a look at the Orcadian - horrible website BTW - but its Thursday publication is perhaps why there is no editorial relevant to this. It fdid print the Rennie apologia pretty straight though. Will be interesting to see what happens there.
If the Scots thought independence was once in a lifetime, it is funny that they voted for fifty-six Scottish nationalists.
Those who deny referendums are usually scared of those referendums. So we were told about European Union, but the Union is completely different, I suppose?
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
I'm not watching it (Avengers a much better choice in those precious minutes after the little 'un decided that sleep is better than play), but it seems fair enough. A few months ago there were a whole series of programs which were very sympathetic towards Churchill (to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his death). They did not necessarily tell the whole story though, because he was both great and flawed.
He made many, many mistakes throughout his career, mistakes that nowadays would destroy a politician's career. Yet because it did not destroy his career, we were lucky enough to have him when we really needed him. Perhaps that's something worth thinking about.
OK, I'll accept that. But even so, the ECJ has only limited scope for discretion; likewise the Commission. The big leaps forward - the Single Market, the Euro etc. - were the results of intergovernmental treaties. Put another way, had the governments not those treaties, the EEC - and it would still be the EEC - would be a very different beast from that which it is.
The problem being, as has been mentioned before, that it is the ECJ which interprets those treaties and sets the legal benchmark accordingly. And that benchmark is based upon the principle of Ever Closer Union. Short of withdrawal, there is little scope for any real change in our membership of the EU. Hence the reason Cameron is looking for apparently symbolic but synthetic changes which will in fact change nothing.
A classic example of this was Major's claims about 'subsidiarity' which were circumvented and effectively neutered because of the way they were interpreted and enacted by the EU.
I don't think that is necessarily true Richard. We had the pillars in Maastricht which accepted that the EU and Nation States would have different competencies in different areas. What we need now is a treaty that is flexible enough to allow much greater fiscal integration in the EZ so that their economy works as more than a subsidy machine for German exports and an alternative looser form of membership where their decisions are not allowed to affect us and anyone else who stays out of the Euro.
I think that is possible if not easy to achieve. We want the City of London to have unfettered access to their financial markets and they want us to remain as their largest/second largest export market for their goods. There is enough common interest there to get a deal. If there isn't well, cheerio.
Well apparently a treaty is the one thing it looks like we are certain not to get. Cameron apparently isn't asking for one and no one in the EU appears to want to have one with all the risks it might not get passed by one or more countries.
As it stands what we are being offered is more of the same.
OK, I'll accept that. But even so, the ECJ has only limited scope for discretion; likewise the Commission. The big leaps forward - the Single Market, the Euro etc. - were the results of intergovernmental treaties. Put another way, had the governments not those treaties, the EEC - and it would still be the EEC - would be a very different beast from that which it is.
The problem being, as has been mentioned before, that it is the ECJ which interprets those treaties and sets the legal benchmark accordingly. And that benchmark is based upon the principle of Ever Closer Union. Short of withdrawal, there is little scope for any real change in our membership of the EU. Hence the reason Cameron is looking for apparently symbolic but synthetic changes which will in fact change nothing.
A classic example of this was Major's claims about 'subsidiarity' which were circumvented and effectively neutered because of the way they were interpreted and enacted by the EU.
But it can only interpret what is there. It wasn't the ECJ which created the Euro or completed the single market or extended the competencies of the EU (well, maybe very slightly), or for that matter created the EU.
The subsidiarity concept I'll grant you has not made much difference to the EU's method of operating. On the other hand, for all the EU might want the non-Euro members to join the single currency, the fact is that neither the Commission nor the ECJ can do anything meaningful about it until and unless the political will exists in those countries. The institutions can assist the process of integration but it is the member governments that provide the momentum.
David Skelton @DJSkelton · Interesting Churchill doc but it does seem like a bit of an anti Churchill hatchet job. No mention of successful 1951 reforming govt either
David Skelton @DJSkelton · Nor was there much mention in the BBC2 documentary of Churchill's record as a great reforming Minister in Asquith's government
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
I think within England there will be significant variation. Probably most in London for In.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
Yep "once in a generation" or whenever the UK does something we (the SNP) don't agree with.
Cameron, and others, often repeated during the IndyRef campaign that Scotland could not be guaranteed to remain in the EU after a "Yes" vote. The duplicity of going from "Vote No to stay in the EU" to "we are taking you out of the EU whether you like it or not" would certainly be a justification for a second referendum.
Did Cam ever say "vote no to stay in the EU"? I think it is legitimate to point out where uncertainties exist in your opponents position.
Quite. No he didn't. What he rightly said was that a country becoming independent would not gain automatic membership, which it wouldn't.
The proposed referendum was a known unknown at the time of the Scottish vote and those who said last September's referendum would be definitive for twenty years or more can't reasonably use it to shorten the timescale of IndyRef2.
I'll try and find the polls but a couple of times people were asked "if you knew the 2015 Election would bring about a majority Tory government would you vote Yes to Scottish Independence" and each time that punted the Yes vote from below 50% to above 50%
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
LOL, I'd really enjoy watching that.
NI - sod off no-one can afford you, stay with the brits Wales - bugger the whole place runs at a loss, come back later Scotland - well maybe but your going to have to cut your government spending by 10% ok ? Oh and the Spaniards want the rest of the fish.
Alan, you forgot , England who will fund your deficit
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
I'm not watching it (Avengers a much better choice in those precious minutes after the little 'un decided that sleep is better than play), but it seems fair enough. A few months ago there were a whole series of programs which were very sympathetic towards Churchill (to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his death). They did not necessarily tell the whole story though, because he was both great and flawed.
He made many, many mistakes throughout his career, mistakes that nowadays would destroy a politician's career. Yet because it did not destroy his career, we were lucky enough to have him when we really needed him. Perhaps that's something worth thinking about.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
That kind of result would certainly be difficult, not least because I don't think English voters would accept the right of Scots to exercise veto against a UK-wide result (where, almost by definition, the Scots voted one way and the English the other).
we could just keep offering them another vote until they got the right answer.
Well there are two issues.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
Oh FFS the Nats will call anything a legitimate excuse for another referendum, Sam Cams' dress, the Camptown races, Andy Murray loses a match.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose sincxe the twats still haven't figured what they;re going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
Well I have more sympathy for the SNP's position than you, but I agree it is unlikely to be an issue in practice. No matter which way you cut up scepter'd isle you are unlikely to change the result more than a few percent and the chances that it falls over the dividing line as above is remote.
Maybe you'll have a little less sympathy during the next droneathon campaign of Indyref2.
I think that we have to have a droneathon on Brexit first...
The kippers are too busy squabbling amongst themselves for top class droning.
I think the BOOers will struggle to agree on what they want out of.
You make a good point there. And what do they want into afterwards?
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
I'm not watching it (Avengers a much better choice in those precious minutes after the little 'un decided that sleep is better than play), but it seems fair enough. A few months ago there were a whole series of programs which were very sympathetic towards Churchill (to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his death). They did not necessarily tell the whole story though, because he was both great and flawed.
He made many, many mistakes throughout his career, mistakes that nowadays would destroy a politician's career. Yet because it did not destroy his career, we were lucky enough to have him when we really needed him. Perhaps that's something worth thinking about.
Ed, come back, please. Just in case.
How did you guess that's what I was thinking? ;-)
I am trying really hard to think of a problem to which Ed could possibly be the solution. Its not easy work.
Alistair Scots knew full well a Tory majority was possible in 2015, yet still voted No. What they want is more powers and Cameron and Sturgeon have made some good progress together on beginning to deliver that
OK, I'll accept that. But even so, the ECJ has only limited scope for discretion; likewise the Commission. The big leaps forward - the Single Market, the Euro etc. - were the results of intergovernmental treaties. Put another way, had the governments not those treaties, the EEC - and it would still be the EEC - would be a very different beast from that which it is.
The problem being, as has been mentioned before, that it is the ECJ which interprets those treaties and sets the legal benchmark accordingly. And that benchmark is based upon the principle of Ever Closer Union. Short of withdrawal, there is little scope for any real change in our membership of the EU. Hence the reason Cameron is looking for apparently symbolic but synthetic changes which will in fact change nothing.
A classic example of this was Major's claims about 'subsidiarity' which were circumvented and effectively neutered because of the way they were interpreted and enacted by the EU.
I don't think that is necessarily true Richard. We had the pillars in Maastricht which accepted that the EU and Nation States would have different competencies in different areas. What we need now is a treaty that is flexible enough to allow much greater fiscal integration in the EZ so that their economy works as more than a subsidy machine for German exports and an alternative looser form of membership where their decisions are not allowed to affect us and anyone else who stays out of the Euro.
I think that is possible if not easy to achieve. We want the City of London to have unfettered access to their financial markets and they want us to remain as their largest/second largest export market for their goods. There is enough common interest there to get a deal. If there isn't well, cheerio.
Well apparently a treaty is the one thing it looks like we are certain not to get. Cameron apparently isn't asking for one and no one in the EU appears to want to have one with all the risks it might not get passed by one or more countries.
As it stands what we are being offered is more of the same.
I think we will get the promise or outline of a treaty. The EZ actually requires one more than we do even now. If Greece really does exit the EZ (doubt it but their government keeps playing roulette with more and more bullets in the revolver) they will need it even more.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. Down here in Warwickshire nobody gives a shit.
All quarters of the Callum household. Even the pet trossach is trying to log on to express an opinion. I gather there has been considerable turbulence noted in Loch Ness.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
I'm not watching it (Avengers a much better choice in those precious minutes after the little 'un decided that sleep is better than play), but it seems fair enough. A few months ago there were a whole series of programs which were very sympathetic towards Churchill (to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his death). They did not necessarily tell the whole story though, because he was both great and flawed.
He made many, many mistakes throughout his career, mistakes that nowadays would destroy a politician's career. Yet because it did not destroy his career, we were lucky enough to have him when we really needed him. Perhaps that's something worth thinking about.
Ed, come back, please. Just in case.
How did you guess that's what I was thinking? ;-)
I am trying really hard to think of a problem to which Ed could possibly be the solution. Its not easy work.
He was the solution to the problem of how to keep Labour unelectable. ;-)
So here we are 12 hrs later ...10.35pm Malcolm G still insulting people..
Malc are you a relative of the terribly sad tim???, Not only did he slag off people on here he slagged off the genius George Osborne. Must be rather sad for tim to pick a slagging off twitter name and call it all wrong.
Ditto It must have cost poor old tim a packet on the GE 2015 unless of course he bet against the consistent lies he posted on PB
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
Some professor bloke even said that Churchill was, between the wars. like a Farage figure of his time. Crazy, they have to bring Nigel's name in somewhere.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
Some professor bloke even said that Churchill was, between the wars. like a Farage figure of his time. Crazy, they have to bring Nigel's name in somewhere.
Crazy they had to try to compare Churchill with featherhead Farage.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
Some professor bloke even said that Churchill was, between the wars. like a Farage figure of his time. Crazy, they have to bring Nigel's name in somewhere.
Worth remembering Clement Attlee. In 1938 he led the Labour party voting against the Munich Agreement. A few Tories abstained but most voted to back Chamberlain.
Churchill was far from a lone voice in recognising the risks of Nazism, and it perhaps explains part of why Attlee was popular in 1945. He was not appearing from nowhere, and indeed had a distinguished war record himself.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
Some professor bloke even said that Churchill was, between the wars. like a Farage figure of his time. Crazy, they have to bring Nigel's name in somewhere.
Churchill did have trouble winning a seat in the early 1920s?
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I'm an In who opposes it on principle. Either 16 year olds should be adults and have the vote in every election, or they're not and shouldn't. This halfway house of supporting 16 year olds voting in referendums but not elections in indefensible nonsense.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
Some professor bloke even said that Churchill was, between the wars. like a Farage figure of his time. Crazy, they have to bring Nigel's name in somewhere.
If you had read "The Wilderness Years" (Martin Gilbert) or seen the ITV series, its quite true that many thought or portrayed Churchill as barmy (but the Farage stuff is way off beam) and the MOD was trying to supress the truth, IIRC correctly given to Churchill by a civil servant
GIN1138 Except Michael Howard had to face Blair for one more election in 2005, Labour's leader will not have to face Cameron in 2020
Cameron's serving a full five year term. That means that however he plans to organise a handover, the next Labour leader will be confronted with Cameron in the election.
And who knows what Cameron's real plans are? He might do something unexpected like a simple job-swap with Osborne.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
Some professor bloke even said that Churchill was, between the wars. like a Farage figure of his time. Crazy, they have to bring Nigel's name in somewhere.
Worth remembering Clement Attlee. In 1938 he led the Labour party voting against the Munich Agreement. A few Tories abstained but most voted to back Chamberlain.
Churchill was far from a lone voice in recognising the risks of Nazism, and it perhaps explains part of why Attlee was popular in 1945. He was not appearing from nowhere, and indeed had a distinguished war record himself.
Attlee spent most of the 1930s opposing rearmament. He, and people like him, had no moral right to criticise Chamberlain when they'd done their best to deny the country the means to oppose Hitler. As late as October 1936 (after Germany had begun remiliratising the Rhineland), Attlee was still proclaiming to the Labour conference his opposition to the government's rearmament programme.
It was all very well him opposing Munich. If he'd been prime minister - and he was Labour leader at the 1935 election - what would he have opposed it with? Bows and arrows?
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 2 mins2 minutes ago An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
Some professor bloke even said that Churchill was, between the wars. like a Farage figure of his time. Crazy, they have to bring Nigel's name in somewhere.
If you had read "The Wilderness Years" its quite true that many thought Churchill was barmy (but the Farage stuff is way off beam) and the MOD was trying to supress the truth, IIRC correctly given to Churchill by a civil servant
Churchill was indeed barmy on many subjects such as Indian nationalism. His time as minister for the colonies then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920's were also pretty poor. His response to the General Strike was so inflammatory that it could have led to mass civil unrest.
It was for these reasons that Churchill was in the wilderness in the 1930's, not for opposing appeasement. It was Baldwin who rebuilt the Royal Navy in the 1930's, and Chamberlain who modernised Britains air defences.
He was a great war leader, particularly in the early phases, but too idiosyncratic to be a great leader in peacetime.
Comments
I was one year old in 1974; I didn't get a vote (although the way things are going, the Greens will probably suggest I should have had one).
For what it's worth, it's not a referendum I was clamouring for but given that it was an election commitment, it needs to be honoured.
"Yes, it was clear that the 1957 Treaty of Rome led to political union."
It was not.
In fact, when Tony Benn protested that was the case, it was denied. I and 99.9% of the population did not read the 1957 treaty.
They were working on the basis of "Softy, softly, catchee monkey".
I took quite an interest in it at the time so if I was fooled, so were many others.
Scotland voting yes and the UK overall voting no will not affect the result of that particular. There is no mechanism for it to do so, and when the SNP broached the subject Cameron was clear there wouldn't be.
On the other hand, it will no doubt add a great deal of pressure on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. It would lead to, I believe, legitimate calls for another referendum.
I'll be clearer. Why change the rules now about eligibility to vote?
While it's obviously true that the Treaty of Rome included and includes the infamous 'ever closer union' clause, it is of itself merely a stated objective. Certainly it has symbolic importance and has been a rallying point for Federalists but the integrationist process exists and existed because of the policies of individuals, not the clauses of treaties which are neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the end they aim for.
Removing the ever closer union commitment wouldn't necessarily prevent further development in that direction; nor will keeping it mean that it happens. It all depends on the political leaders (and the people they represent) pushing, resisting or rowing back on it.
Quite why the rest of us should give a shit about legitimacy when the same peoiple who claimed this was a once in a lifetime referendum and then changed the story when it suited them is beyond me.
Frankly I doubt your average Scot is much different to the rest of us. Europe is about number 9 or 10 on his list of priorities and hardly the basis for Indyref 2.
Which of course they'd still lose since the twats still haven't figured what they're going to use as a currency. Or an economy for that matter.
The duplicity of going from "Vote No to stay in the EU" to "we are taking you out of the EU whether you like it or not" would certainly be a justification for a second referendum.
If Carmichael hangs on the LibDems are likely to suffer in Holyrood 2016, their 2 constituency MSPs are at risk already because of this affair, even their 3 remaining list seats can't be taken for granted.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-there-is-a-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-european-union-how-will#table
If the dear leader recommends In, that might fall more into line with the Scottish position
The proposed referendum was a known unknown at the time of the Scottish vote and those who said last September's referendum would be definitive for twenty years or more can't reasonably use it to shorten the timescale of IndyRef2.
Edit: or the other way round!!
Interesting to note that the Yes answer to that question was for the status quo, as opposed to AV and Scoland referendums where the Yes answer was for the change and No was for the status quo. I would suggest that the 1975 question asked today of the EU would be seen as favouring the In campaign by their opponents.
"He will make an excellent Drone!"
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/record-view-leaky-lib-dems-5746182
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/viewpoint/10707-opinion-the-isles-deserve-another-vote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29196661
As Charles Moore pointed out many years ago when writing on this subject, the 'Ever Closer Union' phrase in the Treaty of Rome and its subsequent adoption in later Treaties is not, as many seem to think, simply an aspiration or a nice bit of flowery language at the start of the treaty. It has legal standing and is the basis for the doctrine of “acquis communautaire” which is the guiding principle of the European Court of Justice. The Court has a legal obligation to reference the principle of “acquis communautaire” when making decisions and as such it's decisions will inevitably progress in the direction of ever closer union.
At the time of the 1975 referendum and ever since, proponents of UK membership of the EEC/EU have attempted to portray the phrase as lacking any real meaning or power. This is not the case.
A classic example of this was Major's claims about 'subsidiarity' which were circumvented and effectively neutered because of the way they were interpreted and enacted by the EU.
An unnecessarily anti-Churchill flavour to this BBC2 documentary - not just about the 1945 election campaign but re his speechmaking too
Anyone watching this Documentary on Churchill,very negative on Churchill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/11628799/Poland-on-the-velvet-road-to-dictatorship-after-Andrzej-Duda-wins-presidential-elections.html
Will that favour a hard line negotiation or not, will Tory euroskeptics find an ally or the EU will need to push back harder if Poland also wants more power?
I think that is possible if not easy to achieve. We want the City of London to have unfettered access to their financial markets and they want us to remain as their largest/second largest export market for their goods. There is enough common interest there to get a deal. If there isn't well, cheerio.
What the hell has half the things brought up in the doc has to do with him losing the 45 election.
He made many, many mistakes throughout his career, mistakes that nowadays would destroy a politician's career. Yet because it did not destroy his career, we were lucky enough to have him when we really needed him. Perhaps that's something worth thinking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeless_Test
These five-day affairs are very rushed.
Those who deny referendums are usually scared of those referendums. So we were told about European Union, but the Union is completely different, I suppose?
As it stands what we are being offered is more of the same.
The subsidiarity concept I'll grant you has not made much difference to the EU's method of operating. On the other hand, for all the EU might want the non-Euro members to join the single currency, the fact is that neither the Commission nor the ECJ can do anything meaningful about it until and unless the political will exists in those countries. The institutions can assist the process of integration but it is the member governments that provide the momentum.
Interesting Churchill doc but it does seem like a bit of an anti Churchill hatchet job. No mention of successful 1951 reforming govt either
David Skelton @DJSkelton ·
Nor was there much mention in the BBC2 documentary of Churchill's record as a great reforming Minister in Asquith's government
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/westboro-baptist-church-gets-irelands-flag-wrong-declares-it-hates-ivory-coast-1502854
But we will see.
Malc are you a relative of the terribly sad tim???, Not only did he slag off people on here he slagged off the genius George Osborne. Must be rather sad for tim to pick a slagging off twitter name and call it all wrong.
Ditto It must have cost poor old tim a packet on the GE 2015 unless of course he bet against the consistent lies he posted on PB
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/19/labour-saviour-downing-street-michael-howard
Who's been saying that? ;0
Churchill was far from a lone voice in recognising the risks of Nazism, and it perhaps explains part of why Attlee was popular in 1945. He was not appearing from nowhere, and indeed had a distinguished war record himself.
And who knows what Cameron's real plans are? He might do something unexpected like a simple job-swap with Osborne.
It was all very well him opposing Munich. If he'd been prime minister - and he was Labour leader at the 1935 election - what would he have opposed it with? Bows and arrows?
Some amazing Kate Bush performances on BBC4 at the moment. Haven't heard most of them before.
It was for these reasons that Churchill was in the wilderness in the 1930's, not for opposing appeasement. It was Baldwin who rebuilt the Royal Navy in the 1930's, and Chamberlain who modernised Britains air defences.
He was a great war leader, particularly in the early phases, but too idiosyncratic to be a great leader in peacetime.