She's simply seeking to foster division, which is the SNP's modus operandi when it comes to the UK.
Cameron needs to put Salmond and Sturgeon back in their boxes, and quickly. The government reaction to the SNP should be to ignore them completely. They represent only a small fraction of MPs and and any concessions made to them will be met only by a new list of demands. They really can't win by engaging with the Nats.
Very true.The SNP have realized they'll never be able to win a referendum so have embarked on a different tack: antagonize the English so much that they effectively get Scotland expelled from the union. Of course, the English are a race of supreme tolerance and patience and will never be goaded into such impetuousness. Nonetheless, the antics of Salmond and his motley crew can't fail to drag Scotland's good name through the mud. We English have a duty to make it clear to the Scots that we see the SNP merely as cluster of unrepresentative eccentrics and outriders - not a symptom of some wider malaise.
What about Mr Salmond standing to be mayor of London
It would be very interesting to see how well SNP candidates would fare in the rest of the UK. Leaving aside the independence issue, they could well hoover up many of the traditional left-wing voters who are dismayed with Labour's policy platform.
That's all very well but I think Sturgeon is fundamentally right that if Scotland (or NI) votes differently to the UK as a whole that it would be tantamount to a vote to secede and would, in the SNP's case, be grounds for a further independence referendum.
The UK is not a federal state but we'd do well to start thinking of ourselves that way. We don't have a great record so far of maintaining the territorial integrity and cohesion of a unitary state spanning these islands.
The question will be "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?" (clause 1(4) of the Bill). Those in Scotland will be voting about what the position of the United Kingdom will be, not what the position of Scotland ought to be.
That's all very well but I think Sturgeon is fundamentally right that if Scotland (or NI) votes differently to the UK as a whole that it would be tantamount to a vote to secede and would, in the SNP's case, be grounds for a further independence referendum.
The UK is not a federal state but we'd do well to start thinking of ourselves that way. We don't have a great record so far of maintaining the territorial integrity and cohesion of a unitary state spanning these islands.
The question will be "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?" (clause 1(4) of the Bill). Those in Scotland will be voting about what the position of the United Kingdom will be, not what the position of Scotland ought to be.
That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.
That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.
Of course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. They have every right to, and why wouldn't they? If the majority of Scots voted to leave, but the UK to stay in, I have no doubt Ms Sturgeon et al. will become Damascene converts to the cause of Euroscepticism.
What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.
That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.
Of course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. They have every right to, and why wouldn't they? If the majority of Scots voted to leave, but the UK to stay in, I have no doubt Ms Sturgeon et al. will become Damascene converts to the cause of Euroscepticism.
What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.
Hohum, don't know. Williamglenn is right, and while LIAMT is right about questioning how far Sturgeon's argument will get at Westminster nevertheless I think it will be forceful indeed, ASSUMING we get a different result in Scotland (and not 51/49).
The SNP will need all their attention in Holyrood where their power is at present. When George Osborne announces the welfare cuts on the 8th July they will have to use their new found tax raising powers to maintain, let alone increase welfare in Scotland, as they will not win an austerity argument in RUK
I'm shocked, look at this way, if Sol becomes the Tory candidate, you win money, which will soften the blow and were he to become London Mayor, then he won't be the Tory candidate in Buckingham, so saves you from voting UKIP in 2020.
She's simply seeking to foster division, which is the SNP's modus operandi when it comes to the UK.
Cameron needs to put Salmond and Sturgeon back in their boxes, and quickly. The government reaction to the SNP should be to ignore them completely. They represent only a small fraction of MPs and and any concessions made to them will be met only by a new list of demands. They really can't win by engaging with the Nats.
Very true.The SNP have realized they'll never be able to win a referendum so have embarked on a different tack: antagonize the English so much that they effectively get Scotland expelled from the union. Of course, the English are a race of supreme tolerance and patience and will never be goaded into such impetuousness. Nonetheless, the antics of Salmond and his motley crew can't fail to drag Scotland's good name through the mud. We English have a duty to make it clear to the Scots that we see the SNP merely as cluster of unrepresentative eccentrics and outriders - not a symptom of some wider malaise.
I think that you might be surprised if you asked Scots what they think of the antics of the SNP in the HoC. I think that quite a lot of people up here would be broadly supportive of what they are doing to upset what is perceived as some of the posher, upperclass part of England. I'm not saying that it is everyone but probably atleast in line with the amount of support that the SNP party have generally.
She's simply seeking to foster division, which is the SNP's modus operandi when it comes to the UK.
Cameron needs to put Salmond and Sturgeon back in their boxes, and quickly. The government reaction to the SNP should be to ignore them completely. They represent only a small fraction of MPs and and any concessions made to them will be met only by a new list of demands. They really can't win by engaging with the Nats.
Very true.The SNP have realized they'll never be able to win a referendum so have embarked on a different tack: antagonize the English so much that they effectively get Scotland expelled from the union. Of course, the English are a race of supreme tolerance and patience and will never be goaded into such impetuousness. Nonetheless, the antics of Salmond and his motley crew can't fail to drag Scotland's good name through the mud. We English have a duty to make it clear to the Scots that we see the SNP merely as cluster of unrepresentative eccentrics and outriders - not a symptom of some wider malaise.
I think that you might be surprised if you asked Scots what they think of the antics of the SNP in the HoC. I think that quite a lot of people up here would be broadly supportive of what they are doing to upset what is perceived as some of the posher, upperclass part of England. I'm not saying that it is everyone but probably atleast in line with the amount of support that the SNP party have generally.
If I was a Scot and a bit rebellious, i would be a "good on 'em" but traditions arent bad in themselves. Traditions are usually formed by some rebellious people getting rid of what preceded them!
But, in my experience, the public dont seem to take kindly to people making politics into a game (though, that is often what it largely is).
I personally think Sol Campbell would be a completely disastrous choice for the Conservative party. I recall, during the election campaign, reading a Guardian interview with Campbell, were he came across as completely self-obsessed and the epitome of narcissism, proclaiming that we he'd grown up, there had been 'no safety net'. Given that Campbell was born in the 70s, that is actually impossible, and would have grown up in the 80s and 90s - when a welfare state did indeed exist, that is actually impossible. In order for the Tories to win the London, they need a fairly moderate candidate, or at least one that come across that way, and can relate to people. Boris Johnson, to all intends and purposes came across as a 'moderate' Conservative to Londoners, in what is a metropolitan, liberal, centre-left city. Sol Campbell, does not come off as a moderate at all tbh, and if anything will probably have issues attempting to understand the London electorate - something which is vital.
I'd argue the ideal candidate for the Conservatives, who could genuinely win would be Zac Goldsmith - someone who isn't too ideological, and quite people-friendly. It would be a shame if Conservative HQ didn't back him.
That's very interesting.
This is spot on as regards Campbell, regardless of the Arsenal-Spurs thing he has a habit of saying things in interviews that make him sound borderline delusional, like the claim that he'd have been England captain for 10 years if he wasn't black. Now there maybe some truth to the claim that black players may have got a raw deal due to football's old boys network, but not even Bobby Moore managed that, let alone someone who was known for being a bit of a loner within the game and wasn't necessarily well liked in dressing rooms. The story about him telling the sports minister and collected FA bods 'But I am Sol Campbell' is cringeworthily hilarious. If he is to go into politics, best for it not to be in a job when he'll be constantly badgered by the media.
A Goldsmith candidacy could be dangerous for the Tories in the long run - his independence could set up a few battles with a Tory government. Unlike Boris, where disagreements were largely sound and fury and his own ambitions, he would actually pick a fight over a point of principle and run with it until it became severely embarrassing. Brady will probably be more interested in 2020 - she's got a lot on her plate in 2016 with West Ham's stadium move. Goldsmith would be the intelligent choice - a sort of Boris without the baggage and vanity, which people may be tiring of.
Its the job of mayor to be semi detached from party. So I do not think any one party should be worried about that. Being a 'maverick' helps. Fortunately the job of mayor does not involve much.
She's simply seeking to foster division, which is the SNP's modus operandi when it comes to the UK.
Cameron needs to put Salmond and Sturgeon back in their boxes, and quickly. The government reaction to the SNP should be to ignore them completely. They represent only a small fraction of MPs and and any concessions made to them will be met only by a new list of demands. They really can't win by engaging with the Nats.
Very true.The SNP have realized they'll never be able to win a referendum so have embarked on a different tack: antagonize the English so much that they effectively get Scotland expelled from the union. Of course, the English are a race of supreme tolerance and patience and will never be goaded into such impetuousness. Nonetheless, the antics of Salmond and his motley crew can't fail to drag Scotland's good name through the mud. We English have a duty to make it clear to the Scots that we see the SNP merely as cluster of unrepresentative eccentrics and outriders - not a symptom of some wider malaise.
I think that you might be surprised if you asked Scots what they think of the antics of the SNP in the HoC. I think that quite a lot of people up here would be broadly supportive of what they are doing to upset what is perceived as some of the posher, upperclass part of England. I'm not saying that it is everyone but probably atleast in line with the amount of support that the SNP party have generally.
I never thought of Denis Skinner as one of the posher, upper class of England, but I suppose class is all about relative position of the observer.
The SNP will need all their attention in Holyrood where their power is at present. When George Osborne announces the welfare cuts on the 8th July they will have to use their new found tax raising powers to maintain, let alone increase welfare in Scotland, as they will not win an austerity argument in RUK
What will they do when Osborne announces tax cuts for the English?
The SNP will need all their attention in Holyrood where their power is at present. When George Osborne announces the welfare cuts on the 8th July they will have to use their new found tax raising powers to maintain, let alone increase welfare in Scotland, as they will not win an austerity argument in RUK
What will they do when Osborne announces tax cuts for the English?
That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.
Of course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. They have every right to, and why wouldn't they? If the majority of Scots voted to leave, but the UK to stay in, I have no doubt Ms Sturgeon et al. will become Damascene converts to the cause of Euroscepticism.
What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.
What if Holyrood declares independence ? Legal or not. Was Kosovo's secession legal ? Who knows ? In twenty years nobody will question Crimea even though a huge majority supports status quo. Sometimes, the law gets in the way.
If Putin's march into Crimea was illegal then so was US/UK march into Iraq. Of course, Israel's occupation is totally illegal.
She's simply seeking to foster division, which is the SNP's modus operandi when it comes to the UK.
Cameron needs to put Salmond and Sturgeon back in their boxes, and quickly. The government reaction to the SNP should be to ignore them completely. They represent only a small fraction of MPs and and any concessions made to them will be met only by a new list of demands. They really can't win by engaging with the Nats.
Very true.The SNP have realized they'll never be able to win a referendum so have embarked on a different tack: antagonize the English so much that they effectively get Scotland expelled from the union. Of course, the English are a race of supreme tolerance and patience and will never be goaded into such impetuousness. Nonetheless, the antics of Salmond and his motley crew can't fail to drag Scotland's good name through the mud. We English have a duty to make it clear to the Scots that we see the SNP merely as cluster of unrepresentative eccentrics and outriders - not a symptom of some wider malaise.
I think that you might be surprised if you asked Scots what they think of the antics of the SNP in the HoC. I think that quite a lot of people up here would be broadly supportive of what they are doing to upset what is perceived as some of the posher, upperclass part of England. I'm not saying that it is everyone but probably atleast in line with the amount of support that the SNP party have generally.
If I was a Scot and a bit rebellious, i would be a "good on 'em" but traditions arent bad in themselves. Traditions are usually formed by some rebellious people getting rid of what preceded them!
But, in my experience, the public dont seem to take kindly to people making politics into a game (though, that is often what it largely is).
So long as the SNP MPs are shown to be "sticking up for Scotland" then they will have done their job. If they cannot change anything then it probably makes getting independence easier if they are able to say look at what the nasty Tories are doing to us the only way to stop it is to have independence since they don't represent Scotland. Actually I would argue that Cameron would be better served to occasionally work with the nationalists to let them and the Scottish public see that it is possible for Scottish interests to be looked after within the framework of the UK.
The SNP will need all their attention in Holyrood where their power is at present. When George Osborne announces the welfare cuts on the 8th July they will have to use their new found tax raising powers to maintain, let alone increase welfare in Scotland, as they will not win an austerity argument in RUK
The Scots and the SNP are only fond of welfare junkies because they are funded out of general uk taxes. There are certain problems in Scottish society in specific urban areas around long term idleness that need a solution that only the Scots can impose on themselves.
You have to be tough to be fair. Sometimes getting the balance right is difficult. But do you think for one moment that a Scottish Government is going to start diverting resources away from the scottish nhs, schools and policing to fund people who are so bone idle that they are putting themselves into an early grave?
The spare room subsidy support could be justified because the way it was introduced created genuine difficulties.
I predict that should welfare become a devolved system you will see a system that is hard as nails on those who dont want to work. A small nation/population like Scotland cannot afford to sustain such high levels of idleness. It just isnt possible.
One of the few areas i thought, if Scotland got independence, we would see a total change around in this area.
The SNP will need all their attention in Holyrood where their power is at present. When George Osborne announces the welfare cuts on the 8th July they will have to use their new found tax raising powers to maintain, let alone increase welfare in Scotland, as they will not win an austerity argument in RUK
The Scots and the SNP are only fond of welfare junkies because they are funded out of general uk taxes. There are certain problems in Scottish society in specific urban areas around long term idleness that need a solution that only the Scots can impose on themselves.
You have to be tough to be fair. Sometimes getting the balance right is difficult. But do you think for one moment that a Scottish Government is going to start diverting resources away from the scottish nhs, schools and policing to fund people who are so bone idle that they are putting themselves into an early grave?
The spare room subsidy support could be justified because the way it was introduced created genuine difficulties.
I predict that should welfare become a devolved system you will see a system that is hard as nails on those who dont want to work. A small nation/population like Scotland cannot afford to sustain such high levels of idleness. It just isnt possible.
One of the few areas i thought, if Scotland got independence, we would see a total change around in this area.
Agreed but it is not compatible with their austerity demands
That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.
Of course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. They have every right to, and why wouldn't they? If the majority of Scots voted to leave, but the UK to stay in, I have no doubt Ms Sturgeon et al. will become Damascene converts to the cause of Euroscepticism.
What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.
What if Holyrood declares independence ? Legal or not. Was Kosovo's secession legal ? Who knows ? In twenty years nobody will question Crimea even though a huge majority supports status quo. Sometimes, the law gets in the way.
If Putin's march into Crimea was illegal then so was US/UK march into Iraq. Of course, Israel's occupation is totally illegal.
That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.
Of course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. They have every right to, and why wouldn't they? If the majority of Scots voted to leave, but the UK to stay in, I have no doubt Ms Sturgeon et al. will become Damascene converts to the cause of Euroscepticism.
What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.
The Smith Comission says hat the future of Scottish Independence is in the hands of the people of Scotland. Tow withhold consent in the hypothetical situation where as bill has been passed at Holyrood to hold a referendum by a party or union of parties holding more than 50% of the seats who had stood on a platform of holding a referendum would be pretty gob smacking.
The SNP will need all their attention in Holyrood where their power is at present. When George Osborne announces the welfare cuts on the 8th July they will have to use their new found tax raising powers to maintain, let alone increase welfare in Scotland, as they will not win an austerity argument in RUK
The Scots and the SNP are only fond of welfare junkies because they are funded out of general uk taxes. There are certain problems in Scottish society in specific urban areas around long term idleness that need a solution that only the Scots can impose on themselves.
You have to be tough to be fair. Sometimes getting the balance right is difficult. But do you think for one moment that a Scottish Government is going to start diverting resources away from the scottish nhs, schools and policing to fund people who are so bone idle that they are putting themselves into an early grave?
The spare room subsidy support could be justified because the way it was introduced created genuine difficulties.
I predict that should welfare become a devolved system you will see a system that is hard as nails on those who dont want to work. A small nation/population like Scotland cannot afford to sustain such high levels of idleness. It just isnt possible.
One of the few areas i thought, if Scotland got independence, we would see a total change around in this area.
Agreed but it is not compatible with their austerity demands
Just playing to the gallery, like every local Council has ever done.......
That's what they should be doing and what may well be the legal position, hence why the double lock idea cannot really be entertained I think, but sadly the political consequences will not care what the legal position is. In this scenario it won't be 'Oh, the UK as a whole voted this way, that's alright then', it'll be 'Scotland voted differently and so this cannot stand' and a fine old pretext for another IndyRef, not that one may be needed depending on the 2016 Holyrood elections and what position they take on another one.
f course the Scots nationalists will attempt to use the result of the referendum for their political advantage. ...
The Smith Comission says hat the future of Scottish Independence is in the hands of the people of Scotland. Tow withhold consent in the hypothetical situation where as bill has been passed at Holyrood to hold a referendum by a party or union of parties holding more than 50% of the seats who had stood on a platform of holding a referendum would be pretty gob smacking.
Such a referendum would not be legal, no matter how much you bowdlerise the Smith Commission. What is driving the SNP kamikaze mission is the desire of its far left to impose its anti west anti nuclear anti capitalist mantra on the rest of us. This is the same left that has turned against Labour for standing in the way of its golden opportunity.
What is the SNP doing in the HoC that is wrong ? They are saying that they will not accept some stupid laughable conventions. Good.
Even Ryanair now has allocated seating. Time to build a new parliament next to the NEC.
Flush with other peoples money aren't you. And for what?
Well, we could have two Parliament buildings - one next to the NEC and one in London. Then we could alternate between the two. We could have the MPs sit one week in the NEC building out of every four, and the remaining three weeks in London. All the civil servants and government documents could be packed up and moved with them.
Hang on, I think some lunatics somewhere are already using that system though .... ;-)
The Smith Comission says hat the future of Scottish Independence is in the hands of the people of Scotland. Tow withhold consent in the hypothetical situation where as bill has been passed at Holyrood to hold a referendum by a party or union of parties holding more than 50% of the seats who had stood on a platform of holding a referendum would be pretty gob smacking.
The Report of the Smith Commission for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament states at p. 12 that "nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose." True enough. The Smith Commission, which recommends increases in the powers of the Scottish Parliament, is not a fetter on the power of the Scottish Parliament to provide for the holding of a second referendum. Two things, however, are fetters of that nature. (1) Those parts of the Scotland Act 1998, unaffected by Smith or the Scotland Bill, which most people agree prevent the Scottish Parliament unilaterally holding a second independence referendum. (2) The fact that both sides agreed before the referendum that the result would settle the matter for a generation. For the Westminster Parliament to refuse to consent to a second independence referendum would be no more "gob smacking" than if it refused to consent to a demand of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on British nationality, international relations, defence or any other reserved matter.
The Smith Comission says hat the future of Scottish Independence is in the hands of the people of Scotland. Tow withhold consent in the hypothetical situation where as bill has been passed at Holyrood to hold a referendum by a party or union of parties holding more than 50% of the seats who had stood on a platform of holding a referendum would be pretty gob smacking.
The Report of the Smith Commission for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament states at p. 12 that "nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose." True enough. The Smith Commission, which recommends increases in the powers of the Scottish Parliament, is not a fetter on the power of the Scottish Parliament to provide for the holding of a second referendum. Two things, however, are fetters of that nature. (1) Those parts of the Scotland Act 1998, unaffected by Smith or the Scotland Bill, which most people agree prevent the Scottish Parliament unilaterally holding a second independence referendum. (2) The fact that both sides agreed before the referendum that the result would settle the matter for a generation. For Westminster Parliament to refuse to consent to a second independence referendum would be no more "gob smacking" than if it refused to consent to a demand of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on British nationality, international relations, defence or any other reserved matter.
I don't remember seeing "settle the matter for a generation" in the Edinburgh Agreement.
David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.
Back the draw at 6.0 in the Test I reckon (Or lay England at 4.3) - potential weather incoming + Cook bound to go into mollusc mode in the 4th innings makes this the bet.
Only kidding, but I did go to Windsor (via the GWR route for those interested), also went on a boat trip as far upstream as Bray.
Ah, I think you must have gone over Brunel's magnificent bowstring bridge over the Thames. A much-ignored masterpiece that still looks surprisingly modern (the new railway bridge on London Road in Derby is also a bowstring, although a much more boring design).
I did indeed go over that bridge!
Shame that the station is now reduced to only one three-car platform (normal service on a busy Saturday only a 2-car Class 165!), but much of the 1897 structure is still in use as the Windsor Royal Shopping centre.
I don't remember seeing "settle the matter for a generation" in the Edinburgh Agreement.
So what? The Edinburgh Agreement has no legal status whatsoever. It is a piece of paper. The First Minister of Scotland clearly stated, however, as did the leaders of the "No" campaign, that the referendum would settle the matter for a generation. The Scottish electorate voted on that basis. The Westminster Parliament is entitled to proceed on the same basis.
David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.
David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.
I don't remember seeing "settle the matter for a generation" in the Edinburgh Agreement.
So what? The Edinburgh Agreement has no legal status whatsoever. It is a piece of paper. The First Minister of Scotland clearly stated, however, as did the leaders of the "No" campaign, that the referendum would settle the matter for a generation. The Scottish electorate voted on that basis. The Westminster Parliament is entitled to proceed on the same basis.
So you are putting no stock in a document signed by The Prime Minister and the First Minister in their official capacity but feel that statements very clearly made as personal opinions by them are binding?
David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.
A great opportunity for reform has been lost. It is unsurprising, however, since Cameron has never attempted to be a radical Prime Minister. The error the Conservatives made was failing to diagnose the problem, which was principally the Convention itself, rather than Strasbourg (despite its many faults). There is still a faint hope that the Human Rights Act 1998 will be repealed, and that our obligations under 46 of the Convention will have the same status in domestic law as our supposed liabilities to the creditors of the now defunct International Tin Council. It is now looking ever more likely that the UK will still be a party to the Convention and the 1998 Act will be in force at the next general election.
So you are putting no stock in a document signed by The Prime Minister and the First Minister in their official capacity but feel that statements very clearly made as personal opinions by them are binding?
Weird.
The Edinburgh Agreement is irrelevant to this question. It was a very short agreement between HMG and the Scots Government which dealt with how an independence referendum could be lawfully enacted by the Scottish Parliament. It did not say (1) whether it set a precedent for allowing the Scots Parliament to call an independence referendum whenever there was a majority for it in that Parliament, or (2) whether the referendum would settle the matter for a period of time. It didn't mention those things, because it had no need to. On the other hand, almost all major Scottish politician agreed during the campaign that the referendum would settle the matter for a generation. That was the basis on which the Scottish electorate voted, and the Westminster Parliament is within its rights to treat their decision as settling the matter for a generation.
It's likely that he's done this in part as a gesture to the leaders with whom he's trying to renegotiate our EU status.
I doubt it very much.
The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, and Germany has already publically expressed its indifference to us remaining bound to the court.
More likely it is because there are a number of Conservative MPs (perhaps 10-to-20) headed by Dominic Grieve who are adamantly opposed to our leaving, and Cameron doesn't want to lose a vote in the HoC, especially so early in his term.
Cooper is excellent value IMHO at 5/1. Close your eyes and imagine who is facing Cameron at PMQs in October.
I got 6.6 yesterday.
As I mentioned, still getting used to the BetFair mechanic - and I don't want to rush. If betting is risk, then understanding the mechanic is a risk one should master.
It's likely that he's done this in part as a gesture to the leaders with whom he's trying to renegotiate our EU status.
It must be doubted whether the French or German governments really care one way or the other about the UK withdrawing from the Council of Europe. The EU institutions, however, do feel strongly about the matter.
Cooper is excellent value IMHO at 5/1. Close your eyes and imagine who is facing Cameron at PMQs in October.
I got 6.6 yesterday.
As I mentioned, still getting used to the BetFair mechanic - and I don't want to rush. If betting is risk, then understanding the mechanic is a risk one should master.
Thats pretty good. I am in on 7. Although may go back for more later this week.
Cooper is excellent value IMHO at 5/1. Close your eyes and imagine who is facing Cameron at PMQs in October.
I got 6.6 yesterday.
As I mentioned, still getting used to the BetFair mechanic - and I don't want to rush. If betting is risk, then understanding the mechanic is a risk one should master.
Thats pretty good. I am in on 7. Although may go back for more later this week.
It wasn't intended as a boast: I am trading at £2 a time. I am heavily exposed on traditional markets for the Labour mayoralty candidate - hence the 100 posts by me so far on it.
So you are putting no stock in a document signed by The Prime Minister and the First Minister in their official capacity but feel that statements very clearly made as personal opinions by them are binding?
Weird.
The Edinburgh Agreement is irrelevant to this question. It was a very short agreement between HMG and the Scots Government which dealt with how an independence referendum could be lawfully enacted by the Scottish Parliament. It did not say (1) whether it set a precedent for allowing the Scots Parliament to call an independence referendum whenever there was a majority for it in that Parliament, or (2) whether the referendum would settle the matter for a period of time. It didn't mention those things, because it had no need to. On the other hand, almost all major Scottish politician agreed during the campaign that the referendum would settle the matter for a generation. That was the basis on which the Scottish electorate voted, and the Westminster Parliament is within its rights to treat their decision as settling the matter for a generation.
So you are saying that if the SNP stand for election at Holyrood on a platform of an Independence referendum in the next parliament and they get, for the sake of the argument, 100% of the vote that Westminster would not authorise a second IndyRef?
"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."
People of Scotland) We choose for Scotland to become independent Westminster) No
The EU's clear reluctance to back the Strasbourg court gives the clear impression of an imminent, indeed ongoing, land grab.
Like the dozen other institutions the EU has swallowed I doubt the ECtHR will last the hug of death.
This is pure nonsense. The Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted consistently with Strasbourg case law (article 6(1) TEU). The EU Heads of Government are also very strongly in favour of EU accession to the ECHR, specifically inserting a requirement that the EU must accede to the Convention into the Treaties themselves. The Convention rights constitute general principles of EU law (see articles 6(2)-(3) TEU, and Protocol 8 to the Treaties). Great effort and expense was wasted negotiating the EU's accession to the Convention for second time. The opposition to accession has come, as it has always done, from the Court of Justice, which rightly fears that accession will mean a disintegration of the autonomy of EU law, and a threat to its supremacy. Hence the Court has again declared that accession is incompatible with the Treaties (see Re (Opinion 2/94) Accession of the Community to the European Human Rights Convention [1996] 2 CMLR 265; Re Opinion 2/13 of the court (Re accession to European Convention on Human Rights) [2015] 2 CMLR 21).
So you are saying that if the SNP stand for election at Holyrood on a platform of an Independence referendum in the next parliament and they get, for the sake of the argument, 100% of the vote that Westminster would not authorise a second IndyRef?
"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."
People of Scotland) We choose for Scotland to become independent Westminster) No
This is an odd definition of not preventing
The thing that prevents another referendum in the foreseeable future is not the Smith Commission, but the result of the previous referendum. If Cornish nationalists took control of Cornwall Council demanding a secession referendum to settle the matter for a generation, no doubt one would be granted by the Westminster Parliament. If the Cornish electorate then voted to remain part of the UK, however, the Westminster Parliament would not be obliged to grant a further referendum after every subsequent local government election. Had the Smith Commission been intended to give the Scottish Parliament the power unilaterally to hold independence referendums, it would have said so in express words. It didn't.
The Queen has also been pleased to signify her intention to confer a peerage for life on Richard Keen QC, Her Majesty's new Advocate General for Scotland.
If PD lose both Liguria and Umbria, they couldn't spin as a good night. They need a 5-2 rather than a 4-3
La7 (another channel)'s early projections have PD just ahead in Umbria rather than just behind. So a long night there.
For 5 Stars we must wait for their final shares in various contests. How many 20% plus can they get? Surely Liguria and Marche. Maybe Campania and Puglia.
There seems little reason to withdraw from the convention. Its the way its being misinterpreted and misused which is the issue. The problem is the HRA which allows our own judges to impose their notions of 'right to family life' etc.
David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.
Cooper has moved neatly to be the "slightly more left wing candidate" (by saying we shouldn't try to embrace the Tory manifesto) - definitely the right strategy in most Labour elections. I've seen several cautiously approving notes from people who were undecided. Very early days yet, but I agree with the view that she's good value at the current odds.
David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.
A great opportunity for reform has been lost. It is unsurprising, however, since Cameron has never attempted to be a radical Prime Minister. The error the Conservatives made was failing to diagnose the problem, which was principally the Convention itself, rather than Strasbourg (despite its many faults). There is still a faint hope that the Human Rights Act 1998 will be repealed, and that our obligations under 46 of the Convention will have the same status in domestic law as our supposed liabilities to the creditors of the now defunct International Tin Council. It is now looking ever more likely that the UK will still be a party to the Convention and the 1998 Act will be in force at the next general election.
How nice it is to hear of the dear old International Tin Council again! That was the very first case I did when I first went into private practice.
How nice it is to hear of the dear old International Tin Council again! That was the very first case I did when I first went into private practice.
Lord Templeman's outstanding rant in that case deserves quotation:
My Lords, these appeals raise a short question of construction of the plain words of a statutory instrument. The trial judges and the Court of Appeal rightly decided this question in favour of the respondents. Losing the construction argument, the appellants put forward alternative submissions which are unsustainable. Those submissions, if accepted, would involve a breach of the British constitution and an invasion by the judiciary of the functions of the Government and of Parliament. The Government may negotiate, conclude, construe, observe, breach, repudiate or terminate a treaty. Parliament may alter the laws of the United Kingdom. The courts must enforce those laws; judges have no power to grant specific performance of a treaty or to award damages against a sovereign state for breach of a treaty or to invent laws or misconstrue legislation in order to enforce a treaty.
An intemperate man, but miles ahead of the current constitution of the Supreme Court.
What is the SNP doing in the HoC that is wrong ? They are saying that they will not accept some stupid laughable conventions. Good.
If the conventions are harmless tradition it doesn't make someone a grand reformer or anything to defy them it's just petty game playing , as indeed in fairness is the level of outrage. But is laughable if anyone were to paint annoying people by ignoring conventions for no reason as somehow worthy. It isn't and I don't even think the SNP are doing a campaign or anything to do so. I think they are in a good enough position they don't need the childish arguments of ' this upsets some old crusty people therefore it makes us heroic revolutionaries' to get by. Not everything is a grand blow against the man. Sometimes it's just game playing hyped up by online people afterwards.
There seems little reason to withdraw from the convention. Its the way its being misinterpreted and misused which is the issue. The problem is the HRA which allows our own judges to impose their notions of 'right to family life' etc.
Article 8 of the Convention provides that any "interference" with a person's right to respect for their family life in the United Kingdom must be no more than necessary in a democratic society for the pursuit of a legitimate aim contained in article 8(2). The 1998 Act merely gives effect to this bizarre obligation in domestic law. If we remain a party to the Convention, but repeal the 1998 Act, then the Strasbourg Court (whose interpretation of article 8 is considerably more radical than that of our judges) will have a monopoly to interpret and apply article 8 in the UK.
More likely it is because there are a number of Conservative MPs (perhaps 10-to-20) headed by Dominic Grieve who are adamantly opposed to our leaving, and Cameron doesn't want to lose a vote in the HoC, especially so early in his term.
Scandalous that they didn't mention their opposition to this major part of their manifesto before they were elected on the basis of it then.
Or did Cast Iron Dave know that opposition was on the cards, and passing the bill was not going to be possible, but promise it anyway for electoral expedience... rather like this promise (again) to reduce immigration to tens of thousands, which (short of a major economic crash) isn't going to happen either. Mr Cameron appears to have heard all about integrity, and wants nothing whatever to do with it.
More likely it is because there are a number of Conservative MPs (perhaps 10-to-20) headed by Dominic Grieve who are adamantly opposed to our leaving, and Cameron doesn't want to lose a vote in the HoC, especially so early in his term.
Scandalous that they didn't mention their opposition to this major part of their manifesto before they were elected on the basis of it then.
Or did Cast Iron Dave know that opposition was on the cards, and passing the bill was not going to be possible, but promise it anyway for electoral expedience... rather like this promise (again) to reduce immigration to tens of thousands, which (short of a major economic crash) isn't going to happen either. Mr Cameron appears to have heard all about integrity, and wants nothing whatever to do with it.
A net immigration target in the tens of thousands is a desirable target whether or not it is achievable in the short term. Just because a task is difficult is no reason to walk away from it. Be careful, frothing is not good for you.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1inR2b7PS5M
What is clear, however, is that if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK votes to leave, that will not in and of itself be a mandate for Scottish secession. A mandate for that will require a referendum on that question. That will almost certainly require the consent of the Westminster Parliament, which, as Cameron has made clear, will not be forthcoming any time soon. Her Majesty's Government has every right to treat the referendum in 2013 as settling the matter for a generation.
Greece's Tsipras attacks creditors over 'absurd' reforms http://f24.my/1M1o7VR
Syriza in danger of splitting daily.
Win win for you,
I think that quite a lot of people up here would be broadly supportive of what they are doing to upset what is perceived as some of the posher, upperclass part of England. I'm not saying that it is everyone but probably atleast in line with the amount of support that the SNP party have generally.
But, in my experience, the public dont seem to take kindly to people making politics into a game (though, that is often what it largely is).
A Goldsmith candidacy could be dangerous for the Tories in the long run - his independence could set up a few battles with a Tory government. Unlike Boris, where disagreements were largely sound and fury and his own ambitions, he would actually pick a fight over a point of principle and run with it until it became severely embarrassing. Brady will probably be more interested in 2020 - she's got a lot on her plate in 2016 with West Ham's stadium move. Goldsmith would be the intelligent choice - a sort of Boris without the baggage and vanity, which people may be tiring of.
And how many votes would he get?
If Putin's march into Crimea was illegal then so was US/UK march into Iraq. Of course, Israel's occupation is totally illegal.
If they cannot change anything then it probably makes getting independence easier if they are able to say look at what the nasty Tories are doing to us the only way to stop it is to have independence since they don't represent Scotland.
Actually I would argue that Cameron would be better served to occasionally work with the nationalists to let them and the Scottish public see that it is possible for Scottish interests to be looked after within the framework of the UK.
You have to be tough to be fair. Sometimes getting the balance right is difficult. But do you think for one moment that a Scottish Government is going to start diverting resources away from the scottish nhs, schools and policing to fund people who are so bone idle that they are putting themselves into an early grave?
The spare room subsidy support could be justified because the way it was introduced created genuine difficulties.
I predict that should welfare become a devolved system you will see a system that is hard as nails on those who dont want to work. A small nation/population like Scotland cannot afford to sustain such high levels of idleness. It just isnt possible.
One of the few areas i thought, if Scotland got independence, we would see a total change around in this area.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HybdQUCepFw
Hang on, I think some lunatics somewhere are already using that system though .... ;-)
(1) Those parts of the Scotland Act 1998, unaffected by Smith or the Scotland Bill, which most people agree prevent the Scottish Parliament unilaterally holding a second independence referendum.
(2) The fact that both sides agreed before the referendum that the result would settle the matter for a generation.
For the Westminster Parliament to refuse to consent to a second independence referendum would be no more "gob smacking" than if it refused to consent to a demand of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on British nationality, international relations, defence or any other reserved matter.
David Cameron has ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights despite objections from Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.
http://bit.ly/1HYvcIc
Shame that the station is now reduced to only one three-car platform (normal service on a busy Saturday only a 2-car Class 165!), but much of the 1897 structure is still in use as the Windsor Royal Shopping centre.
Currently £12.00 cash out £0.00!!
Weird.
6 new Con Peers have joined since the GE - and that's before we get the actual dissolution honours list.
Latest state of parties is Con 229, Lab 212, LD 100
It's not that long ago (12 to 18 months?) that Con and Lab were equal.
Con still miles behind Lab + LD but he's moving in the right direction at a decent pace.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/new-lords/
We may get another chance.
The EU's clear reluctance to back the Strasbourg court gives the clear impression of an imminent, indeed ongoing, land grab.
Like the dozen other institutions the EU has swallowed I doubt the ECtHR will last the hug of death.
The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, and Germany has already publically expressed its indifference to us remaining bound to the court.
More likely it is because there are a number of Conservative MPs (perhaps 10-to-20) headed by Dominic Grieve who are adamantly opposed to our leaving, and Cameron doesn't want to lose a vote in the HoC, especially so early in his term.
As I mentioned, still getting used to the BetFair mechanic - and I don't want to rush. If betting is risk, then understanding the mechanic is a risk one should master.
Actually, I was listening to it in conjunction with reading the comments on PB. Quite an entertaining combination I thought.
"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."
People of Scotland) We choose for Scotland to become independent
Westminster) No
This is an odd definition of not preventing
The breakaway left wing candidate (after a messy primary contests) is around 10-11%.
Other Rai early projections:
Early indications from Tuscany is PD 47% with Lega runner up at around 20%.
In Marche PD at 39% with 5 Stelle second at 24%.
Puglia is PD candidate at 44% with 5 Stelle second at 20%
Veneto is Lega incumbent 45% with PD woman 25% and Verona mayor (Lega splinter) at 13%.
PD is ahead in Campania so sar.
La7 (another channel)'s early projections have PD just ahead in Umbria rather than just behind. So a long night there.
For 5 Stars we must wait for their final shares in various contests. How many 20% plus can they get? Surely Liguria and Marche. Maybe Campania and Puglia.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/31/ex-fifa-vice-president-jack-warner-swallows-onion-spoof
Or did Cast Iron Dave know that opposition was on the cards, and passing the bill was not going to be possible, but promise it anyway for electoral expedience... rather like this promise (again) to reduce immigration to tens of thousands, which (short of a major economic crash) isn't going to happen either. Mr Cameron appears to have heard all about integrity, and wants nothing whatever to do with it.