If England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all "equal" partners then the English voter must simply put be worth alot less than the other nations.
What intellectually bankrupt balderdash 'Better Together' came out with during the Ref.
I don't think England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are equal partners. However Unionist politicians then and now are happy to peddle the lie that we are in the hope that those nasty Nats will just go away and stop putting ideas into good British folk's heads.
No, it's absolutely clear now that England drives the UK's car and it is England which matters most to the main UK-wide parties. That is, of course, understandable; but that does not help the Scots. I cannot see how the UK can stay together from here in the absence of a major constitutional rethink. And I do not think our elected leaders are capable of that. It may be that, sadly, Brexit is the ideal time for the UK to pop its clogs.
Wales voted Leave not just England, all the latest polls show Scots still oppose independence and some of the most recent polls have Scots putting free movement control ahead of single market membership
The judgement seems bad for May, good for Remain, and excellent for Ukip, but I'm not so sure.
I've always wondered if this is a truly cunning plan by May. Brexit means Brexit, but if she's stopped by gerrymandering MPs from invoking Article 50 as voted for in a referendum, surely she could in all honesty go to the country. The Remainers seem to have no good option.
And by gerrymandering, I mean adding so many impossible requirements to the bill to guarantee the EU will have no option but to refuse.
The Remainers would then face a Hard Brexit.
Alternatively, their hope of another referendum to keep us in would totally undermine democracy. Why bother voting? The posh people will only allow the result they like. It sounds over-dramatic, but it would resonate.
Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.
It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.
Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.
Wrong. YES in indyref 2 in 2018 means the same currency conundrum (if not worse, as the euro would be off the menu til you rejoined the EU), plus you'd be out of the EU Single Market (til you rejoined) AND you'd be out of the UK Single Market forever (so suddenly tariffs at Berwick are a reality) and would there be Free Movement with England? You can't say for sure, because Brexit won't have concluded, so you won't know what deal rUK will have agreed with the EU, and on and on and on. It's endless.
And there's no guarantee of speedy EU re-entry after indyref. Spain would make you wait til Brexit was done. Legally, when would that be? 2019? There might be legal difficulties around the trading relationship til the 2020s. There might (probably will be) a transitonal deal of 2-3 years? 5? So maybe you couldn't rejoin the EU til 2023?
In the intervening years Scotland would be in total limbo.
Brexit introduces a whole new mega-dimension of chaos on all Scottish sides, indeed I'd say Brexit makes an indyref before we have Brexited a political and maybe legal impossibility.
Another Indyref might well trigger a process of Balkanization in Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lowlands returning to England, Shetland and Orkney rejoining Norway , with the Picts fighting the Celts over what's left.
It is Brexit that has triggered the process of Balkanisation in the UK.
And if Remain had won by a tiny majority, with Scotland's Remain vote being enough to overrule a narrow Leave vote in England and Wales? Now that really could have caused the break-up of the UK.
Brexit and maintaining the territorial integrity of the UK are incompatible objectives.
No they really are not. Most people both North and south of the border do not share your fanatical love for the EU.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor #indyref2 update: Sturgeon says it's now "ever closer". Unclear whether that an advance on "highly likely" and "more likely".
@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it
Hands up who saw that coming...
That's quite clever from Chuka,
Not something you read often.
And if 'cheap political stunts' are how one of Labour's 'bright hopes for the future' aims to deal with the major challenge of our days then perhaps a tad over generous?
"cheap political stunts" = holding the official Leave campaign to account.
Only for people that dont understand the difference between "let us" and "we will"
One side-effect of today's ruling and the timetable for Davis' Brexit Bill is that the issue will dominate news reporting for most of the Copeland and Stoke by-election campaigns.
It will delay not stop Brexit but it will boost the Tories in Copeland and maybe UKIP in Stoke
IDS seems to be under the impression that split decisions are unusual in the Supreme Court
You don't like him do you
IDS, and people like IDS, are the cross that moderate Leavers have to bear. For many people being anti-EU is a visceral, emotional thing. I find that hard to grok, but that is but one aspect of human behaviour that baffles me.
I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.
The government would be unlikely to accept such an amendment. Ultimately, if the Lords do try to block the exercise of A.50, the government can either use the Parliament Act to push through the Bill, or create sufficient Peers to vote it through.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
Both William IV and George V accepted the principle of creating huge numbers of new peers when the Lords was being obstructionist (the Great Reform Act and the Budget Crisis, respectively). She might not want to but it would be constitutionally legitimate in the circumstances and certainly better than refusing, if matters had come down to that. Should be mentioned that George V demanded a second general election in 1910 first, to ensure that public opinion was with the government.
This, I believe, glosses over the George V moment. His two private secretaries were greatly split on the right response to Asquith's request for the promise of the creation of hundreds of Liberal peers. Lord Knollys was in favour; Arthur Bigge was, in the words of Asquith's biographer, Roy Jenkins, "passionately. almost violently, opposed" - asking whether this was "straight" and "is this English?"
Knollys won the day, although there is some evidence that he withheld crucial knowledge about the Cabinet situation as the King very reluctantly agreed to the proposal.
True. But nonetheless, he did accept that if circumstances forced the situation, he would make the peers requested.
I think that if push came to shove, the Lords would back down (as they did in the 1830s and 1910s). To create 300+ new peers would not only ensure a Tory majority for a Brexit bill but also for every other piece of legislation.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor #indyref2 update: Sturgeon says it's now "ever closer". Unclear whether that an advance on "highly likely" and "more likely".
Maybe Corbyn's cunning plan is to step down in favour of someone like Clive Lewis before the general election, someone who is actually very left-wing but who seems centrist by comparison to himself and McDonnell.
I think that is very likely.
A very cunning plan to lull the Tories into a false msense of security in thinking that next election is already in the bag. I would say that the cunning plan is working very nicely. Any new Labour leader is gonna get a honeymoon bounce as well as an anyone-but-Corbyn bounce
After Lewis backed Trident Corbyn will certainly not stand down for him
Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.
It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.
Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.
Wrong. YES in indyref 2 in 2018 means the same currency conundrum (if not worse, as the euro would be off the menu til you rejoined the EU), plus you'd be out of the EU Single Market (til you rejoined) AND you'd be out of the UK Single Market forever (so suddenly tariffs at Berwick are a reality) and would there be Free Movement with England? You can't say for sure, because Brexit won't have concluded, so you won't know what deal rUK will have agreed with the EU, and on and on and on. It's endless.
And there's no guarantee of speedy EU re-entry after indyref. Spain would make you wait til Brexit was done. Legally, when would that be? 2019? There might be legal difficulties around the trading relationship til the 2020s. There might (probably will be) a transitonal deal of 2-3 years? 5? So maybe you couldn't rejoin the EU til 2023?
In the intervening years Scotland would be in total limbo.
Brexit introduces a whole new mega-dimension of chaos on all Scottish sides, indeed I'd say Brexit makes an indyref before we have Brexited a political and maybe legal impossibility.
Another Indyref might well trigger a process of Balkanization in Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lowlands returning to England, Shetland and Orkney rejoining Norway , with the Picts fighting the Celts over what's left.
It is Brexit that has triggered the process of Balkanisation in the UK.
And if Remain had won by a tiny majority, with Scotland's Remain vote being enough to overrule a narrow Leave vote in England and Wales? Now that really could have caused the break-up of the UK.
Brexit and maintaining the territorial integrity of the UK are incompatible objectives.
But the Brexit problem is not Scotland. The Brexit problem is Northern Ireland.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor #indyref2 update: Sturgeon says it's now "ever closer". Unclear whether that an advance on "highly likely" and "more likely".
I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.
The government would be unlikely to accept such an amendment. Ultimately, if the Lords do try to block the exercise of A.50, the government can either use the Parliament Act to push through the Bill, or create sufficient Peers to vote it through.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
Both William IV and George V accepted the principle of creating huge numbers of new peers when the Lords was being obstructionist (the Great Reform Act and the Budget Crisis, respectively). She might not want to but it would be constitutionally legitimate in the circumstances and certainly better than refusing, if matters had come down to that. Should be mentioned that George V demanded a second general election in 1910 first, to ensure that public opinion was with the government.
This, I believe, glosses over the George V moment. His two private secretaries were greatly split on the right response to Asquith's request for the promise of the creation of hundreds of Liberal peers. Lord Knollys was in favour; Arthur Bigge was, in the words of Asquith's biographer, Roy Jenkins, "passionately. almost violently, opposed" - asking whether this was "straight" and "is this English?"
Knollys won the day, although there is some evidence that he withheld crucial knowledge about the Cabinet situation as the King very reluctantly agreed to the proposal.
True. But nonetheless, he did accept that if circumstances forced the situation, he would make the peers requested.
I think that if push came to shove, the Lords would back down (as they did in the 1830s and 1910s). To create 300+ new peers would not only ensure a Tory majority for a Brexit bill but also for every other piece of legislation.
I agree. They will definitely back down. If the old skool backed down in 1910s then unlikely todays modern life peers will fight to the death on this.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
But the Brexit problem is not Scotland. The Brexit problem is Northern Ireland.
And solving Brexit for Northern Ireland also means creating the template for an independent Scotland in the EU to maintain trade and open borders with England.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
IDS seems to be under the impression that split decisions are unusual in the Supreme Court
You don't like him do you
IDS, and people like IDS, are the cross that moderate Leavers have to bear. For many people being anti-EU is a visceral, emotional thing. I find that hard to grok, but that is but one aspect of human behaviour that baffles me.
He is not my favourite conservative but he does have a huge desire to leave the EU
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Why?
The House of Lords is undemocratic, it needs reform.
If Robert Mugabe stuffed his upper chamber with cronies and those people who donated money to his party we'd be laughing at him.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Why?
The House of Lords is undemocratic, it needs reform.
If Robert Mugabe stuffed his upper chamber with cronies and those people who donated money to his party we'd be laughing at him.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Why stop there? You could have 25 senators form each of the Falkland islands, Bermuda, the British Antartic Territory...
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Surely we need to split England in to the regions? That way Yorkshire (and The Humber) would get its own senators.
Maybe its time England & Wales go forward alone... I'm tired of Scotland trying to dominate everything.
If it is the wish of the people of Scotland to leave the UK, then so be it. Trouble is there never seems to be enough of them to win a referendum. – Third time lucky, perhaps…!
Third time?
1979 – Not all the referenda were on independence of course.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
Business people who get involved in this sort of thing are fools too. You can go away for a long time for money laundering. And of course given the nature of the people you are dealing with you can risk a lot more than that.
I certainly wouldn't recommend becoming a money launderer, but there are people who make a lot of money out of it, and are able to cover their tracks.
But, your last point is quite true. I read a real horror story about a Scottish accountant who laundered money for criminals. She got greedy and stole from them. She was found dead sitting on a chair in a warehouse, with her feet *nailed* to the floor.
Blimey. I quickly googled that and nothing came up. Do you have a link? Might concentrate some minds in ML training.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
Given present polling Sturgeon would lose indyref2 May would have effectively killed off independence and delivered Brexit. Sturgeon would have killed off her career which is why she will huff and puff but not blow the House down
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Why?
The House of Lords is undemocratic, it needs reform.
If Robert Mugabe stuffed his upper chamber with cronies and those people who donated money to his party we'd be laughing at him.
so why didnt Cameron reform it ?
cos Cameron's a posho who went to Eton and who's looking forward to a nice retirement there?
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
Given present polling Sturgeon would lose indyref2 May would have effectively killed off independence and delivered Brexit
The best thing about the next IndyRef is that both sides will be led from within the Scottish Parliament by two politicians of equal calibre, both of whom hold respect in Scotland.
But May has to give Davidson something to work with.
But the Brexit problem is not Scotland. The Brexit problem is Northern Ireland.
And solving Brexit for Northern Ireland also means creating the template for an independent Scotland in the EU to maintain trade and open borders with England.
No it doesn't. N Ireland will not be an independent state. It will either be part of the UK or of Ireland - or possibly, with aspects of both. Scotland would be in a different position.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Why?
The House of Lords is undemocratic, it needs reform.
If Robert Mugabe stuffed his upper chamber with cronies and those people who donated money to his party we'd be laughing at him.
so why didnt Cameron reform it ?
Because Lords reform was in Nick Clegg's department.
@HYUFD I don't think that engages with my point. If Sturgeon knows she can't win a referendum at the moment then being told she can't have one is her least worst option. It gives her 4 or 5 years to campaign against the backdrop of Brexit disruption, Trumpism and further public sector cuts.
But the Brexit problem is not Scotland. The Brexit problem is Northern Ireland.
And solving Brexit for Northern Ireland also means creating the template for an independent Scotland in the EU to maintain trade and open borders with England.
No it doesn't. N Ireland will not be an independent state. It will either be part of the UK or of Ireland - or possibly, with aspects of both. Scotland would be in a different position.
Assuming NI stays in the the UK, Ireland would be to NI what Scotland would be to England.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Surely we need to split England in to the regions? That way Yorkshire (and The Humber) would get its own senators.
Yorkshire, yes; the Humber, no. It can be split back between Yorks and Lincs in line with what people there appear to want.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Why?
The House of Lords is undemocratic, it needs reform.
If Robert Mugabe stuffed his upper chamber with cronies and those people who donated money to his party we'd be laughing at him.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Surely we need to split England in to the regions? That way Yorkshire (and The Humber) would get its own senators.
Maybe its time England & Wales go forward alone... I'm tired of Scotland trying to dominate everything.
If it is the wish of the people of Scotland to leave the UK, then so be it. Trouble is there never seems to be enough of them to win a referendum. – Third time lucky, perhaps…!
Third time?
1979 – Not all the referenda were on independence of course.
Two referendums on devolution, first one won by almost exactly the same percentage as Brexit except rigged by Unionist MPs, second one won by a landslide. One Indy referendum lost, partly on the basis that No meant staying in the EU...
I'm sure it was a hilarious point you were making though.
I think David Davis is feeling uncomfortable defending the position of no white paper. I suspect we might get a white paper consisting of May's speech suitably topped and tailed.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
So grant a second referendum. There's no guarantee that Holyrood would vote for it for a start: unlike under Salmond, Sturgeon is reliant on the Greens going along with the plan.
But if she does ask and if a Bill does go through, the uncertainty ought to be a big draw to the most status quo of the options.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
I am aware of that, I was just pointing out that since we dont have it, it might be a bit of a tough sell politically. It would run into the same arguments as Trump and the popular vote, people seem to be deaf to the revelation that the system isn't supposed to work the way they think.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
I seen to remember some on the Hillary side bemoaning the unfairness of the electoral college, which is non proportional.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Why?
The House of Lords is undemocratic, it needs reform.
If Robert Mugabe stuffed his upper chamber with cronies and those people who donated money to his party we'd be laughing at him.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
Given present polling Sturgeon would lose indyref2 May would have effectively killed off independence and delivered Brexit
The best thing about the next IndyRef is that both sides will be led from within the Scottish Parliament by two politicians of equal calibre, both of whom hold respect in Scotland.
But May has to give Davidson something to work with.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
There's 50 US states, and 4 parts of the UK (broadly). thats a little different.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
I seen to remember some on the Hillary side bemoaning the unfairness of the electoral college, which is non proportional.
How died this suit with the clamour for PR?
Some on the Trump side too; led by the Donald himself when he expected to lose.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
I am aware of that, I was just pointing out that since we dont have it, it might be a bit of a tough sell politically. It would run into the same arguments as Trump and the popular vote, people seem to be deaf to the revelation that the system isn't supposed to work the way they think.
We're paying the price for not creating a new federal constitution for the UK at the time of the Irish home rule debates. The end of WW2 was possibly another missed opportunity.
@HYUFD I don't think that engages with my point. If Sturgeon knows she can't win a referendum at the moment then being told she can't have one is her least worst option. It gives her 4 or 5 years to campaign against the backdrop of Brexit disruption, Trumpism and further public sector cuts.
Scotland already runs its own domestic affairs and if Yes are not ahead now post Brexit they are unlikely to be when the SNP have been in power for even longer. Sturgeon knows a second No vote would kill her career, until those polls showing a No change she will call no referendum so May can allow her to huff and puff, give a few token concessions and get on with the job of Brexit
The threats of mass creation of peers came before both Parliament Acts. Now they are in place I'm not sure what on earth the justification would be. The Lord's can delay briefly Bills but not block them. That's before we get to rises like attaching spending items to Brexit Bills and invoking Financial Privilege. Or using prorogation to speed up the " next session ". The Queen is 90 and has been poorly. They won't want to put her on the spot.
Though David H is right. The Lord's won't risk serious reform. And government wants serious reform. The paradox is a properly reformed Lords would be far more of a check on the Commons than the current absurd set up.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
Why?
The House of Lords is undemocratic, it needs reform.
If Robert Mugabe stuffed his upper chamber with cronies and those people who donated money to his party we'd be laughing at him.
so why didnt Cameron reform it ?
He tried, Nick Clegg screwed it up.
usual nonsense, blame the LDs
Cameron could easily have put his mark on reform
he bottled it
It was part of his plans for his second term, sadly Dave retired before he could reform it.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
Yes. It's a crap system there too and only came about because the small states needed to be bought off in order to gain agreement.
Regional elections using the Euroconstituencies (might as well use them for something now), electing n members each on a proportional basis. 150-180 senators, elected for nine-year renewable terms in triennial elections with one-third retiring each time. Possibly a small number (10 max) of life members, elected by the House on a very high threshold (e.g. 2/3rds of all members voting in favour), for exceptional contribution to the life of the nation.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
No she won't
All political careers end in failure. The only question is how.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
I am aware of that, I was just pointing out that since we dont have it, it might be a bit of a tough sell politically. It would run into the same arguments as Trump and the popular vote, people seem to be deaf to the revelation that the system isn't supposed to work the way they think.
The winner of the Presidency almost always wins the popular vote except in very tight elections and 2016 and 2000 were the closest popular vote margins for President since 1968
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
No she won't
All political careers end in failure. The only question is how.
So another Independent referendum will see the end of Nicola's career in failure
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
No she won't
All political careers end in failure. The only question is how.
Not quite all - and a lot depends on the nature of what one defines a 'failure'. I could list several prime ministers whose careers didn't end in failure, before we get to lesser ministers and backbenchers who never aspired higher and who retired with good grace in their own time.
Regional elections using the Euroconstituencies (might as well use them for something now), electing n members each on a proportional basis. 150-180 senators, elected for nine-year renewable terms in triennial elections with one-third retiring each time. Possibly a small number (10 max) of life members, elected by the House on a very high threshold (e.g. 2/3rds of all members voting in favour), for exceptional contribution to the life of the nation.
Despite all the posturing, the very last thing the government wants is a HoL with democratic legitimacy, because then it might have to start taking it seriously. At the moment if can try and brow beat it as the "unelected house", if that fails it has the parliament act, and the various conventions to fall back on, and ultimately it can bully it about reform or flooding. With a reformed house it can do none of those, and further would come under significant pressure to let the new chamber vote, for example, on finance measures.
@HYUFD I don't think that engages with my point. If Sturgeon knows she can't win a referendum at the moment then being told she can't have one is her least worst option. It gives her 4 or 5 years to campaign against the backdrop of Brexit disruption, Trumpism and further public sector cuts.
Also, it's very likely that the Tories will win in 2020, so continued Tory hegemony from England will be another arrow in Sturgeon's quiver. Oo-er
I recall a Nat on here saying early 2021 was the optimum time for indyref 2 (just before the next Holyrood elex, or on the same date, so avoiding any chance of the Nats losing the right to call it).
That makes sense to me.
However, the Nats would by then be confronting the reality of quitting the UK Single Market, and maybe tariffs at Berwick, and visas-for-England.
As I've said before, Brexit makes indy simultaneously more desirable, yet more difficult to achieve.
The Tories made big gains in Scotland in 2016 and May is more popular with Scots than Cameron was
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
So grant a second referendum. There's no guarantee that Holyrood would vote for it for a start: unlike under Salmond, Sturgeon is reliant on the Greens going along with the plan.
But if she does ask and if a Bill does go through, the uncertainty ought to be a big draw to the most status quo of the options.
The Scottish Greens stated in their 2015 manifesto that in a second referendum they will campaign for independence. On that basis I'd be interested in the convolutions that they'd have to perform to vote down a referendum bill in the face of Kippery hard Brexit.
Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
FFS. You're just thick. I might stop arguing with you. The legislation allowing a 2nd referendum must come from Westminster. TMay can simply refuse.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
I am aware of that, I was just pointing out that since we dont have it, it might be a bit of a tough sell politically. It would run into the same arguments as Trump and the popular vote, people seem to be deaf to the revelation that the system isn't supposed to work the way they think.
The presidential and House winners tend to also have won the popular vote except in very close elections and the 2016 and 2000 presidential elections had the closest popular vote margins since 1968
Who would have thought that @PlatoSaid would be mindlessly retweeting pro-Trump fake news?
I've got a PB exclusive, here's a picture of a prominent politician also performing the ISIS salute.
That would work if Trump was, you know, a Muslim activist who has tweeted in favour of Sharia law?
Supporting of Sharia law is not synonymous with being an ISIS supporter.
See some of her many tweets wishing for ISIS to be deleted, as per the one I linked from August 2015
Sharia law is repulsive, and anyone who supports it, in the West, in any way, shape or form, should not be allowed in our political discourse. They should be hounded and exiled. No-platformed.
So she's a legitimate target, in my mind.
What's the evidence she supports Sharia law? Does it all come from an article we've already established is a hatchet job?
A tweet saying America isn't living under Sharia law because there is interest on loans?
She's a working woman who voted for Bernie Sanders. She obviously doesn't support Sharia law.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
Yes. It's a crap system there too and only came about because the small states needed to be bought off in order to gain agreement.
Regional elections using the Euroconstituencies (might as well use them for something now), electing n members each on a proportional basis. 150-180 senators, elected for nine-year renewable terms in triennial elections with one-third retiring each time. Possibly a small number (10 max) of life members, elected by the House on a very high threshold (e.g. 2/3rds of all members voting in favour), for exceptional contribution to the life of the nation.
California population is under 40 million.......but the senate system is stupid.
@HYUFD But that's the nature of the bluff. Sturgeon can only call a referendum when Westminster grants a S30 order allowing her to. So Sturgeon can bluff by asking for a S30 order and May has to say Yes or No. So what does May do ? Say yes and hope Sturgeon is bluffing ? Or say No and have Sturgeon what she really wants ? And suppose Sturgeon was bluffing ? If May says Yes and grants the order Sturgeon may have to call it to save face even if she was bluffing.
The other issue is ceilings. The current pollng is far far better for Yes than when the last #indyref was called. The entire thing would be a gamble on YES support having hit it's ceiling.
Though I also agree with @CasinoRoyale than a Davidson led No campaign would have an entirely different dynamic to last time.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
No she won't
All political careers end in failure. The only question is how.
Not quite all - and a lot depends on the nature of what one defines a 'failure'. I could list several prime ministers whose careers didn't end in failure, before we get to lesser ministers and backbenchers who never aspired higher and who retired with good grace in their own time.
They may in failure defined as not succeeding to continue to be prime minister at that moment, but in retrospect their careers and achievements can be deemed as anything but failure.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
FFS. You're just thick. I might stop arguing with you. The legislation allowing a 2nd referendum must come from Westminster. TMay can simply refuse.
The Section 30 order goes through parliament. I think there'd be a clear majority in favour of it. Some Tory rebels would vote for it anyway hoping to get shot of Scotland.
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
No she won't
All political careers end in failure. The only question is how.
Not quite all - and a lot depends on the nature of what one defines a 'failure'. I could list several prime ministers whose careers didn't end in failure, before we get to lesser ministers and backbenchers who never aspired higher and who retired with good grace in their own time.
They may in failure defined as not succeeding to continue to be prime minister at that moment, but in retrospect their careers and achievements can be deemed as anything but failure.
Several prime ministers retired more-or-less at times of their own choosing after a long career rather than being forced out. Wilson was the most recent if you don't count Blair (which I don't think we should). Baldwin, Churchill and Salisbury are other 20th century examples.
There are even more if we omit Powell's rider - as william did - and include those who left due to illness or death.
@HYUFD But that's the nature of the bluff. Sturgeon can only call a referendum when Westminster grants a S30 order allowing her to. So Sturgeon can bluff by asking for a S30 order and May has to say Yes or No. So what does May do ? Say yes and hope Sturgeon is bluffing ? Or say No and have Sturgeon what she really wants ? And suppose Sturgeon was bluffing ? If May says Yes and grants the order Sturgeon may have to call it to save face even if she was bluffing.
The other issue is ceilings. The current pollng is far far better for Yes than when the last #indyref was called. The entire thing would be a gamble on YES support having hit it's ceiling.
Though I also agree with @CasinoRoyale than a Davidson led No campaign would have an entirely different dynamic to last time.
May will simply refuse it with all the backing of the Scottish polls showing Scots still back the Union and indeed a few polls show Yes doing even worse than 2014 and a number have Scots backing control of free movement ahead of single market membership. Sturgeon of course has huffed and puffed but not asked for a referendum now and that is unlikely to change
I agree with @SeanT on this. Sturgeon's least worst option at the moment is for May to block #indyref2. The best chance of getting May to refuse a S30 order is ask for it early coinciding with the A50 negotiations. I don't see how any UK PM could have both EU withdrawal and an #indyref going on at the same time. With God knows what going on at the same time. The fact Sturgeon is a long a LCM anyway despite today's ruling suggests she's slightly upping the ante.
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
IIRC (maybe I don't), TMay has very nearly said this, explicitly - she couldn't have an indyref2 going on at the same time as Brexit. Presumably the SNP know this, so it's all just orchestral maneuvers in the dark.
She should have given that more weight when deciding to go for hard Brexit. She's playing for high stakes and is likely to lose.
FFS. You're just thick. I might stop arguing with you. The legislation allowing a 2nd referendum must come from Westminster. TMay can simply refuse.
The Section 30 order goes through parliament. I think there'd be a clear majority in favour of it. Some Tory rebels would vote for it anyway hoping to get shot of Scotland.
Could 2 conflicting amendments be added to the bill making it impossible to trigger or would these be 'wrecking' amendments?
Edited extra bit - what if one were passed and the second was regarded as therefore wrecking. What about the status of the first?
A company I'm involved in once entered into a contract with Microsoft. We were providing them with 'live odds' so that people could see who had the best odds on - ooohhh... - Next Prime Minister, and they integrated us into MSN.
Anyway, when the contract arrived for us, it was 24 pages of boilerplate, with a paragraph at the beginning describing the services we would provide to Microsoft. Said paragraph basically said: "Company will provide odds to MSN, allow MSN users to bet, and revenue will be shared according to this formula".
On page 11 of this document was the stern admonition that we must not have anything to do with betting or gambling.
The contract was utterly contradictory.
The legal advice we got from our solicitor was "This is your lucky day. Microsoft has sent you a completely unenforceable contract. If you sign it, and there's a dispute later, they'll be expected to explain why they sent you a contract that made absolutely no sense."
Regional elections using the Euroconstituencies (might as well use them for something now), electing n members each on a proportional basis. 150-180 senators, elected for nine-year renewable terms in triennial elections with one-third retiring each time. Possibly a small number (10 max) of life members, elected by the House on a very high threshold (e.g. 2/3rds of all members voting in favour), for exceptional contribution to the life of the nation.
Despite all the posturing, the very last thing the government wants is a HoL with democratic legitimacy, because then it might have to start taking it seriously. At the moment if can try and brow beat it as the "unelected house", if that fails it has the parliament act, and the various conventions to fall back on, and ultimately it can bully it about reform or flooding. With a reformed house it can do none of those, and further would come under significant pressure to let the new chamber vote, for example, on finance measures.
Oh sure, neither the Commons nor the government actually wants a reformed HoL. But if it's going to be done (and if it is, it'll probably be on the spur of the moment), I'd rather it were done properly.
Despite Carlotta cheering from the sidelines, this was a typical Rudd STUPID statement. [ like her short-lived threat to publish names of companies employing foreign nationals ]
Immigrants can indeed come to a place where the education system and the health system is improving.
But only if they are allowed to come in the first place
Since, immigration controls are held by Wesminster, they are denied that control.
@HYUFD I don't think that engages with my point. If Sturgeon knows she can't win a referendum at the moment then being told she can't have one is her least worst option. It gives her 4 or 5 years to campaign against the backdrop of Brexit disruption, Trumpism and further public sector cuts.
Scotland already runs its own domestic affairs and if Yes are not ahead now post Brexit they are unlikely to be when the SNP have been in power for even longer. Sturgeon knows a second No vote would kill her career, until those polls showing a No change she will call no referendum so May can allow her to huff and puff, give a few token concessions and get on with the job of Brexit
Brexit has not happened yet. Wait until 2018, 2019. The proverbial will hit the fan.
What we need is the American system, where regardless of size, each state gets the same number of senators.
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
So Scotland gets one senator per 211, 000 people, and Wales one per 122,000 people, while England gets one per 2,120,000... not sure it will play that well on the doorstep, makes UKIPs representation of its voters look democratic
In the US Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets the same number of senators as California (pop 80 million). The whole point is that it's not proportionate.
There's 50 US states, and 4 parts of the UK (broadly). thats a little different.
We can have 100 "Lords" with approx 600,000 constituents elected on a proportional basis.
Or, each country gets proportion of population number of seats and they are elected by PR.
Say, England 82 seats, Scotland 8, Wales 5, N.Ireland 5 or something like that.
@HYUFD I don't think that engages with my point. If Sturgeon knows she can't win a referendum at the moment then being told she can't have one is her least worst option. It gives her 4 or 5 years to campaign against the backdrop of Brexit disruption, Trumpism and further public sector cuts.
Scotland already runs its own domestic affairs and if Yes are not ahead now post Brexit they are unlikely to be when the SNP have been in power for even longer. Sturgeon knows a second No vote would kill her career, until those polls showing a No change she will call no referendum so May can allow her to huff and puff, give a few token concessions and get on with the job of Brexit
Brexit has not happened yet. Wait until 2018, 2019. The proverbial will hit the fan.
Actually many recent polls have had Scots putting free movement control over single market membership
The appeal was not a waste of time. The Supreme Court was split 8-3, ie: three of these very senior judges accepted the Government's arguments. We ought to await sight of the full judgment. It may be very illuminating to constitutional lawyers. The judgment also dismissed the argument that the concurrence of the devolved assemblies was necessary - and that aspect of the judgment was unanimous.
Comments
I've always wondered if this is a truly cunning plan by May. Brexit means Brexit, but if she's stopped by gerrymandering MPs from invoking Article 50 as voted for in a referendum, surely she could in all honesty go to the country. The Remainers seem to have no good option.
And by gerrymandering, I mean adding so many impossible requirements to the bill to guarantee the EU will have no option but to refuse.
The Remainers would then face a Hard Brexit.
Alternatively, their hope of another referendum to keep us in would totally undermine democracy. Why bother voting? The posh people will only allow the result they like. It sounds over-dramatic, but it would resonate.
I think that if push came to shove, the Lords would back down (as they did in the 1830s and 1910s). To create 300+ new peers would not only ensure a Tory majority for a Brexit bill but also for every other piece of legislation.
Edited extra bit - what if one were passed and the second was regarded as therefore wrecking. What about the status of the first?
So here in the UK, each of the four nations gets 25 senators, directly elected under AV, so we reduce the size of the Lords to something more manageable.
He's whipping up hysteria without some basic fact checking.
He's like Andrea Leadsom without the charm or competence.
If Robert Mugabe stuffed his upper chamber with cronies and those people who donated money to his party we'd be laughing at him.
And pig shit can be rather fluid.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/823878546388971520
The difficulty s the might now be beyond bluff where one side will fold. It might be the Railway Time tables of August.
But May has to give Davidson something to work with.
We are one nation.
I'm sure it was a hilarious point you were making though.
But if she does ask and if a Bill does go through, the uncertainty ought to be a big draw to the most status quo of the options.
How died this suit with the clamour for PR?
Cameron could easily have put his mark on reform
he bottled it
Though David H is right. The Lord's won't risk serious reform. And government wants serious reform. The paradox is a properly reformed Lords would be far more of a check on the Commons than the current absurd set up.
Regional elections using the Euroconstituencies (might as well use them for something now), electing n members each on a proportional basis. 150-180 senators, elected for nine-year renewable terms in triennial elections with one-third retiring each time. Possibly a small number (10 max) of life members, elected by the House on a very high threshold (e.g. 2/3rds of all members voting in favour), for exceptional contribution to the life of the nation.
https://twitter.com/thebestbond/status/823605204016738304
Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.
https://twitter.com/cnn/status/821404456315158529
NEW THREAD
A tweet saying America isn't living under Sharia law because there is interest on loans?
She's a working woman who voted for Bernie Sanders. She obviously doesn't support Sharia law.
https://twitter.com/islamlie2/status/821483515372072960
The other issue is ceilings. The current pollng is far far better for Yes than when the last #indyref was called. The entire thing would be a gamble on YES support having hit it's ceiling.
Though I also agree with @CasinoRoyale than a Davidson led No campaign would have an entirely different dynamic to last time.
There are even more if we omit Powell's rider - as william did - and include those who left due to illness or death.
Anyway, when the contract arrived for us, it was 24 pages of boilerplate, with a paragraph at the beginning describing the services we would provide to Microsoft. Said paragraph basically said: "Company will provide odds to MSN, allow MSN users to bet, and revenue will be shared according to this formula".
On page 11 of this document was the stern admonition that we must not have anything to do with betting or gambling.
The contract was utterly contradictory.
The legal advice we got from our solicitor was "This is your lucky day. Microsoft has sent you a completely unenforceable contract. If you sign it, and there's a dispute later, they'll be expected to explain why they sent you a contract that made absolutely no sense."
Two women suicide bombers have detonated explosives while carrying babies on their backs.
https://t.co/4CfvNIAM09
Immigrants can indeed come to a place where the education system and the health system is improving.
But only if they are allowed to come in the first place
Since, immigration controls are held by Wesminster, they are denied that control.
Or, each country gets proportion of population number of seats and they are elected by PR.
Say, England 82 seats, Scotland 8, Wales 5, N.Ireland 5 or something like that.