This is one of the things that truly annoys me about Britons trying to import racism/BLM here.
It's complete nonsense and deliberately divisive race card playing. My Uncle Bart is from Sierra Leone - my five cousins are black and whilst an oddity back in the 70s in Newcastle, no one really commented at all. We all just got on and admired his gold teeth/fish gutting skills.
Frankly, I'm more outraged at what settlers did to the Native Americans than anything else. That was genocide and near deliberate extinction for bison to cut off their food source - imagine if we'd reservations for Jews in Europe in 2017. It's appalling.
Experiences are different and contrary - your Uncle had one experience and a good one but to imagine there was no prejudice against black people is equally false - the Notting Hill riots being a prime example.
Yes, the Native Americans were treated shamefully by the Americans and the near extinction of the bison within just a few decades awful but the treatment of the Australian aborigines by the British wasn't brilliant either (the Maori did a bit better but not much).
2017 is better - not by much, and not by enough and in many parts of the world it's not better at all.
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
It is one of history's not so little ironies that without the two crimes against humanity one which the United States was built, it's likely that the forces of liberty could not have prevailed against those of evil in the 20th century.
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
Blimey, I didn't realize there was an actual thing. It's worth a shot; He probably doesn't know about the clause, and even if he does it's hard to see him turning down a title.
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
If we want to be sure then we need to go bigly - how about God-King?
He'd probably want a Scottish title, must be a few lying around. Also let's make him an offer, we'll remove the offshore wind turbines near his Scottish golf course if he listens to scientists about Climate Change.
Catching up on the thread. What is this stuff about Jezza quitting? There's no chance currently as the Left won't let him – the second he quits, they lose control of the party as left wing candidates won't be able to get the requisite number of nominations. The PLP won't make the same mistake twice.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
Blimey, I didn't realize there was an actual thing. It's worth a shot; He probably doesn't know about the clause, and even if he does it's hard to see him turning down a title.
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
If we want to be sure then we need to go bigly - how about God-King?
He'd probably want a Scottish title, must be a few lying around. Also let's make him an offer, we'll remove the offshore wind turbines near his Scottish golf course if he listens to scientists about Climate Change.
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
Agree that long term gf/bf shouldn't have rights. But they had got engaged - imagine that was an important factor although of course engagements break off...
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
That's bonkers. I had assumed they had children and the payments might be for that, but no mention of children in the article. How does the taxpayer end up paying a pension for life to someone aged 42 who lived with someone who worked for the government?
It wouldn't be that much, the pot would have a certain value perhaps 50-100k or so (I have no idea), and she'd be entitled to that in the normal way a pension would be paid. The value would be less than if he had died at say 65.
I suspect the issue hinges on the nominating survivor form. In the public sector at least, in my experience, you can fill in such a form. This woman's partner didn't. Should she be discriminated against because failed to fill in a form, appears to be the case from a quick read.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
With regard to a couple of posts (sorry can't remember who, Plato?) - There is a difference between criticising a judge and his judgement. In fact it would be odd not to be critical of the judgement. One might argue why did you bring the case if you are not unhappy about losing.
Also someone posted a link to someone claiming Bercow was a hypocrite because he voted for the Iraq war. Now I think Bercow is wrong by what he has done recently and he certainly seems a hypocrite re his reaction to others invited to speak to Parliament, but the Iraq war claim is daft. He probably voted honestly with the information available at the time as did most MPs at the time. Again I think they were wrong, but this is a spurious thing to throw at him regarding the latest events.
Catching up on the thread. What is this stuff about Jezza quitting? There's no chance currently as the Left won't let him – the second he quits, they lose control of the party as left wing candidates won't be able to get the requisite number of nominations. The PLP won't make the same mistake twice.
Unless there is an up-front deal to get a 'better' lefty on the ballot
(Like I've been advocating for a year and a half!)
Catching up on the thread. What is this stuff about Jezza quitting? There's no chance currently as the Left won't let him – the second he quits, they lose control of the party as left wing candidates won't be able to get the requisite number of nominations. The PLP won't make the same mistake twice.
Corbyn still has a card to play, in that they can't force him to go. If there's a lefty candidate the MPs could put up with I'd have thought they could make a deal stick to the effect of "MPs [a-z1-9] promise to nominate X if there is a vacancy", and Corbyn steps down once he's got it in writing. In theory they could make that promise and renege, but if you made the promises public they'd have some exceedingly miffed lefty constituents to deal with. And if it's Lewis then he's quite a talented politician in his own right, he might be able to get the nominations even without the Corbyn people stitching things up for him.
But are Lewis and Team Corbyn still friends? If not it's hard to see who else they could run who the rest of the MPs would consider an improvement.
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
Blimey, I didn't realize there was an actual thing. It's worth a shot; He probably doesn't know about the clause, and even if he does it's hard to see him turning down a title.
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
If we want to be sure then we need to go bigly - how about God-King?
He'd probably want a Scottish title, must be a few lying around. Also let's make him an offer, we'll remove the offshore wind turbines near his Scottish golf course if he listens to scientists about Climate Change.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
A couple can make a commitment to each other without the interference of church or state.
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
As always, it's more complicated than the headline. The full judgment is here for those who are interested:
I really don't have a problem with this ruling, if noone is specified for a pension to go to his long term partner. I think the court has been fair, and this really isn't money grubbing. I can't recall who the beneficiary to my (modest) pension is, and I'd have no issue it going to my fiancee. I have no idea who she has nominated for hers, I'd probably give it back to her parents for neccesary 'expenses' if I was entitled to it if unfortunate events occurred.
In fact I think the ruling is extremely fair and correct.
The Maria Mills court case was the one that really got my back up yesterday. I can only think of one explanation for that ruling, out and out paternalism and sexism by the judge - it is completely demeaning - the unspoken part of it being that she can't stand on her own two feet because she is a woman, utterly disgusting.
Seems the pension case hung on article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
Blimey, I didn't realize there was an actual thing. It's worth a shot; He probably doesn't know about the clause, and even if he does it's hard to see him turning down a title.
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
If we want to be sure then we need to go bigly - how about God-King?
He'd probably want a Scottish title, must be a few lying around. Also let's make him an offer, we'll remove the offshore wind turbines near his Scottish golf course if he listens to scientists about Climate Change.
Thane of Cawdor?
If only he had an Orkney connection, Baron Twat would be perfect.
His mother's birthplace Tong (pronounced tongue) is not far from the Butt of Lewis.
Mr. Eagles, you're aware the most infamous holder of that position became King of Scotland?
Are you an SNP sleeper?
Mr. rkrkrk, the engagement aspect (and 95% of the story) wasn't up when I first linked.
I am aware of that, it was a reference to my old prediction that during his Presidency, Trump will go full Idi Amin on the titles front, and declare himself King of Scotland.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
Blimey, I didn't realize there was an actual thing. It's worth a shot; He probably doesn't know about the clause, and even if he does it's hard to see him turning down a title.
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
If we want to be sure then we need to go bigly - how about God-King?
He'd probably want a Scottish title, must be a few lying around. Also let's make him an offer, we'll remove the offshore wind turbines near his Scottish golf course if he listens to scientists about Climate Change.
Thane of Cawdor?
If only he had an Orkney connection, Baron Twat would be perfect.
His mother's birthplace does have the Butt of Lewis.
A truly excellent piece even by Cyclefree's high standards. I can scarcely get past "prat" when thinking about Bercow. For the BBC to give him a pat on the back on Newsnight is beyond belief, without, these days, being at all surprising.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
I think the pension 'pot' should go to whoever is on the form !
That obviously makes things far more clear cut - but some people are just hopeless form fillers ! My guess is the court thought he was a hopeless form filler rather than her not wanting to get the pension. There is no mention of any objection from his legal kin, I think the court decision is right.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
Catching up on the thread. What is this stuff about Jezza quitting? There's no chance currently as the Left won't let him – the second he quits, they lose control of the party as left wing candidates won't be able to get the requisite number of nominations. The PLP won't make the same mistake twice.
Corbyn still has a card to play, in that they can't force him to go. If there's a lefty candidate the MPs could put up with I'd have thought they could make a deal stick to the effect of "MPs [a-z1-9] promise to nominate X if there is a vacancy", and Corbyn steps down once he's got it in writing. In theory they could make that promise and renege, but if you made the promises public they'd have some exceedingly miffed lefty constituents to deal with. And if it's Lewis then he's quite a talented politician in his own right, he might be able to get the nominations even without the Corbyn people stitching things up for him.
But are Lewis and Team Corbyn still friends? If not it's hard to see who else they could run who the rest of the MPs would consider an improvement.
The "talented" comment is an interesting one. Apart from generally trying to define what talented means in this context, what in your eyes has he done to make him stand out as (quite) talented?
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer.
Nicola Sturgeon could hold her own IndyRef - a giant opinion poll.
Given that Parliament is taking the UK out of the EU on an advisory referendum that lacks legal force, how could such a Scottish poll be denied? Brexit is happening purely on moral grounds as "it would be wrong to frustrate the will of the people"
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
That may be 'lawful' under international law but it (1) wouldn't be under UK law, and (2) would be against any number of current and past precedents of regions of countries around the world which have voted in their local assembly for independence and not had it recognised internationally.
Secession is only meaningful if it is put into practical effect both internally and internationally.
I only got 5, so I've no idea how to reply to that.
I got 9, mostly guesses. It's about teenagers, so I just went for the most inappropriate answer.
I got 10 missing only MIA for buliminia (which I still don't get), but mainly by making educated guesses. I'm a technophobic 66 year old so teenagers should cringe with embarrassment that even I can understand what they are on about!
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
As a family member once said to me, one of the best things about getting married is that you know exactly what you are entitled to if you get divorced!
Mrs C, the democratic hurdles cleared by the EU referendum: Party with manifesto commitment for a referendum got a majority Majority vote in Parliament for referendum Majority of electorate voted Leave Parliament is going through the process of voting to confirm the result and proceed to give the PM power to trigger Article 50
They didn't just hold an opinion poll. (There was also a long campaign, full of piss and wind).
Mr. Cide, Catalans. The Basque independence movement seems to have been rather quieter of late.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
Catching up on the thread. What is this stuff about Jezza quitting? There's no chance currently as the Left won't let him – the second he quits, they lose control of the party as left wing candidates won't be able to get the requisite number of nominations. The PLP won't make the same mistake twice.
Corbyn still has a card to play, in that they can't force him to go. If there's a lefty candidate the MPs could put up with I'd have thought they could make a deal stick to the effect of "MPs [a-z1-9] promise to nominate X if there is a vacancy", and Corbyn steps down once he's got it in writing. In theory they could make that promise and renege, but if you made the promises public they'd have some exceedingly miffed lefty constituents to deal with. And if it's Lewis then he's quite a talented politician in his own right, he might be able to get the nominations even without the Corbyn people stitching things up for him.
But are Lewis and Team Corbyn still friends? If not it's hard to see who else they could run who the rest of the MPs would consider an improvement.
The "talented" comment is an interesting one. Apart from generally trying to define what talented means in this context, what in your eyes has he done to make him stand out as (quite) talented?
Doesn't take much in PLP. Breathing seems to be sufficient (unto the day?).
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
Do the Basques know about this?
I assume you mean the Catalans, unless there's been a sudden re-ignition of Basque separatism?
I only got 5, so I've no idea how to reply to that.
I got 9, mostly guesses. It's about teenagers, so I just went for the most inappropriate answer.
I got 10 missing only MIA for buliminia (which I still don't get), but mainly by making educated guesses. I'm a technophobic 66 year old so teenagers should cringe with embarrassment that even I can understand what they are on about!
Buli(MIA)
I got 9. I thought that most of them were obvious with even a little thought. Or perhaps I think like an adolescent.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
True, although it's not black and white. How do you treat a couple who are in the process of planning to get married but where one dies before the day? There are any number of considerations that might be relevant and it's for that reason that discretion is needed.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
That may be 'lawful' under international law but it (1) wouldn't be under UK law, and (2) would be against any number of current and past precedents of regions of countries around the world which have voted in their local assembly for independence and not had it recognised internationally.
Secession is only meaningful if it is put into practical effect both internally and internationally.
It is a work in progress.
I would need more details, but if the manifesto was solely about using the election to be a mandate for UDI, then it might work.
With regard to a couple of posts (sorry can't remember who, Plato?) - There is a difference between criticising a judge and his judgement. In fact it would be odd not to be critical of the judgement. One might argue why did you bring the case if you are not unhappy about losing.
Also someone posted a link to someone claiming Bercow was a hypocrite because he voted for the Iraq war. Now I think Bercow is wrong by what he has done recently and he certainly seems a hypocrite re his reaction to others invited to speak to Parliament, but the Iraq war claim is daft. He probably voted honestly with the information available at the time as did most MPs at the time. Again I think they were wrong, but this is a spurious thing to throw at him regarding the latest events.
I'm only an interested observer in politics, but it was obvious at the time that Blair had decided to go to war in Iraq and that the 45 minutes 'dodgy dossier' was a fig leaf. I can't imagine that any MP 'voted honestly with the information available at the time'. I'm sure that they voted politically.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
Swing & roundabouts innit.
'Brexit is an opportunity to reverse the tragic decline of marriage in Britain'
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
Do the Basques know about this?
I assume you mean the Catalans, unless there's been a sudden re-ignition of Basque separatism?
It was a flippant comment which I thought you at least might have understood
Corbyn still has a card to play, in that they can't force him to go. If there's a lefty candidate the MPs could put up with I'd have thought they could make a deal stick to the effect of "MPs [a-z1-9] promise to nominate X if there is a vacancy", and Corbyn steps down once he's got it in writing. In theory they could make that promise and renege, but if you made the promises public they'd have some exceedingly miffed lefty constituents to deal with. And if it's Lewis then he's quite a talented politician in his own right, he might be able to get the nominations even without the Corbyn people stitching things up for him.
But are Lewis and Team Corbyn still friends? If not it's hard to see who else they could run who the rest of the MPs would consider an improvement.
The "talented" comment is an interesting one. Apart from generally trying to define what talented means in this context, what in your eyes has he done to make him stand out as (quite) talented?
OK, so check this out. The liberal left all over the world are getting their arses kicked by nostalgia politics. Labour is having a hard time putting together a workable line on immigration. So see how Lewis fights fire with fire and deploys nostalgia politics:
Lewis' own father came to the UK from Grenada in the 1960s and worked in a factory. He says that he told him stories about the racism he faced at the time but that there is a big difference between then and now.
"I lived in a council house, as did all of my friends. People had good public services and a secure home. He [Lewis' father] joined a trade union and the workers were treated equally. You didn't have people coming over from Jamaica or India and undercutting British workers, they got the same terms and conditions as everyone else."
See how he does it? Immigration back in the good old days. It's ludicrous. It's shameless. He does it with a straight face. This kind of audacity is exactly what Labour need.
Mrs C, the democratic hurdles cleared by the EU referendum: Party with manifesto commitment for a referendum got a majority Majority vote in Parliament for referendum Majority of electorate voted Leave Parliament is going through the process of voting to confirm the result and proceed to give the PM power to trigger Article 50
They didn't just hold an opinion poll. (There was also a long campaign, full of piss and wind).
Indeed Mr Dancer, but if it could be shown that the majority of Scotland wanted independence then Brexit gives added weight to that and argues that a process must be started or at least formalised.
Add to that TSE's comments re independence and if the SNP were truly determined then I think they could be in a very much stronger position.
Personally I do not think that scots are that crazy but then I thought the same about the UK/Brexit even though my feelings said it would be a close vote either way.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
Do the Basques know about this?
I assume you mean the Catalans, unless there's been a sudden re-ignition of Basque separatism?
It was a flippant comment which I thought you at least might have understood
The Spanish Basques are seemingly content with their form of Devo Max, which should give centralisers everywhere pause for thought.
Corbyn still has a card to play, in that they can't force him to go. If there's a lefty candidate the MPs could put up with I'd have thought they could make a deal stick to the effect of "MPs [a-z1-9] promise to nominate X if there is a vacancy", and Corbyn steps down once he's got it in writing. In theory they could make that promise and renege, but if you made the promises public they'd have some exceedingly miffed lefty constituents to deal with. And if it's Lewis then he's quite a talented politician in his own right, he might be able to get the nominations even without the Corbyn people stitching things up for him.
But are Lewis and Team Corbyn still friends? If not it's hard to see who else they could run who the rest of the MPs would consider an improvement.
The "talented" comment is an interesting one. Apart from generally trying to define what talented means in this context, what in your eyes has he done to make him stand out as (quite) talented?
OK, so check this out. The liberal left all over the world are getting their arses kicked by nostalgia politics. Labour is having a hard time putting together a workable line on immigration. So see how Lewis fights fire with fire and deploys nostalgia politics:
Lewis' own father came to the UK from Grenada in the 1960s and worked in a factory. He says that he told him stories about the racism he faced at the time but that there is a big difference between then and now.
"I lived in a council house, as did all of my friends. People had good public services and a secure home. He [Lewis' father] joined a trade union and the workers were treated equally. You didn't have people coming over from Jamaica or India and undercutting British workers, they got the same terms and conditions as everyone else."
See how he does it? Immigration back in the good old days. It's ludicrous. It's shameless. He does it with a straight face. This kind of audacity is exactly what Labour need.
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
I would imagine that Jezza has not signed an opt-out of the European Working Time Directive, and is therefore obliged to take the time off in lieu so as not to exceed his maximum working hours.
Comforting to see that nearly 20.000.000 people have viewed this. Presumably nearly all Americans. Sometimes it's easy to think we're in a minority seeing Trump for what he is
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer.
Nicola Sturgeon could hold her own IndyRef - a giant opinion poll.
Given that Parliament is taking the UK out of the EU on an advisory referendum that lacks legal force, how could such a Scottish poll be denied? Brexit is happening purely on moral grounds as "it would be wrong to frustrate the will of the people"
If the SNP were returned to power having made a specific commitment to holding an independence referendum it would be very hard for the UK government to say no.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
So what is the story on Greece blowing up again mid-year. Is there likely to be another crisis, or is it all a bit AEP ?
It seems that the IMF has reached the end of its patience for pumping in money without any debt forgiveness, which the creditors appear to have ruled out.
If the IMF walks away then the Germans and Dutch will be forced to walk away as well because the IMF picking up a chunk of the bill was the condition given by their national parliaments for being involved in the bail outs.
I think we have to accept that with Donald Trump in office IMF support for the next round of Greek support is a complete non starter and it will be the EZ to sort it out themselves. It has the resources to do so of course but it is going to require the swallowing of some pretty unpleasant medicine by Germany in particular at a very unfortunate stage in their electoral cycle.
Greece is actually doing better at the moment but the big picture remains bleak. Far more debt forgiveness was required at an earlier stage to put them on a viable path.
Extraordinary story in @PrivateEyeNews that Corbyn takes time off in lieu whenever he has to work on a Sunday, such appearing on Marr
That's actually a good idea, people operate better with two days a week of time off to relax and chew things over.
Leaders don't have that luxury. Stuff happens and the buck stops with them.
(It would be possible for a leader to work with a much reduced workload if s/he had a very capable and united team under them, and clear and effective guidelines to work to. Labour has yet to convince on this point).
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
I'm sure Lewis would move to the centre. This is the other thing about him: He's the only person who can move to the centre and take the left with him.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
Your complaint is with the pension scheme, not with the court decision.
Extraordinary story in @PrivateEyeNews that Corbyn takes time off in lieu whenever he has to work on a Sunday, such appearing on Marr
That's actually a good idea, people operate better with two days a week of time off to relax and chew things over.
Leaders don't have that luxury. Stuff happens and the buck stops with them.
(It would be possible for a leader to work with a much reduced workload if s/he had a very capable and united team under them, and clear and effective guidelines to work to. Labour has yet to convince on this point).
I didn't say he shouldn't respond if shit blows up.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
Its about a bit more than future hypothecated pension pots
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
The Maori story is fascinating - the Waitangi Treaty (timely with Waitangi Day just two days ago) was more an attempt to forestall a French move to take control of the islands. It's often forgotten most of the South Island was uninhabited - the Maori were on the North Island and only on the north shore of the South Island. There was a Catholic mission in Russell and the British feared the Maori would do a deal with the French.
As for North America, yes, the various Native tribes were known to be brutal but I'm left wondering if the defeat of the Iroquois League was more to do with smallpox and gold then numbers or muskets. Had the Native Americans been resistant to European illnesses (and the same is true of the Aztecs), I wonder how the history of the Americas would have turned out.
The impact of disease was certainly very significant in Mexico. I think that in North America, the natives would still have been overwhelmed by the sheer number of European immigrants.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the diseases largely favoured the natives, and meant that European settlement wasn't significant outside South Africa.
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
I'm sure Lewis would move to the centre. This is the other thing about him: He's the only person who can move to the centre and take the left with him.
Interesting thought though I'm not sure any true leftie would move to the centre for anyone, and it seems to be the true lefties that do most of the spade work.
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
Blimey, I didn't realize there was an actual thing. It's worth a shot; He probably doesn't know about the clause, and even if he does it's hard to see him turning down a title.
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
If we want to be sure then we need to go bigly - how about God-King?
He'd probably want a Scottish title, must be a few lying around. Also let's make him an offer, we'll remove the offshore wind turbines near his Scottish golf course if he listens to scientists about Climate Change.
Thane of Cawdor?
If only he had an Orkney connection, Baron Twat would be perfect.
His mother's birthplace Tong (pronounced tongue) is not far from the Butt of Lewis.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
Because even if you win and even if you recover every single penny of your costs, taking a case to the Supreme Court is a nerve-wrecking nightmare.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
Most people don't make wills. In the absence of marriage or civil partnerships, it would be hugely difficult to work out a fair system of inheritance, on intestacy.
I would imagine that Jezza has not signed an opt-out of the European Working Time Directive, and is therefore obliged to take the time off in lieu so as not to exceed his maximum working hours.
Well he wont have to worry about the EU directive once he has been the midwife to May's Brexit delivery.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer.
Nicola Sturgeon could hold her own IndyRef - a giant opinion poll.
Given that Parliament is taking the UK out of the EU on an advisory referendum that lacks legal force, how could such a Scottish poll be denied? Brexit is happening purely on moral grounds as "it would be wrong to frustrate the will of the people"
If the SNP were returned to power having made a specific commitment to holding an independence referendum it would be very hard for the UK government to say no.
Harder now than it was pre-Brexit. The real question is will they do it or are they just sabre-rattling to keep the SNP vote in line?
"Jeremy, there's been a terrorist incident in London, Manchester, Glasgow and Cardiff"
"Soz, old bean, it's my scheduled day off".
Starts campaign to increase resources in LOTO staffing levels which are woefully underfunded.
He'd be better off saying it was his day off rather than appearing on Sky News to announce that the incident is all the fault of the US for invading Iraq illegally in 2003, the culprits should be given community service etc etc...
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
The Maori story is fascinating - the Waitangi Treaty (timely with Waitangi Day just two days ago) was more an attempt to forestall a French move to take control of the islands. It's often forgotten most of the South Island was uninhabited - the Maori were on the North Island and only on the north shore of the South Island. There was a Catholic mission in Russell and the British feared the Maori would do a deal with the French.
As for North America, yes, the various Native tribes were known to be brutal but I'm left wondering if the defeat of the Iroquois League was more to do with smallpox and gold then numbers or muskets. Had the Native Americans been resistant to European illnesses (and the same is true of the Aztecs), I wonder how the history of the Americas would have turned out.
Very interesting article in this month's Current Archaeology that scientists have been studying DNA from a smallpox victim from Lithuania in the 1640s and have found that it is unlikely that smallpox actually existed at all in its modern form before 1580. I don't understand the detail to be honest but I think that this is another case where viral diseases mutate so fast that what we consider to be the same as a modern disease quite often is not. The virus that caused the Black Death in the mid 14th century is thought to be another example of this.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.
Comments
Also let's make him an offer, we'll remove the offshore wind turbines near his Scottish golf course if he listens to scientists about Climate Change.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
But they had got engaged - imagine that was an important factor although of course engagements break off...
Over to the PB lawyers.
Also someone posted a link to someone claiming Bercow was a hypocrite because he voted for the Iraq war. Now I think Bercow is wrong by what he has done recently and he certainly seems a hypocrite re his reaction to others invited to speak to Parliament, but the Iraq war claim is daft. He probably voted honestly with the information available at the time as did most MPs at the time. Again I think they were wrong, but this is a spurious thing to throw at him regarding the latest events.
(Like I've been advocating for a year and a half!)
But are Lewis and Team Corbyn still friends? If not it's hard to see who else they could run who the rest of the MPs would consider an improvement.
Are you an SNP sleeper?
Mr. rkrkrk, the engagement aspect (and 95% of the story) wasn't up when I first linked.
Let the frothing begin...
His mother's birthplace Tong (pronounced tongue) is not far from the Butt of Lewis.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift.
The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
That obviously makes things far more clear cut - but some people are just hopeless form fillers !
My guess is the court thought he was a hopeless form filler rather than her not wanting to get the pension. There is no mention of any objection from his legal kin, I think the court decision is right.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
SNP (63)
Green (6)
Given that Parliament is taking the UK out of the EU on an advisory referendum that lacks legal force, how could such a Scottish poll be denied? Brexit is happening purely on moral grounds as "it would be wrong to frustrate the will of the people"
The route to the outcome? I'm still thinking about.
Secession is only meaningful if it is put into practical effect both internally and internationally.
Party with manifesto commitment for a referendum got a majority
Majority vote in Parliament for referendum
Majority of electorate voted Leave
Parliament is going through the process of voting to confirm the result and proceed to give the PM power to trigger Article 50
They didn't just hold an opinion poll. (There was also a long campaign, full of piss and wind).
Mr. Cide, Catalans. The Basque independence movement seems to have been rather quieter of late.
I got 9. I thought that most of them were obvious with even a little thought. Or perhaps I think like an adolescent.
Pompous arse
I would need more details, but if the manifesto was solely about using the election to be a mandate for UDI, then it might work.
https://twitter.com/wabbey/status/829282598014877696
'Brexit is an opportunity to reverse the tragic decline of marriage in Britain'
http://tinyurl.com/zbnbjlg
ASL is the only one I recall using back in the heady days of ICQ and msn messenger.
Add to that TSE's comments re independence and if the SNP were truly determined then I think they could be in a very much stronger position.
Personally I do not think that scots are that crazy but then I thought the same about the UK/Brexit even though my feelings said it would be a close vote either way.
https://twitter.com/patrick_kidd/status/829277557405208579
Extraordinary story in @PrivateEyeNews that Corbyn takes time off in lieu whenever he has to work on a Sunday, such appearing on Marr
His allotment too.
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I can't believe that we're fighting in court to protect the security of our nation https://t.co/vzFQ5AK2Cc
Video
Greece is actually doing better at the moment but the big picture remains bleak. Far more debt forgiveness was required at an earlier stage to put them on a viable path.
(It would be possible for a leader to work with a much reduced workload if s/he had a very capable and united team under them, and clear and effective guidelines to work to. Labour has yet to convince on this point).
The less time that he is active is a bonus...
John Bercow: "I'm not happy".
DC: "So which one are you?"
Is there anyone left in the Commons with that sort of cruel wit?
In sub-Saharan Africa, the diseases largely favoured the natives, and meant that European settlement wasn't significant outside South Africa.
http://tinyurl.com/j8zyjh5
"Soz, old bean, it's my scheduled day off".
Starts campaign to increase resources in LOTO staffing levels which are woefully underfunded.
Not a peep about left allying with right wing Islam either.
Ho hum
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4201898/Islamic-Peace-Conference-hides-faces-women-flyer.html
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.