Then we're back to the basic contradiction that what 'we' want is the benefits of the EU without its constraints. Unless the EU goes out of its way to help the Brexiteers, at some point they will have to face up to some very hard choices.
Not just Britain though. The EU has a €60bn hole in its budget without the UK and there are a lot of exporters in Europe as well as in Britain who won't be keen on barriers going up at Dover.
The third largest trading partner of the EU is Russia which is why Putin was so shocked that they imposed sanctions over Ukraine. The leverage of business is limited.
I suppose we'd better not invade Norway then.
Seriously, can't you see the difference between the two?
Of course there's a difference, which is why the EU is not suggesting sanctions - merely to treat the UK as a normal third country, like wot we voted for.
Can I say that Nicola is an outstanding politician and to be admired for many things. However that does not mean I agree with her policies and I do think she may well have misjudged this.
What's this 'before its too late for Scotland to choose a different path' nonsense?
The UK is leaving the EU, with Scotland in it. Even if Scotland left the UK before the UK left the EU, Scotland would still have to apply to join the EU - but even that no longer appears to be SNP policy.....
What's this 'before its too late for Scotland to choose a different path' nonsense?
The UK is leaving the EU, with Scotland in it. Even if Scotland left the UK before the UK left the EU, Scotland would still have to apply to join the EU - but even that no longer appears to be SNP policy.....
She means `before its too late for the SNP`
Ah, that makes sense! Hence the urgency to agreeing one before the 2021 Holyrood election - still, it will have been a remarkable run.
Read a report that Amber Rudd is favourite to succeed Hammond. It would be an another conservative first, woman PM and woman COE at the same time and first woman COE
Would be good to see a lady PM and CotE. Why not?
It would be very good and another conservative first.
Could you tell us where that report was please ?
The cynic in me thinks you are making a petty partisan political point but I know that can't be true and there's an actual report out there.
What's this 'before its too late for Scotland to choose a different path' nonsense?
The UK is leaving the EU, with Scotland in it. Even if Scotland left the UK before the UK left the EU, Scotland would still have to apply to join the EU - but even that no longer appears to be SNP policy.....
She means `before its too late for the SNP`
As I understand it she believes the EU would permit Scotland to remain as UK leaves despite everyone in any position in the EU rejecting that scenario
What's this 'before its too late for Scotland to choose a different path' nonsense?
The UK is leaving the EU, with Scotland in it. Even if Scotland left the UK before the UK left the EU, Scotland would still have to apply to join the EU - but even that no longer appears to be SNP policy.....
She means `before its too late for the SNP`
As I understand it she believes the EU would permit Scotland to remain as UK leaves despite everyone in any position in the EU rejecting that scenario
It's the kind of thing that's unthinkable until the day it becomes inevitable.
Read a report that Amber Rudd is favourite to succeed Hammond. It would be an another conservative first, woman PM and woman COE at the same time and first woman COE
Would be good to see a lady PM and CotE. Why not?
It would be very good and another conservative first.
Could you tell us where that report was please ?
The cynic in me thinks you are making a petty partisan political point but I know that can't be true and there's an actual report out there.
The telegraph did a leading candidates column for next CoE and she came out at 8 out of 10.
Sturgeon this week has been very good at political theatre but actually pretty awful at politics.
It is so clear to everyone that Scotland can't just stay in the EU and also pretty clear that any attempt to join would face fierce opposition - not least from the Spanish.
It was an easy decision for May to say no. Standing up to to the SNP is the right thing to do. Forcing them to actually take responsibility for governing Scotland rather than being in permanent protest mode will show up their lack of success.
Today May looks resolute, Davidson looks in touch with the majority of Scots and Sturgeon looks petulant and frit.
It says that only the Spanish people as a whole can approve a change in the territorial scope of Spain. It's up to the Spanish parliament to decide what that means.
The Westminster parliament is the only body which can legally approve Scottish secession, so it's not really very different.
In theory, maybe not; but it is in practice - and we can see that in what has happened today.
The government in Westminster has said that if there is a specific mandate for an independence referendum at the next Scottish election (or perhaps even following the next GE), then there will be a binding referendum on independence. In Spain the government has ruled out a referendum whatever the Catalans might vote for - and it has refused to agree to such referenda in the past, stating specifically that it is a matter for the Spanish people as a whole. This is not an argument any British government has ever used. And given the precedent set in 2014, it is not one that would stand up to legal scrutiny now IMO.
That out MPs have more self respect and respect for others than their Spanish counterparts doesn't change the legal situation.
The legal situation is far from clear. The 2012 agreement between the UK government and the Scottish government - following the SNP getting a majority in the 2011 Scottish election on an explicit mandate to hold an independence referendum - arguably creates a precedent.
Read a report that Amber Rudd is favourite to succeed Hammond. It would be an another conservative first, woman PM and woman COE at the same time and first woman COE
Would be good to see a lady PM and CotE. Why not?
It would be very good and another conservative first.
Could you tell us where that report was please ?
The cynic in me thinks you are making a petty partisan political point but I know that can't be true and there's an actual report out there.
The telegraph did a leading candidates column for next CoE and she came out at 8 out of 10.
Then we're back to the basic contradiction that what 'we' want is the benefits of the EU without its constraints. Unless the EU goes out of its way to help the Brexiteers, at some point they will have to face up to some very hard choices.
Not just Britain though. The EU has a €60bn hole in its budget without the UK and there are a lot of exporters in Europe as well as in Britain who won't be keen on barriers going up at Dover.
The third largest trading partner of the EU is Russia which is why Putin was so shocked that they imposed sanctions over Ukraine. The leverage of business is limited.
Which idea rather gives the lie to the idea that Putin is a switched on politician. The Sovs biggest trade partner until July 1941 was Germany. The Wehrmacht senior officer class of 1939/40 learned it trade during exercises conducted in the Soviet Union. France was a big trade partner of Germany in between the wars (and indeed before 1914). Iff Putin was so shocked,as you suggest, then he is a fool.
Read a report that Amber Rudd is favourite to succeed Hammond. It would be an another conservative first, woman PM and woman COE at the same time and first woman COE
Would be good to see a lady PM and CotE. Why not?
It would be very good and another conservative first.
Could you tell us where that report was please ?
The cynic in me thinks you are making a petty partisan political point but I know that can't be true and there's an actual report out there.
The telegraph did a leading candidates column for next CoE and she came out at 8 out of 10.
It says that only the Spanish people as a whole can approve a change in the territorial scope of Spain. It's up to the Spanish parliament to decide what that means.
The Westminster parliament is the only body which can legally approve Scottish secession, so it's not really very different.
In theory, maybe not; but it is in practice - and we can see that in what has happened today.
The government in Westminster has said that if there is a specific mandate for an independence referendum at the next Scottish election (or perhaps even following the next GE), then there will be a binding referendum on independence. In Spain the government has ruled out a referendum whatever the Catalans might vote for - and it has refused to agree to such referenda in the past, stating specifically that it is a matter for the Spanish people as a whole. This is not an argument any British government has ever used. And given the precedent set in 2014, it is not one that would stand up to legal scrutiny now IMO.
I really don't believe that the view taken by the Cameron Govt in 2014 is in any sense legally binding on future Administrations.
As far as anything is clear in our 'constitution', there is nothing that can bind a future administration - other than fear!
It says that only the Spanish people as a whole can approve a change in the territorial scope of Spain. It's up to the Spanish parliament to decide what that means.
The Westminster parliament is the only body which can legally approve Scottish secession, so it's not really very different.
In theory, maybe not; but it is in practice - and we can see that in what has happened today.
The government in Westminster has said that if there is a specific mandate for an independence referendum at the next Scottish election (or perhaps even following the next GE), then there will be a binding referendum on independence. In Spain the government has ruled out a referendum whatever the Catalans might vote for - and it has refused to agree to such referenda in the past, stating specifically that it is a matter for the Spanish people as a whole. This is not an argument any British government has ever used. And given the precedent set in 2014, it is not one that would stand up to legal scrutiny now IMO.
I really don't believe that the view taken by the Cameron Govt in 2014 is in any sense legally binding on future Administrations.
The 2012 agreement between the Scottish and UK governments was a one time only affair. But it undoubtedly created a precedent. It is arguable as to whether that is binding or not, but I believe it is unthinkable that the UK government would not agree to a referendum if one were clearly wanted by the Scots. May has wriggle room now. She would not have wriggle room if the SNP were to win in 2021 on the back of a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum.
Read a report that Amber Rudd is favourite to succeed Hammond. It would be an another conservative first, woman PM and woman COE at the same time and first woman COE
Would be good to see a lady PM and CotE. Why not?
It would be very good and another conservative first.
Could you tell us where that report was please ?
The cynic in me thinks you are making a petty partisan political point but I know that can't be true and there's an actual report out there.
The telegraph did a leading candidates column for next CoE and she came out at 8 out of 10.
Well THAT explains quite alot.
I do not understand your comment. The telegraph is likely to know the leading candidates to succeed Hammond if a vacancy arises and it is more than likely TM would appoint another woman.
Mr. Observer, the SNP doesn't have a majority, does it? And the last referendum was by agreement with Westminster. Far from clear a majority of Scots want another vote.
Mr. Observer, the SNP doesn't have a majority, does it? And the last referendum was by agreement with Westminster. Far from clear a majority of Scots want another vote.
Yes - see my post below. May currently has wriggle room. If the SNP (or the SNP ad the Greens) get a majority in 2021 on the back of an explicit commitment to hold a referendum then she will not.
Mr. Observer, the SNP doesn't have a majority, does it? And the last referendum was by agreement with Westminster. Far from clear a majority of Scots want another vote.
She will get it past the Scots Parliament with the Greens backing but she does run a minority adminstration
What's this 'before its too late for Scotland to choose a different path' nonsense?
The UK is leaving the EU, with Scotland in it. Even if Scotland left the UK before the UK left the EU, Scotland would still have to apply to join the EU - but even that no longer appears to be SNP policy.....
She means `before its too late for the SNP`
As I understand it she believes the EU would permit Scotland to remain as UK leaves despite everyone in any position in the EU rejecting that scenario
I think they've given up on that - joining the EU (tricky questions about budget deficits, currencies and hard borders with rUK too difficult to dodge) is now off the table and EFTA the preferred option - but again that has to be applied for once independent....
Not much different, I think. Halifax could not have commanded a majority in the cabinet and he did not, when push came to a shove, have the support of Chamberlain (who was very influential in Conservative circles). I doubt he could have got his policies through the House, even if he could have got them through cabinet.
Maybe, or maybe not. If he'd been in the Commons, he might have been more popular with the Parliamentary Party and he could after all have changed the Cabinet. And one of the reasons that Chamberlain didn't support him seems to have been that he was in the Commons. Churchill after all wasn't popular with the Parliamentary Party in May 1940 either.
I think, if Halifax (or plain Edward Wood) had become Prime Minister, he'd probably have made peace after Dunkirk. Hitler probably would have turned eastward, and either won, or reached some kind of stalemate there. What would have happened then, who knows?
Read a report that Amber Rudd is favourite to succeed Hammond. It would be an another conservative first, woman PM and woman COE at the same time and first woman COE
Would be good to see a lady PM and CotE. Why not?
It would be very good and another conservative first.
Could you tell us where that report was please ?
The cynic in me thinks you are making a petty partisan political point but I know that can't be true and there's an actual report out there.
The telegraph did a leading candidates column for next CoE and she came out at 8 out of 10.
Well THAT explains quite alot.
I do not understand your comment. The telegraph is likely to know the leading candidates to succeed Hammond if a vacancy arises and it is more than likely TM would appoint another woman.
Does that worry you
I think it is quite clear the Telegraph has an agenda to get rid of Hammond, as per Southam Observer's observations on the matter. This article clarifies that nicely.
If one has the time the cabinet papers of 1940 and, more so, of 1945-50 are a jolly interesting read. So many modern myths are therein debunked.
Indeed, I read through them once for a book I wrote about those turbulent and desperate years. But just as important as the Cabinet papers are what didn't make it in, but is still found in people's diaries, etc.
Mr. Observer, the SNP doesn't have a majority, does it? And the last referendum was by agreement with Westminster. Far from clear a majority of Scots want another vote.
Yes - see my post below. May currently has wriggle room. If the SNP (or the SNP ad the Greens) get a majority in 2021 on the back of an explicit commitment to hold a referendum then she will not.
Find it hard to imagine anything other than a SNP minority (or even majority) government after the 2021 elections. As much as I would love to see that Scottish Tory Surge realised
Nicola - 'History may look back on today and see it as the day the fate of the union was sealed' but she didn't add 'or my political career'
Unionists will rue the day...??
The political landscape will change beyond recognition in the next two years and really no one knows how this will pan out. However, these last few days have added enormous uncertainty and I believe that Scotland will suffer from much delayed investment, far beyond the present doubts on Brexit
I seem to remember you saying words to the effect of" it could be 2019, or 2020, or 2021 - bet accordingly" - hence the derision.
What I meant was, it was not going to happen in 2018 or early 2019, despite the bookies feeling this was pretty likely.
BTW I am in a posh Primrose Hill pub and hearing my first Brexit argument in ages. A posh Indian British woman (REMAIN) is having a posh polite but pretty firm argument with a younger white posh British woman (LEAVE).
Surprised. Such is the tension in places like London (and the professional services sector) I know several Leavers who *pretend* to be Remainers, just to avoid abuse.
A very senior person in Crossrail confided to me last week that he voted Leave, but the previous evening in our group told them all at dinner, 'we all voted against!'.
How well or badly do you think the current Scottish government is handling the issue of... Net Well (vs Nov) Education: +2 (-5) NHS: -3 (-3) Justice: +4 (-4) Policing: -14 (+2)
Read a report that Amber Rudd is favourite to succeed Hammond. It would be an another conservative first, woman PM and woman COE at the same time and first woman COE
Would be good to see a lady PM and CotE. Why not?
It would be very good and another conservative first.
Could you tell us where that report was please ?
The cynic in me thinks you are making a petty partisan political point but I know that can't be true and there's an actual report out there.
The telegraph did a leading candidates column for next CoE and she came out at 8 out of 10.
Well THAT explains quite alot.
I do not understand your comment. The telegraph is likely to know the leading candidates to succeed Hammond if a vacancy arises and it is more than likely TM would appoint another woman.
Does that worry you
I think it is quite clear the Telegraph has an agenda to get rid of Hammond, as per Southam Observer's observations on the matter. This article clarifies that nicely.
Yes you may be right but it is an interesting thought
It says that only the Spanish people as a whole can approve a change in the territorial scope of Spain. It's up to the Spanish parliament to decide what that means.
The Westminster parliament is the only body which can legally approve Scottish secession, so it's not really very different.
In theory, maybe not; but it is in practice - and we can see that in what has happened today.
The government in Westminster has said that if there is a specific mandate for an independence referendum at the next Scottish election (or perhaps even following the next GE), then there will be a binding referendum on independence. In Spain the government has ruled out a referendum whatever the Catalans might vote for - and it has refused to agree to such referenda in the past, stating specifically that it is a matter for the Spanish people as a whole. This is not an argument any British government has ever used. And given the precedent set in 2014, it is not one that would stand up to legal scrutiny now IMO.
I really don't believe that the view taken by the Cameron Govt in 2014 is in any sense legally binding on future Administrations.
The 2012 agreement between the Scottish and UK governments was a one time only affair. But it undoubtedly created a precedent. It is arguable as to whether that is binding or not, but I believe it is unthinkable that the UK government would not agree to a referendum if one were clearly wanted by the Scots. May has wriggle room now. She would not have wriggle room if the SNP were to win in 2021 on the back of a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum.
Why would Mrs May want wriggle room?
As I see it, there's a very clear parallel with the EU referendum. If no-one within Scotland is able or willing to make a heart-convincing reason to remain in the UK, Scotland should leave.
Economic reasons on their own are just putting off the day.
As with the EU, so with Scotland: most of us want to stay on friendly terms with people of other nations. The longer the stirring-up of hatred goes on, the harder it will be ever to return to (or reach) amicable relationships.
Scottish people have always been an "us" for the English people; witness Dunblane, that happened "here, at home". The next disaster in Scotland will happen in some foreign country.
The SNP is turning Scotland & its people from an "us" into a "them" for the English. That's their primary aim & objective.
Lance the boil soonest. Go in peace, my friends. Every blessing upon you all.
It seems to be the case now that every time there's some sort of incident anywhere we have handwringing rightist snowflakes literally quivering in the hope that the perp is named as Hanif or Mohammed - you can feel the anticipation, it's like Christmas Eve.
Very fucking sad in my view.
Anyway, back in the real world a win for Nichols Canyon helped my Chelters balance.
In todays ifop rolling poll, Fillon slips further behind for the second day running. Now 7.5 points behind Macron and 8.5 behind Le Pen. Really difficult seeing him turning it around from here without some sort of major calamity befalling Macron.
Yet he is actually shortening in the betting market and has gone from 7.6 yesterday afternoon to 6.4 today. His price is actually beginning to make Le Pen look like value in comparison!
Oh and I don't know why you said "LOL" about me not reading the UKIP manifesto? I didn't read it! Why would I lie?!
You were opining that the Tories were enacting UKIP's policies. To say that, you'd need to know what those policies are, and the best place to see that would be the manifesto.
Also, given you were going to be a candidate before the GE, I'm really surprised you hadn't read the manifesto. Heck, even I read UKIP's 2015 manifesto (and complimented them on its relative professionalism before the GE).
Instead, you're just taking your personal views and projecting them onto UKIP.
And the LOL was that you could make such claims without having read the manifesto!
The Council of State's decision on whether it's acceptable for TF1 to invite only five candidates to the first TV debate is expected this afternoon. This write-up reports the arguments made by Dupont-Aignan, who brought the case, by the Superior Council of Autovisual, and by the TF1 network.
" William Hill also have a market up making it 5/2 that he won’t remain Chancellor to out of this Parliament."
I very much favour the second of these two bets over the first. After a series of Prime Ministers who couldn't fire a starting pistol .... incl Cameron, Brown, Blair, etc., we have yet to discover what Mrs. May is made of in this particular department, although it has to be said that she was utterly ruthless in dispatching George Osborne when she took over the top job. We have to assume that she will have only one re-shuffle in this parliament, probably during Summer 2018, so that is likely to be be her only clear opportunity to sack him or to move him to another role in Cabinet, which would also trigger this as a winning bet. I think there's little doubt that Hammond is in the last chance saloon, especially as he chose to openly defy the Prime Minister on this issue, despite her having warned him not proceed. One more major error and he's a gonner imho. But what attracts me to this bet is that I actually view him as being a resigning type and I wouldn't be that surprised to see him sling his hook most likely over a particular Brexit issue of which there are bound to be a number. So yes, whilst I don't like putting my money down up to three years in advance, I fancy that one way or another he'll be gone as CotE well before May 2020.
F1: there are many season match bets up on Ladbrokes (mostly between team mates, but a few mingled between Mercedes/Ferrari/Red Bull).
The only one that tempted was Raikkonen to beat Bottas at 2.2. However, if you believe Ferrari and Mercedes will be competing for the title, and this is a 3rd/4th battle, then I believe an each way bet on Raikkonen to win the title at 11 may be better.
If the UK government requires disenfranchising EU citizens to win the vote then that is beneath contempt.
No it isn't, why should non UK citizens have a say on weather the UK breaks up?
Talking of "disenfranchising" and "preventing" them from voting is crap. Of course they shouldn't have a vote.
I knew Sturgeon was up to something when she said it should be up to Scotland (her word for the SNP) to decide the franchise.
Those who aren't British citizens shouldn't have a vote in a Scottish independence referendum, and especially when they are citizens of other EU countries who may want Scotland to be independent because they think it will join the EU. What country in the world has allowed foreigners to vote for independence because that way they will be allowed to stay there?
Oh and I don't know why you said "LOL" about me not reading the UKIP manifesto? I didn't read it! Why would I lie?!
You were opining that the Tories were enacting UKIP's policies. To say that, you'd need to know what those policies are, and the best place to see that would be the manifesto.
Also, given you were going to be a candidate before the GE, I'm really surprised you hadn't read the manifesto. Heck, even I read UKIP's 2015 manifesto (and complimented them on its relative professionalism before the GE).
Instead, you're just taking your personal views and projecting them onto UKIP.
And the LOL was that you could make such claims without having read the manifesto!
Why are you agitating for an argument? The Tories are up 3 to an unprecedented (?) high, UKIP are as low as they have been in the polls for years. At the same time, we have a PM who is criticised by Cameroons for sucking up to the Eurosceptic "loons" in the Conservative party, whose views aren't that different to UKIP.
She is enacting Brexit (UKIP), leaving the single market (UKIP), stopping free movement (UKIP), allowing Grammar schools (UKIP) and has U-turned on NICs (UKIP). Hardly outlandish to suggest Kippers are satisfied to see these policies they support being carried out, and therefore switching (back) to the Conservatives. It was a throwaway comment on a poll, I think you are getting too het up about it.
As for the manifesto, you will just have to believe me that I didn't read it. It wasn't published until just before the GE, and I decided not to be a candidate in December or January I think. I know that Grammar schools are a big Kipper wish though, as are the other things I listed above, so they're not just my personal views, but those of UKIP too. I didn't need to read the manifesto to know that, and I doubt the single market/immigration thing was in it anyway as they was only possible in the event of a Leave win.
Seems a tad overly dramatic. – Sturgeon didn't even bothered to make a formal Indy request.
It's shit talk - "abolish Scottish democracy". Sturgeon has no mandate to call another referendum. Let her call a Scottish general election if she wants.
Yeah, go, James, a bit more pushing and you'll have Westminster turfing you out without bothering about mind of the Scottish people. Now that will be a whinge.
So what I'm getting is it was fine for EU citizens s to vote last time when they could be conned and scared into voting No but now they have been suckered it's no backsies and a lock out for them.
So what I'm getting is it was fine for EU citizens s to vote last time when they could be conned and scared into voting No but now they have been suckered it's no backsies and a lock out for them.
It wasn't fine for them to vote last time, but one can't go back into the past and change it. The argument that "they voted before, so they should vote in a second referendum if one gets held" is specious, but so is most of the xenophobic bile, playing to chips on shoulders, that is spewed by what is probably the nastiest major party in Britain.
So what I'm getting is it was fine for EU citizens s to vote last time when they could be conned and scared into voting No but now they have been suckered it's no backsies and a lock out for them.
Was there a legal or administrative mechanism to deny them the vote last time around?
So what I'm getting is it was fine for EU citizens s to vote last time when they could be conned and scared into voting No but now they have been suckered it's no backsies and a lock out for them.
You could always encourage them to apply for British citizenship.
Seems a tad overly dramatic. – Sturgeon didn't even bothered to make a formal Indy request.
It's shit talk - "abolish Scottish democracy". Sturgeon has no mandate to call another referendum. Let her call a Scottish general election if she wants.
She would need a two-thirds majority to trigger a dissolution. I don't see how Sturgeon gets to 86 votes!
So what I'm getting is it was fine for EU citizens s to vote last time when they could be conned and scared into voting No but now they have been suckered it's no backsies and a lock out for them.
It wasn't fine for them to vote last time, but one can't go back into the past and change it. The argument that "they voted before, so they should vote in a second referendum if one gets held" is specious, but so is most of the xenophobic bile, playing to chips on shoulders, that is spewed by what is probably the nastiest major party in Britain.
Ah yes the old, the SNP are xenophobic for wanting EU nationals to vote, card. Such a strong play.
If the UK government requires disenfranchising EU citizens to win the vote then that is beneath contempt.
No it isn't, why should non UK citizens have a say on weather the UK breaks up?
Talking of "disenfranchising" and "preventing" them from voting is crap. Of course they shouldn't have a vote.
I knew Sturgeon was up to something when she said it should be up to Scotland (her word for the SNP) to decide the franchise.
Those who aren't British citizens shouldn't have a vote in a Scottish independence referendum, and especially when they are citizens of other EU countries who may want Scotland to be independent because they think it will join the EU. What country in the world has allowed foreigners to vote for independence because that way they will be allowed to stay there?
Well, if foreigners can have a say in whether the UK breaks up, certainly UK citizens should be having a say.
I'd like to think Ms Sturgeon would get a resounding majority Leave vote from the English, if not the Welsh & Northern Irish.
Shades of inviting all-comers into the Labour leadership election, isn't it?
It isn't wildly inaccurate, we are leaving the EU, and apparently its "hard brexit", leaving the single market, ending free movement, ie what UKIP want.
She is also talking up Grammar schools, which Cameron denied, another UKIP policy
Yesterday the govt U turned on a policy that UKIP were first to denounce.
But really it is the form of Brexit that May is enacting that I meant, I think that's why the Tories are getting VI boosts at UKIPs expense
Lol away, I don't dislike Suzanne Evans at all, I spent an afternoon canvassing with her in Jaywick and she seems a very nice lady. I just never bought into the idea she would be a good replacement for Farage
That's not the way your posts about Evans have read in the past; comments about her only having been a Merton councillor seem to be rather at odds with your repeated defences of Farage's multiple GE failures.
It's a shame that Evans never became leader; she certainly could not be doing as bad a job as Nuttall! I rate her; she was responsible for the 2015 manifesto which was massively more coherent and professional than the 2010 one, and she comes across well on TV.
UKIP faces a problem if hard Brexit occurs: their main reason for being has gone. But they attracted voters not only on that issue, but many others, and those voters may not find a voice in other parties. If UKIP needs reforming and redirecting, then I'd suggest Evans would be a good captain.
Leaving such issues aside, there's an interesting question embedded in your post: UKIP gained voters in 2015 (and especially at the Euros) from both the Conservatives and Labour. If UKIP's vote is unwinding post-referendum, where are they going? In particular, how many ex-Labour voting UKIPpers (*) are tempted to move back to a Labour run by Corbyn? (**) But if not there, then where? And what effect will it have on the target parties?
(*) I think such as yourself (**) I guess not you.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
Seems a tad overly dramatic. – Sturgeon didn't even bothered to make a formal Indy request.
It's shit talk - "abolish Scottish democracy". Sturgeon has no mandate to call another referendum. Let her call a Scottish general election if she wants.
She would need a two-thirds majority to trigger a dissolution. I don't see how Sturgeon gets to 86 votes!
There is another route to a general election: if she resigns as first minister, and then the Scottish Parliament fails to nominate a replacement within 28 days (sections 3 and 46 of the Scotland Act 1998).
All she needs for that is support from her own party and from the Greens.
This is what the opposition parties should be saying: you haven't got a mandate for another referendum, Sturgeon, so shut up or seek one.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
Seems a tad overly dramatic. – Sturgeon didn't even bothered to make a formal Indy request.
It's shit talk - "abolish Scottish democracy". Sturgeon has no mandate to call another referendum. Let her call a Scottish general election if she wants.
She would need a two-thirds majority to trigger a dissolution. I don't see how Sturgeon gets to 86 votes!
There is another route to a general election: if she resigns as first minister, and then the Scottish Parliament fails to nominate a replacement within 28 days (sections 3 and 46 of the Scotland Act 1998).
All she needs for that is support from her own party and from the Greens.
This is what the opposition parties should be saying: you haven't got a mandate for another referendum, Sturgeon, so shut up or seek one.
Yes, the nuclear option does exist - but I am not sure she is willing to go that far.
It would not be impossible of a Unionist National Government might not emerge to provide stability for Scotland during this difficult time - with the Greens agreeing to support it on the promise of a referendum on independence within 2 years of the completion of leaving the EU.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
They'll get a vote on it in 2020 and 2021. After Brexit.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
There is no mandate in the Scottish parliament for another indyref. Only one party represented in that parliament promised another indyref if the Brexit referendum result was Leave. They do not have a majority.
Theresa May is right on this. I wish both she and the Scottish opposition could make the case better, because it is a very strong one.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
What democratic mandate? Last time I checked the Greens were elected on a manifesto to support a referendum if there was public support for it.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
It's a huge call. Sturgeon will love it.
May is politically naive. If only we had an opposition.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
There is no mandate in the Scottish parliament for another indyref. Only one party represented in that parliament promised another indyref if the Brexit referendum result was Leave. They do not have a majority.
It says that only the Spanish people as a whole can approve a change in the territorial scope of Spain. It's up to the Spanish parliament to decide what that means.
The Westminster parliament is the only body which can legally approve Scottish secession, so it's not really very different.
In theory, maybe not; but it is in practice - and we can see that in what has happened today.
The government in Westminster has said that if there is a specific mandate for an independence referendum at the next Scottish election (or perhaps even following the next GE), then there will be a binding referendum on independence. In Spain the government has ruled out a referendum whatever the Catalans might vote for - and it has refused to agree to such referenda in the past, stating specifically that it is a matter for the Spanish people as a whole. This is not an argument any British government has ever used. And given the precedent set in 2014, it is not one that would stand up to legal scrutiny now IMO.
That out MPs have more self respect and respect for others than their Spanish counterparts doesn't change the legal situation.
The legal situation is far from clear. The 2012 agreement between the UK government and the Scottish government - following the SNP getting a majority in the 2011 Scottish election on an explicit mandate to hold an independence referendum - arguably creates a precedent.
It isn't wildly inaccurate, we are leaving the EU, and apparently its "hard brexit", leaving the single market, ending free movement, ie what UKIP want.
She is also talking up Grammar schools, which Cameron denied, another UKIP policy
Yesterday the govt U turned on a policy that UKIP were first to denounce.
But really it is the form of Brexit that May is enacting that I meant, I think that's why the Tories are getting VI boosts at UKIPs expense
Lol away, I don't dislike Suzanne Evans at all, I spent an afternoon canvassing with her in Jaywick and she seems a very nice lady. I just never bought into the idea she would be a good replacement for Farage
That's not the way your posts about Evans have read in the past; comments about her only having been a Merton councillor seem to be rather at odds with your repeated defences of Farage's multiple GE failures.
It's a shame that Evans never became leader; she certainly could not be doing as bad a job as Nuttall! I rate her; she was responsible for the 2015 manifesto which was massively more coherent and professional than the 2010 one, and she comes across well on TV.
UKIP faces a problem if hard Brexit occurs: their main reason for being has gone. But they attracted voters not only on that issue, but many others, and those voters may not find a voice in other parties. If UKIP needs reforming and redirecting, then I'd suggest Evans would be a good captain.
Leaving such issues aside, there's an interesting question embedded in your post: UKIP gained voters in 2015 (and especially at the Euros) from both the Conservatives and Labour. If UKIP's vote is unwinding post-referendum, where are they going? In particular, how many ex-Labour voting UKIPpers (*) are tempted to move back to a Labour run by Corbyn? (**) But if not there, then where? And what effect will it have on the target parties?
(*) I think such as yourself (**) I guess not you.
I think they will would go to the Tories over Corbyn's Labour.
I wouldn't say anything nasty about Suzanne Evans as I thought she was a nice lady. I worry she reads this, and would be hurt! I just don't think she would be a good replacement for Farage, but he is probably irreplaceable. I have never slagged her off, just pointed out that for all her popularity with non kippers, she hasn't done that well electorally. You are entitled to your view, if you think she would be our best leader, I am allowed to disagree.
I think if hard Brexit occurs, UKIP should be pleased and should not mourn their subsequent irrelevance. They would have won, that's the name of the game. Parties have no right to exist for existences sake.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
Your Brexit mania is affecting your judgement. If the Scottish people do not recognise Westminster as being the legitimate highest legislative, judicial and executive authority in the land, they should of course leave the Union.
The results of the 2014 referendum show that a decisive majority do accept its legitimacy.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
Your Brexit mania is affecting your judgement. If the Scottish people do not recognise Westminster as being the legitimate highest legislative, judicial and executive authority in the land, they should of course leave the Union.
The results of the 2014 referendum show that a decisive majority do accept its legitimacy.
I agree. The way the SNP talk is that they are already independent. Majority don't agree. Let's see how May elections go to see what the peolpe think.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only three years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
The shooter has been named as Kylian Barbey who had researched massacres before this afternoon's attack and shared acts of terrorism on his social media pages which are littered with chilling images of weapons and Gothic villains.
His father is right wing municipal councillor, Franck Barbey - a strong supporter of French presidential candidate Francois Fillon having previously sided with Marine Le Pen's National Front party.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Very well put.
EU membership is something that only Westminster can determine - it is as simple as that.
If, as and when Scotland gets control over such matters then it can take a view as to whether it wants to apply for membership - particularly in the light of the Spanish declaration that they would veto any attempt.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
The SNP failed to achieve a majority on that manifesto and so it is a stretch to say that they have a mandate.
Brexit is going to have to go very well indeed for the Union to survive.
It seems fairly probable that the final budget going into the 2020 election is going to involve honouring Brexit pledges.
It is also very possible that tariff abolition on global produce will form part of any strategy to counteract cost-of-living and currency issues that may arise.
These two things will create added problems for those committed to selling fake-indy in the name of Europe when it will mean reimposing a lot of eurotaxes (due to a lack of independence) on the Scottish electorate.
Of course, the absolute diehards will proclaim it is worth it, but they amount to what? 20%?
What were the SNP polling before Scot Lab imploded and Independence was supposedly settled for a generation? That's the core.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
The SNP failed to achieve a majority on that manifesto and so it is a stretch to say that they have a mandate.
They lead the government in Holyrood and, it seems, they are able to put this item of their manifesto into effect, courtesy of the Greens. On any other item in their manifesto, would you have them disregard it because they fell fractionally short of an overall majority?
But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto
The SNP do not have a majority, for goodness sake, so they don't have a mandate for calling another referendum off the back of Brexit.
The Greens, on whose support they rely, did NOT say the same thing in their manifesto. They said there should be another indyref if, for example, a million people on the electoral roll signed a petition.
When have I ever posted anything like that about Sturgeon?
I wonder what level of rattlement your clypey, repetititive 'joyous & civic' rt-ing suggests, not to mention the hilarious Mrs McTurniphead witticisms implies?
It's always good to be aware of the diversity of those with whom one makes cause. You, for example, will have to make do with the Sturgeon tweet haters, the Orange Order, the BNP, the NF, the SDL, the EDL, and indeed Marine's pal Farage with his barge pole.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
Their manifesto on any area not in their competence. There are enough areas in their competence, like Health and Education that they could crack on with in the mean time.
Comments
When have I ever posted anything like that about Sturgeon?
The cynic in me thinks you are making a petty partisan political point but I know that can't be true and there's an actual report out there.
It is so clear to everyone that Scotland can't just stay in the EU and also pretty clear that any attempt to join would face fierce opposition - not least from the Spanish.
It was an easy decision for May to say no. Standing up to to the SNP is the right thing to do. Forcing them to actually take responsibility for governing Scotland rather than being in permanent protest mode will show up their lack of success.
Today May looks resolute, Davidson looks in touch with the majority of Scots and Sturgeon looks petulant and frit.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/willaims-appoints-lowe-as-cto/
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/former-wto-chief-independent-scotland-would-have-zero-technical-problems
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/15/telegraphs-guide-favourites-replace-philip-hammond-chancellor/
Joint favourite with Greg Clark if you believe the article.
Does that worry you
https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/842369903659220992
I think, if Halifax (or plain Edward Wood) had become Prime Minister, he'd probably have made peace after Dunkirk. Hitler probably would have turned eastward, and either won, or reached some kind of stalemate there. What would have happened then, who knows?
The answer to any request is already known - there is no more political capital to be gained from a vote.
A very senior person in Crossrail confided to me last week that he voted Leave, but the previous evening in our group told them all at dinner, 'we all voted against!'.
I bite my tongue, unless I've been drinking.
How well or badly do you think the current Scottish government is handling the issue of...
Net Well (vs Nov)
Education: +2 (-5)
NHS: -3 (-3)
Justice: +4 (-4)
Policing: -14 (+2)
As I see it, there's a very clear parallel with the EU referendum. If no-one within Scotland is able or willing to make a heart-convincing reason to remain in the UK, Scotland should leave.
Economic reasons on their own are just putting off the day.
As with the EU, so with Scotland: most of us want to stay on friendly terms with people of other nations. The longer the stirring-up of hatred goes on, the harder it will be ever to return to (or reach) amicable relationships.
Scottish people have always been an "us" for the English people; witness Dunblane, that happened "here, at home". The next disaster in Scotland will happen in some foreign country.
The SNP is turning Scotland & its people from an "us" into a "them" for the English. That's their primary aim & objective.
Lance the boil soonest. Go in peace, my friends. Every blessing upon you all.
Very fucking sad in my view.
Anyway, back in the real world a win for Nichols Canyon helped my Chelters balance.
SNP 43 Con 24 LD 14 Lab 13 Greens 5
The raw data for the whole poll had Lib Dems at 15 UKIP at 5
"Virginity makes her look sick and green. Only fools hold on to their virginity"
Yet he is actually shortening in the betting market and has gone from 7.6 yesterday afternoon to 6.4 today. His price is actually beginning to make Le Pen look like value in comparison!
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_16-03-2017.pdf
Also, given you were going to be a candidate before the GE, I'm really surprised you hadn't read the manifesto. Heck, even I read UKIP's 2015 manifesto (and complimented them on its relative professionalism before the GE).
Instead, you're just taking your personal views and projecting them onto UKIP.
And the LOL was that you could make such claims without having read the manifesto!
I very much favour the second of these two bets over the first. After a series of Prime Ministers who couldn't fire a starting pistol .... incl Cameron, Brown, Blair, etc., we have yet to discover what Mrs. May is made of in this particular department, although it has to be said that she was utterly ruthless in dispatching George Osborne when she took over the top job. We have to assume that she will have only one re-shuffle in this parliament, probably during Summer 2018, so that is likely to be be her only clear opportunity to sack him or to move him to another role in Cabinet, which would also trigger this as a winning bet.
I think there's little doubt that Hammond is in the last chance saloon, especially as he chose to openly defy the Prime Minister on this issue, despite her having warned him not proceed.
One more major error and he's a gonner imho. But what attracts me to this bet is that I actually view him as being a resigning type and I wouldn't be that surprised to see him sling his hook most likely over a particular Brexit issue of which there are bound to be a number.
So yes, whilst I don't like putting my money down up to three years in advance, I fancy that one way or another he'll be gone as CotE well before May 2020.
DYOR.
"This is now a hostage situation - Theresa May attempts to abolish Scottish democracy...and the Scottish Government must take bold action to stop her"
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/this-is-now-hostage-situation-theresa.html
The only one that tempted was Raikkonen to beat Bottas at 2.2. However, if you believe Ferrari and Mercedes will be competing for the title, and this is a 3rd/4th battle, then I believe an each way bet on Raikkonen to win the title at 11 may be better.
Holyrood VI
SNP: 51
Con: 24
Lab: 14
LibD: 6
Green: 5
UKIP: 1
I think SNP ±50, Con mid-twenties, Lab mid teens, everyone else single digits is about 'right', for Holyrood, of course Westminster may differ....
https://lfverkiezingen.appspot.com/nos/widget/main.html
I knew Sturgeon was up to something when she said it should be up to Scotland (her word for the SNP) to decide the franchise.
Those who aren't British citizens shouldn't have a vote in a Scottish independence referendum, and especially when they are citizens of other EU countries who may want Scotland to be independent because they think it will join the EU. What country in the world has allowed foreigners to vote for independence because that way they will be allowed to stay there?
She is enacting Brexit (UKIP), leaving the single market (UKIP), stopping free movement (UKIP), allowing Grammar schools (UKIP) and has U-turned on NICs (UKIP). Hardly outlandish to suggest Kippers are satisfied to see these policies they support being carried out, and therefore switching (back) to the Conservatives. It was a throwaway comment on a poll, I think you are getting too het up about it.
As for the manifesto, you will just have to believe me that I didn't read it. It wasn't published until just before the GE, and I decided not to be a candidate in December or January I think. I know that Grammar schools are a big Kipper wish though, as are the other things I listed above, so they're not just my personal views, but those of UKIP too. I didn't need to read the manifesto to know that, and I doubt the single market/immigration thing was in it anyway as they was only possible in the event of a Leave win.
*wolfwhistle*
Italy, Tecné poll:
M5S-EFDD: 29% ↓
PD-S&D: 23% ↓
FI-EPP: 14% ↑
Lega-ENF: 13%
DP-S&D: 7% ↑
FDI-*: 6% ↑
AP-EPP: 3%
SI-LEFT: 2% ↓
CP-*: 2% ↑
Europe Elects @EuropeElects 3h3 hours ago
Italy, Euromedia poll:
PD-S&D: 26% ↓
M5S-EFDD: 26% ↓
FI-EPP: 14% ↑
LN-ENF: 14% ↑
FDI-NI: 6% ↑
SI-LEFT: 4% ↑...
No ALDE parties.
I'd like to think Ms Sturgeon would get a resounding majority Leave vote from the English, if not the Welsh & Northern Irish.
Shades of inviting all-comers into the Labour leadership election, isn't it?
It's a shame that Evans never became leader; she certainly could not be doing as bad a job as Nuttall! I rate her; she was responsible for the 2015 manifesto which was massively more coherent and professional than the 2010 one, and she comes across well on TV.
UKIP faces a problem if hard Brexit occurs: their main reason for being has gone. But they attracted voters not only on that issue, but many others, and those voters may not find a voice in other parties. If UKIP needs reforming and redirecting, then I'd suggest Evans would be a good captain.
Leaving such issues aside, there's an interesting question embedded in your post: UKIP gained voters in 2015 (and especially at the Euros) from both the Conservatives and Labour. If UKIP's vote is unwinding post-referendum, where are they going? In particular, how many ex-Labour voting UKIPpers (*) are tempted to move back to a Labour run by Corbyn? (**) But if not there, then where? And what effect will it have on the target parties?
(*) I think such as yourself
(**) I guess not you.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
All she needs for that is support from her own party and from the Greens.
This is what the opposition parties should be saying: you haven't got a mandate for another referendum, Sturgeon, so shut up or seek one.
It would not be impossible of a Unionist National Government might not emerge to provide stability for Scotland during this difficult time - with the Greens agreeing to support it on the promise of a referendum on independence within 2 years of the completion of leaving the EU.
Theresa May is right on this. I wish both she and the Scottish opposition could make the case better, because it is a very strong one.
I wouldn't say anything nasty about Suzanne Evans as I thought she was a nice lady. I worry she reads this, and would be hurt! I just don't think she would be a good replacement for Farage, but he is probably irreplaceable. I have never slagged her off, just pointed out that for all her popularity with non kippers, she hasn't done that well electorally. You are entitled to your view, if you think she would be our best leader, I am allowed to disagree.
I think if hard Brexit occurs, UKIP should be pleased and should not mourn their subsequent irrelevance. They would have won, that's the name of the game. Parties have no right to exist for existences sake.
The results of the 2014 referendum show that a decisive majority do accept its legitimacy.
Same as the EU. Pain & sadness isn't enough; there's that on both sides.
The shooter has been named as Kylian Barbey who had researched massacres before this afternoon's attack and shared acts of terrorism on his social media pages which are littered with chilling images of weapons and Gothic villains.
His father is right wing municipal councillor, Franck Barbey - a strong supporter of French presidential candidate Francois Fillon having previously sided with Marine Le Pen's National Front party.
EU membership is something that only Westminster can determine - it is as simple as that.
If, as and when Scotland gets control over such matters then it can take a view as to whether it wants to apply for membership - particularly in the light of the Spanish declaration that they would veto any attempt.
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
It is also very possible that tariff abolition on global produce will form part of any strategy to counteract cost-of-living and currency issues that may arise.
These two things will create added problems for those committed to selling fake-indy in the name of Europe when it will mean reimposing a lot of eurotaxes (due to a lack of independence) on the Scottish electorate.
Of course, the absolute diehards will proclaim it is worth it, but they amount to what? 20%?
What were the SNP polling before Scot Lab imploded and Independence was supposedly settled for a generation? That's the core.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
The Greens, on whose support they rely, did NOT say the same thing in their manifesto. They said there should be another indyref if, for example, a million people on the electoral roll signed a petition.
It's always good to be aware of the diversity of those with whom one makes cause. You, for example, will have to make do with the Sturgeon tweet haters, the Orange Order, the BNP, the NF, the SDL, the EDL, and indeed Marine's pal Farage with his barge pole.