Page 14 of the Covid risk report should finally put to bed any idea that this is a significant danger to death for the under 50s.
There have been very few deaths nation-wide for the under 50s.
From the summary of the report, this is something I didn't know..
"This is the opposite of what is seen in previous years, when the mortality rates were lower in Asian and Black ethnic groups than White ethnic groups."
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Under the terms of devolution as agreed in the late 90s.
If you don't mind me asking, where you old enough to vote then? Do you mind if I ask how you voted in that referendum? If you were old enough and voted Yes then you endorsed a devolution settlement which wrote that into the constitution.
Yet the world has changed since the Blairite settlement was put in place. It is that very settlement that is now in question - to assume that it stands is to deny all further questioning.
They should have been ended at weekends ages ago, there isn't enough new information to make them a worthwhile exercise.
I would prefer they moved to 5 days, each day a specific area and have appropriate minister asked by relevant correspondents.
Tuesdays and Thursdays would suffice – and make sure they are staffed by senior punters rather than the flotsam and jetsam of the Tory front bench
Almost all of seem to be hosted by the PM, the Health Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Secretary of State or the Education Secretary or the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
All of whom are in the Cabinet and very, very relevant to this, not flotsam and jetsam.
The analogy is growing between this and Islamic terrorism. We end up accusing everyone else, pointing fingers, congratulating ourselves, whereas we are a hotbed of the very thing we are criticising others for mishandling.
And that, Laydeez and Gennlemen is why proper Conservatives are so furious at the behaviour of the current government. They are so inward looking, self-centred, solipsistic and inept that they are making the country a laughing stock internationally.
Why the UK? True exceptionalism. For all the wrong reasons. And these muppets, lead by the muppet in chief and his "advisor", are to blame.
Well said Mr Topping. I am definitely furious. The fact that I can say "I told you so" with respect to Johnson to muppets on here who still idolise him gives me very little satisfaction
I hope Sturgeon has the bollox to ban all SNP MP's travelling to London and breaking the Scottish Government rules, will not hold my breath though.
It wouldn't be breaking the Scottish rules because it would be necessary for them to travel to do their job.
No, because they could demonstrably WFH.
Not if they are not allowed to vote from there.
None of this doesn't mean that this isn't the stupidest idea that the government has had since JRM last thought of something.
Doing something this inherently stupid is right up JRM's street. His own side are telling him that its stupid. The speaker says that its stupid. But Jacob thinks he can win favour by ignoring the "Work from Home" advice put out by his government to put the cheering mob on the benches behind the PM.
That the government is whipping over this suggests some political reason, which is poor show at a time of crisis. Nevertheless the counter-argument is that it would look pretty poor for parliament to be sending people back to work and children back to school and yet be afraid of returning themselves.
Lots of people are working from home, those that can't are working at a workplace. That's the entire legislation ! MPs can demonstrably work from home.
Hasn;t the government asked people to return to work if their work environment is safe?
Is the work environment Rees Mogg is proposing unsafe either for MPs or their families?
The advice is still to work from home if you can, and that employers must facilitate this. If you can not work from home (And plenty of jobs can't be done from home) then you should return to your workplace providing it is Covid secure.
MPs demonstrably can work from home, so they should.
A court challenge from an MP will probably fail on the technicality that they're not employees I think though. But it all rather goes against the spirit of the legislation, and given the PM and health secretary caught Covid-19 doubtless through lots of in person meetings...
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
It won't, the majority of Tory MPs in the Commons will block it
You are not very good at politics are you
Clearly you are not are you.
There will be no indyref2 unless Starmer becomes PM, the Tories will block it
Let us just say we disagree
However, please start treating the Scots with respect.
Insult them, you insult half my family including my wife
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Under the terms of devolution as agreed in the late 90s.
If you don't mind me asking, where you old enough to vote then? Do you mind if I ask how you voted in that referendum? If you were old enough and voted Yes then you endorsed a devolution settlement which wrote that into the constitution.
Philip I was old enough to vote in the 70's. Can you show me where it is written in the constitution, genuine request.
I hope Sturgeon has the bollox to ban all SNP MP's travelling to London and breaking the Scottish Government rules, will not hold my breath though.
It wouldn't be breaking the Scottish rules because it would be necessary for them to travel to do their job.
No, because they could demonstrably WFH.
Not if they are not allowed to vote from there.
None of this doesn't mean that this isn't the stupidest idea that the government has had since JRM last thought of something.
Doing something this inherently stupid is right up JRM's street. His own side are telling him that its stupid. The speaker says that its stupid. But Jacob thinks he can win favour by ignoring the "Work from Home" advice put out by his government to put the cheering mob on the benches behind the PM.
That the government is whipping over this suggests some political reason, which is poor show at a time of crisis. Nevertheless the counter-argument is that it would look pretty poor for parliament to be sending people back to work and children back to school and yet be afraid of returning themselves.
Lots of people are working from home, those that can't are working at a workplace. That's the entire legislation ! MPs can demonstrably work from home.
Hasn;t the government asked people to return to work if their work environment is safe?
Is the work environment Rees Mogg is proposing unsafe either for MPs or their families?
No the government hasn't.
The government has asked people to work from home if they can, but if they can't work from home then they should return to work if it is safe.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You position on Scotland seems to be as follows:
1. You don't care a fig about Scots 2. You are head over heels in love with the Union (despite point 1) 3. You think Yes would lose IndyRef 2 4. You want desperately to block IndyRef2 (despite point 3)
Do I have this right?
5. Is such a passionate Unionist that he wants NI to stay a part of the United Kingdom 6. Is entirely happy that the party he voted for has set in motion a pathway to a united Ireland via the institution of a border in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and the island of Ireland.
Only 29% of Northern Irish voters want a United Ireland now after the Withdrawal Agreement
Poor them. You voted for a party which has established a pathway to a united Ireland. The PM did something he himself said no British Prime Minister could do. And you are cheering him on.
Wrong.
Northern Irish voters are very happy with no hard border with the Republic of Ireland while still technically part of the UK.
Best of both worlds
Boris has put a border down the Irish Sea. Something he said that no British Prime Minister could ever do. Why did he do that?
As the EU would not agree the Withdrawal Agreement otherwise or else GB would have had to stay indefinitely in a customs union.
However if the EU refuse a FTA with GB I would not put it past Boris to refuse to impose checks in the Irish Sea as we will be on WTO terms Brexit anyway
Exactly. Because the EU said that was its red line and Boris caved.
Doesn't bode well for the future. And there is much that I wouldn't put past Boris but in the upcoming negotiations he will find himself up against treaties and agreements. Not a tricky question or two from Beth Rigby.
But the point is, Boris agreed to a measure which establishes a pathway to a united Ireland and I would have thought that as "a unionist", this was something you disagreed with.
Wrong, all the polling shows only a hard border with the Republic of Ireland would push Northern Irish voters towards a United Ireland.
Boris avoided that
Interesting polling.
However, a border between the island of Ireland and Great Britain, which Boris instituted, and which he also said no British Prime Minister could ever contemplate doing, actually creates a de facto united Ireland.
So what you're saying is we can have a de facto united Ireland, while de jure having Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom?
Sounds like a tremendous masterstroke made capable by a master statesman, wouldn't you agree?
I am saying that his actions create a pathway to a united Ireland. Laws will align, inevitably, and hence it is a route to a de jure united Ireland also.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You position on Scotland seems to be as follows:
1. You don't care a fig about Scots 2. You are head over heels in love with the Union (despite point 1) 3. You think Yes would lose IndyRef 2 4. You want desperately to block IndyRef2 (despite point 3)
Do I have this right?
5. Is such a passionate Unionist that he wants NI to stay a part of the United Kingdom 6. Is entirely happy that the party he voted for has set in motion a pathway to a united Ireland via the institution of a border in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and the island of Ireland.
Only 29% of Northern Irish voters want a United Ireland now after the Withdrawal Agreement
Poor them. You voted for a party which has established a pathway to a united Ireland. The PM did something he himself said no British Prime Minister could do. And you are cheering him on.
Wrong.
Northern Irish voters are very happy with no hard border with the Republic of Ireland while still technically part of the UK.
Best of both worlds
Boris has put a border down the Irish Sea. Something he said that no British Prime Minister could ever do. Why did he do that?
As the EU would not agree the Withdrawal Agreement otherwise or else GB would have had to stay indefinitely in a customs union.
However if the EU refuse a FTA with GB I would not put it past Boris to refuse to impose checks in the Irish Sea as we will be on WTO terms Brexit anyway
Exactly. Because the EU said that was its red line and Boris caved.
Doesn't bode well for the future. And there is much that I wouldn't put past Boris but in the upcoming negotiations he will find himself up against treaties and agreements. Not a tricky question or two from Beth Rigby.
But the point is, Boris agreed to a measure which establishes a pathway to a united Ireland and I would have thought that as "a unionist", this was something you disagreed with.
Wrong, all the polling shows only a hard border with the Republic of Ireland would push Northern Irish voters towards a United Ireland.
Boris avoided that
Interesting polling.
However, a border between the island of Ireland and Great Britain, which Boris instituted, and which he also said no British Prime Minister could ever contemplate doing, actually creates a de facto united Ireland.
So what you're saying is we can have a de facto united Ireland, while de jure having Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom? Sounds like a tremendous masterstroke made capable by a master statesman, wouldn't you agree?
Or somebody who is incapable of thinking coherently, most certainly.
I think he must be referring to M Barnier. I am sure Bozo is a master at something, but I suspect it is a solitary activity.
I hope Sturgeon has the bollox to ban all SNP MP's travelling to London and breaking the Scottish Government rules, will not hold my breath though.
It wouldn't be breaking the Scottish rules because it would be necessary for them to travel to do their job.
No, because they could demonstrably WFH.
Not if they are not allowed to vote from there.
None of this doesn't mean that this isn't the stupidest idea that the government has had since JRM last thought of something.
Doing something this inherently stupid is right up JRM's street. His own side are telling him that its stupid. The speaker says that its stupid. But Jacob thinks he can win favour by ignoring the "Work from Home" advice put out by his government to put the cheering mob on the benches behind the PM.
But even that doesn't work as a justification. The Speaker has placed a limit of 27 Tory backbenchers in the Chamber at any one time.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
And unless you are a sixteen year old child, the world is not binary.
Yes or no in a referendum (to which this question is most commonly applied) is. In a more subtle way, so is Yes or No to Twitter having the legal status of a publisher.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Under the terms of devolution as agreed in the late 90s.
If you don't mind me asking, where you old enough to vote then? Do you mind if I ask how you voted in that referendum? If you were old enough and voted Yes then you endorsed a devolution settlement which wrote that into the constitution.
Philip I was old enough to vote in the 70's. Can you show me where it is written in the constitution, genuine request.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
Spot on, it can be concealed or even dignified by terms like "Free trade" or "Sovereignty" but in reality you'd only vote for it if you dislike and disrespect foreigners and want to demonstrate that fact to them. I thought that was all implicit in the vote to be honest.
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Under the terms of devolution as agreed in the late 90s.
If you don't mind me asking, where you old enough to vote then? Do you mind if I ask how you voted in that referendum? If you were old enough and voted Yes then you endorsed a devolution settlement which wrote that into the constitution.
Philip I was old enough to vote in the 70's. Can you show me where it is written in the constitution, genuine request.
Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5. I believe.
I provided the link upthread, but here it is again:
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Would it be illegal - or would it just have no legal status ? It's not as though parliamentary approval is needed for an opinion poll.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Just a point.
It is Malc G not me
Sorry Big_G, that’s very careless of me. Didn’t check the post carefully enough. Must be tired after rather a lot of online teaching.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
It won't, the majority of Tory MPs in the Commons will block it
You are not very good at politics are you
Clearly you are not are you.
There will be no indyref2 unless Starmer becomes PM, the Tories will block it
Let us just say we disagree
However, please start treating the Scots with respect.
Insult them, you insult half my family including my wife
Don't be silly, he has not insulted "the Scots". He has not even insulted the SNP, which I could not blame him if he did. Your last sentence sounds a little Pythonesque!
Trump Is No Richard Nixon https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/trump-no-richard-nixon/612511/ ...If Trump seeks historical parallels for his reelection campaign, here’s one that is much more apt. There was a campaign in which the party of the president presided over a deadly pandemic at the same time as a savage depression and a nationwide spasm of bloody urban racial violence. The year was 1920. The party in power through these troubles went on to suffer the worst defeat in U.S. presidential history, a loss by a margin of 26 points in the popular vote. The triumphant challenger, Warren Harding, was not some charismatic superhero of a candidate. He didn’t need to be. In 2020 as in 1920, the party of the president is running on the slogan Let us fix the mess we made. It didn’t work then. It’s unlikely to work now.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Would it be illegal - or would it just have no legal status ? It's not as though parliamentary approval is needed for an opinion poll.
I think it would be illegal, because they would be using taxpayers’ money for it.
Put it this way, I wouldn’t care to try and argue it was legal in front of the Supreme Court.
I know my stats are bollocks but that doesn't matter. Absolute lols.
EDIT: It also cannot possibly have ALL shooting deaths because there is no federal legal obligation for the police in America to record that data. So many don't.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
In fairness Lisa Nandy also recommended "beating" [sic] the SNP with the same methods as used in Catalonia. So maybe HYUFD is a Labourt voter?
"We should look outwards to other countries and other parts of the world where they have had to deal with divisive nationalism and seek to discover the lessons where, in these brief moments in history in places like Catalonia and Quebec, we have managed to go and beat narrow divisive nationalism with a social justice agenda."
Three times now, senator Tom Cotton has publicly called for Trump to do something specific and envelope-moving and Trump has then done it: pull out of Iran agreement, blame China for Covid, threaten to quell riots in US cities using the federal army. That's enough for me to have placed a wager on Cotton winning the 2020 election (at decimal odds 1000) in five months' time. Five months!
Sorry I don't get it. Even if Trump is listening to this bloke and not anyone else saying the same things, how do you get from there to Cotton winning the election? As an aside, and maybe relevant to 2024, Wikipedia has a list of Trump administration jobs that Cotton has been passed over for.
Even if it is true it is painfully obviously skewed. What about people killed for non violent crimes? What about people killed for no crime at all?
Reminds me of the stat -
No white man convicted of murdering a black man in Alabama between 1865 and 1965. Lots of black men convicted of killing white men between those dates. Therefore.....
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Would it be illegal - or would it just have no legal status ? It's not as though parliamentary approval is needed for an opinion poll.
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate vorting yes [edit] then the boycott has turned out to be a failure.
On America I will believe literally any video anyone can conceive of showing cops arresting kneeled "I live you" protestors, beating foreign journalists on live TV, shooting rubber bullets to maim, shooting reporters, whatever. Literally nothing that sounds like an exaggeration is possible. Its literally mental the stuff I am seeing on Twitter.
The mental stuff is the video of police in Boston systematically putting out piles of bricks around and about the town.
Wow, that's wild. I've found reports of the same in Dallas and Manhattan.
That does not make it true.
I'm struggling to think of an explanation for the police having bricks in the back of a truck. This isn't just hearsay evidence when there's video of it.
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate then it has turned out to be a failure.
It could be held without Holyrood’s approval. It was delegated to them in 2014, but there’s no law says that’s the way it has to be run.
But equally, I can’t imagine one would be held unless Holyrood wanted it.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Just a point.
It is Malc G not me
Sorry Big_G, that’s very careless of me. Didn’t check the post carefully enough. Must be tired after rather a lot of online teaching.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
Spot on, it can be concealed or even dignified by terms like "Free trade" or "Sovereignty" but in reality you'd only vote for it if you dislike and disrespect foreigners and want to demonstrate that fact to them. I thought that was all implicit in the vote to be honest.
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
A point well made. I have always thought, having spent quite a bit of time in France, that it would be amusing to see the reaction of a group of Frenchmen being told by a Brexit supporter that he was "not patriotic" because he is in favour of the EU!
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal.
That doesn't follow. As Malcolm will doubtless tell you, the absence of a right to secede does not imply the absence of a right to hold a referendum on secession. which could be (cough) framed as non-binding. Whether schedule 5 rules out even a referendum has yet to be tested in court.
The SNP would though be absolutely taking the piss to call a wildcat referendum before a Holyrood election, and if they win the 2021 Holyrood election they'd still be taking the piss unless for the first time ever Scottish turnout at Holyrood exceeds Scottish turnout at Westminster - and in that case assuming they win a majority (with or without Green support) I'm sure the British parliament would agree another referendum anyway so the question of whether to hold a wildcat one wouldn't arise. Indeed even an SNP or SNP+Green majority on the usual low Holyrood turnout would probably suffice. But whilst a wildcat referendum would be illegitimate if not necessarily illegal, it plays to SNP brand values in the longer term to say they want to hold a referendum, the English "colonial rulers" are stopping them, and they may roar like lions and hold one anyway.
Even if it is true it is painfully obviously skewed. What about people killed for non violent crimes? What about people killed for no crime at all?
Its an interesting statistic, but regarding your follow-up questions they should be covered by the original statistics (since those killed for no crime still fall under being killed).
What makes me hesitate is the denominator. How accurate are the arrest figures? If the arrest figures match the crime figures then its a valid comparison. If however the Police do have a racial bias and disproportionately arrest innocent blacks then that would be a totally inappropriate denominator to use.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
It won't, the majority of Tory MPs in the Commons will block it
You are not very good at politics are you
Clearly you are not are you.
There will be no indyref2 unless Starmer becomes PM, the Tories will block it
Let us just say we disagree
However, please start treating the Scots with respect.
Insult them, you insult half my family including my wife
Don't be silly, he has not insulted "the Scots". He has not even insulted the SNP, which I could not blame him if he did. Your last sentence sounds a little Pythonesque!
Talking of Scotland as a colony is just about as insulting as it gets
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal.
That doesn't follow. As Malcolm will doubtless tell you, the absence of a right to secede does not imply the absence of a right to hold a referendum on secession. which could be (cough) framed as non-binding. Whether schedule 5 rules out even a referendum has yet to be tested in court.
The SNP would though be absolutely taking the piss to call a wildcat referendum before a Holyrood election, and if they win the 2021 Holyrood election they'd still be taking the piss unless for the first time ever Scottish turnout at Holyrood exceeds Scottish turnout at Westminster - and in that case assuming they win a majority (with or without Green support) I'm sure the British parliament would agree another referendum anyway so the question of whether to hold a wildcat one wouldn't arise. Indeed even an SNP or SNP+Green majority on the usual low Holyrood turnout would probably suffice. But whilst a wildcat referendum would be illegitimate if not necessarily illegal, it plays to SNP brand values in the longer term to say they want to hold a referendum, the English "colonial rulers" are stopping them, and they may roar like lions and hold one anyway.
However, it couldn’t be paid for using public funds.
So unless Sean Connery is feeling VERY generous, it couldn’t be done without Westminster’s approval.
On the whole though I agree with you. I think the reason Nicola Sturgeon called for a referendum is she knew she wouldn’t get it. It isn’t certain she’d win, but it is certain that if she did it would be an economic disaster for Scotland to become independent at this moment, and I think she’s smart enough to realise that.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Would it be illegal - or would it just have no legal status ? It's not as though parliamentary approval is needed for an opinion poll.
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate vorting yes [edit] then the boycott has turned out to be a failure.
If SNP has a majority next year Indy ref 2 either towards the end of 2021 or in 2022 is the correct thing to do by HMG
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate then it has turned out to be a failure.
It could be held without Holyrood’s approval. It was delegated to them in 2014, but there’s no law says that’s the way it has to be run.
But equally, I can’t imagine one would be held unless Holyrood wanted it.
Actually, that was seriously proposed at one time (at least in the sense that the Scottish Gmt didn't want it - I think there was a narrow Unionist majorityy, but the Tories would probably not have voted for it). You have reminded me of Wendy Alexander - who wanted to hold indyref before the SNP made any further progress. If Gordon Brown had supported her, then they could have imposed one on Scotland. How that would have worked out in practice I am not sure, with schools etc under Holyrood.
I'm sure there will be weird loop holes due to Washington D.C.'s unique status.
The Insurrection Act 1807 applies to the states.
Washington DC is not a state.
I imagine Puerto Rico and Guam have similar loopholes.
But that again comes back to the point I made on Scotland - these powers are not in the constitution, therefore they belong to states and the centre cannot interfere without a request for help.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
I doubt Indy 2 will happen next year.
My guess if there will be an Indy 2 then it will be 2022.
If the SNP win a clear mandate to hold Indy 2 then there will need to be time to negotiate the parameters of it, then time for the debate etc to be held. 2022 is far enough after the Holyrood elections for it to happen, far enough after Brexit transition ends for Scots to make an educated choice, far enough after COVID to not risk a new spike, and early enough before the next UK General Election for it to not interfere.
Scottish Gov’t can decide parameters and procedures as they see fit under the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, given Royal Assent on 29 Jan 2020.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
It won't, the majority of Tory MPs in the Commons will block it
You are not very good at politics are you
Clearly you are not are you.
There will be no indyref2 unless Starmer becomes PM, the Tories will block it
Let us just say we disagree
However, please start treating the Scots with respect.
Insult them, you insult half my family including my wife
Don't be silly, he has not insulted "the Scots". He has not even insulted the SNP, which I could not blame him if he did. Your last sentence sounds a little Pythonesque!
Talking of Scotland as a colony is just about as insulting as it gets
Well Malc was the one that did that. There's a lot of self-loathing tied up with Nationalism - of all kinds, not just Scottish.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
I doubt Indy 2 will happen next year.
My guess if there will be an Indy 2 then it will be 2022.
If the SNP win a clear mandate to hold Indy 2 then there will need to be time to negotiate the parameters of it, then time for the debate etc to be held. 2022 is far enough after the Holyrood elections for it to happen, far enough after Brexit transition ends for Scots to make an educated choice, far enough after COVID to not risk a new spike, and early enough before the next UK General Election for it to not interfere.
Scottish Gov’t can decide parameters and procedures as they see fit under the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, given Royal Assent on 29 Jan 2020.
And Westminster can overrule them. That act was just posturing when it comes to constitutional matters.
The Royal Shakespeare Company has postponed or cancelled all performances and events until at least the end of year due to the coronavirus crisis.
So much of the entertainment industry is going to be completely broken by all this. They rely on people being in close proximity to each other for long periods of time, and travelling to different places. All of the above good for both the company and the audiences. There must be hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk around the country.
The only exceptions are going to be the very top level professional sports, where the revenue comes mostly from television - F1 have a completely bonkers 'travel bubble' plan, to keep everyone safe as they move around, it involves dozens of private planes and busses (all booked for months and quarantined), hotel take-overs for each team and tens of thousands of Covid tests with their own processing lab. Apart from the Premier League, no-one else can do anything similar.
Most of the big theatres are streaming archived plays online for a fee or donation
Good to hear, it's a total nightmare for the whole industry, and people who are able should support their favourite entertainment in any way they can.
I see that we have a couple of cricket internationals booked now too, which is good news - but as with football and F1, the primary revenues there are from the TV money, so it makes sense to find a way to make it happen even if the ground has to be empty.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Would it be illegal - or would it just have no legal status ? It's not as though parliamentary approval is needed for an opinion poll.
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate vorting yes [edit] then the boycott has turned out to be a failure.
If SNP has a majority next year Indy ref 2 either towards the end of 2021 or in 2022 is the correct thing to do by HMG
What's wrong with the current majorities in both relevant parliaments? (You do need to add in the Scottish Greens at Holyrood.)
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
I doubt Indy 2 will happen next year.
My guess if there will be an Indy 2 then it will be 2022.
If the SNP win a clear mandate to hold Indy 2 then there will need to be time to negotiate the parameters of it, then time for the debate etc to be held. 2022 is far enough after the Holyrood elections for it to happen, far enough after Brexit transition ends for Scots to make an educated choice, far enough after COVID to not risk a new spike, and early enough before the next UK General Election for it to not interfere.
Scottish Gov’t can decide parameters and procedures as they see fit under the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, given Royal Assent on 29 Jan 2020.
Not true.
The Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 can certainly decide parameters and procedures for revolutions on devolved matters, but it doesn't circumvent the Scotland Act 1998 for reserved matters.
For reserved matters there would still need to be assent provided by Westminster as happened last time for the 2014 referendum and as Sturgeon has already requested for, for a proposed IndyRef 2.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
Sadly I believe it could still go either way. I am actually quite nervous about what Trump will actually do between now and November, particularly if he remains behind in the polls and has nothing to lose.
It’s perfectly possible Trump still wins.
How the Democrats campaign will be crucial to that, as he is a daemon created as a reaction to their own overreaction.
Nobody is to blame for Trump other than the moron himself. If Americans are stupid enough to re-elect him they deserve everything that's coming to them.
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate then it has turned out to be a failure.
It could be held without Holyrood’s approval. It was delegated to them in 2014, but there’s no law says that’s the way it has to be run.
But equally, I can’t imagine one would be held unless Holyrood wanted it.
Actually, that was seriously proposed at one time (at least in the sense that the Scottish Gmt didn't want it - I think there was a narrow Unionist majorityy, but the Tories would probably not have voted for it). You have reminded me of Wendy Alexander - who wanted to hold indyref before the SNP made any further progress. If Gordon Brown had supported her, then they could have imposed one on Scotland. How that would have worked out in practice I am not sure, with schools etc under Holyrood.
Coronavirus infections in hospitals and care homes are spilling into the community and sustaining the outbreak to the point that cases will remain steady until September, a leading scientist has warned.
----
Under further questioning about the outbreak, Ferguson described how scientists realised in early March that the UK had been much more heavily infected than anticipated, and that this was one of the reasons the country now has if not the largest, then one of the largest, epidemics in Europe.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
It won't, the majority of Tory MPs in the Commons will block it
You are not very good at politics are you
Clearly you are not are you.
There will be no indyref2 unless Starmer becomes PM, the Tories will block it
Let us just say we disagree
However, please start treating the Scots with respect.
Insult them, you insult half my family including my wife
Don't be silly, he has not insulted "the Scots". He has not even insulted the SNP, which I could not blame him if he did. Your last sentence sounds a little Pythonesque!
Talking of Scotland as a colony is just about as insulting as it gets
Eh? It was Malcolm who referred to Scotland as a colony of England (again). I had to point out, once again, that Scotland has been massively overrepresented in the modern British state and the British Empire, and that Malcolm clearly either has, or chooses to have, very limited understanding of Scottish history and the contribution of Scots and those of Scottish descent. I am sure your wife will not be upset by that.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
And yet many of us on here condemned it at the time and since. As did many others outside in the wider Brexit movement. The real problem is that people like you are dishonest lying fuckwits who will stoop to any means to attack Brexit and those who supported it. As far as you are concerned the only acceptable reaction from Brexiteers would be to disown the whole thing. I have sympathy for almost all former Remainers for having failed to achieve their aims of preventing Brexit. I know from experience how hard it is when you don't win. But for people like you who have always resorted to smears and lies and continue to do so even though the argument is done and dusted I have no sympathy at all. I hope it hurts.
China delayed releasing coronavirus info, frustrating WHO
The recordings, obtained by the Associated Press (AP), show officials complaining in meetings during the week of 6 January that Beijing was not sharing data needed to evaluate the risk of the virus to the rest of the world. It was not until 20 January that China confirmed coronavirus was contagious and 30 January that the WHO declared a global emergency.
Even if it is true it is painfully obviously skewed. What about people killed for non violent crimes? What about people killed for no crime at all?
Its an interesting statistic, but regarding your follow-up questions they should be covered by the original statistics (since those killed for no crime still fall under being killed).
What makes me hesitate is the denominator. How accurate are the arrest figures? If the arrest figures match the crime figures then its a valid comparison. If however the Police do have a racial bias and disproportionately arrest innocent blacks then that would be a totally inappropriate denominator to use.
Your second point is totally correct and valid and an easy take down of the tweeter. But reading your first point has made me realise there are multiple ways of parsing what he is claiming with his 'stat'.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
Sadly I believe it could still go either way. I am actually quite nervous about what Trump will actually do between now and November, particularly if he remains behind in the polls and has nothing to lose.
It’s perfectly possible Trump still wins.
How the Democrats campaign will be crucial to that, as he is a daemon created as a reaction to their own overreaction.
Nobody is to blame for Trump other Trump. If Americans are stupid enough to re-elect him they deserve everything that's coming to them.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump in 2016...
Sometimes, you wish people would just say what they mean rather than beating around the bush:
In his published comments earlier in the day, Popovich said of the president: “He’s not just divisive. He’s a destroyer. To be in his presence makes you die. He will eat you alive for his own purposes. I’m appalled that we have a leader who can’t say ‘black lives matter.’
“That’s why he hides in the White House basement. He is a coward. He creates a situation and runs away like a grade-schooler. Actually, I think it’s best to ignore him. There is nothing he can do to make this better because of who he is: a deranged idiot.”
The Royal Shakespeare Company has postponed or cancelled all performances and events until at least the end of year due to the coronavirus crisis.
So much of the entertainment industry is going to be completely broken by all this. They rely on people being in close proximity to each other for long periods of time, and travelling to different places. All of the above good for both the company and the audiences. There must be hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk around the country.
The only exceptions are going to be the very top level professional sports, where the revenue comes mostly from television - F1 have a completely bonkers 'travel bubble' plan, to keep everyone safe as they move around, it involves dozens of private planes and busses (all booked for months and quarantined), hotel take-overs for each team and tens of thousands of Covid tests with their own processing lab. Apart from the Premier League, no-one else can do anything similar.
Most of the big theatres are streaming archived plays online for a fee or donation
Trouble is it turns out plays are rubbish. There's a reason they don't make television drama by pointing a camera at a fixed stage.
It's better than nothing, and even if it's rubbish it's still keeping people in jobs by everyone supporting them. But yes, the lighting and sound are very different between a theatre and a TV studio, and when setting up primarily for a live or TV audience.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
Spot on, it can be concealed or even dignified by terms like "Free trade" or "Sovereignty" but in reality you'd only vote for it if you dislike and disrespect foreigners and want to demonstrate that fact to them. I thought that was all implicit in the vote to be honest.
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
A point well made. I have always thought, having spent quite a bit of time in France, that it would be amusing to see the reaction of a group of Frenchmen being told by a Brexit supporter that he was "not patriotic" because he is in favour of the EU!
Very true. I similarly spend a lot of time in Germany and the idea that Germany is less German, or less free because of the EU would be met with derision by the people I meet there.
The don't even perceive the attempted snub of leaving the club, they just think the UK has lost it, like an elderly uncle who one day appears to Sunday lunch wearing a toga and a pith helmet.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
You are forgetting - taking control of Police Scotland, arresting officers for obeying orders from Holyrood. And arresting most of the SNP leadership and putting them in prison on treason charges.
That is exactly what the Spanish government did to Catalan nationalist leaders yes and what Beijing is starting to do to Hong Kong pro independence leaders with its new anti separatism law
I hope you are not claiming we should regard Spain and China as positive examples to follow.
If we wanted to make Scotland a colony that is what we would do, we are not so Scotland is not a colony.
Scots voted to stay in the UK freely and fairly in 2014
You spout the most idiotic nonsense on Scotland
For goodness sake show some respect or go and join Trump in the US
You do realise the Tory manifesto on which the 2019 general election was won ruled out indyref2 for a generation?
You voted for that as much as I did
That is not the point, the point is your lack of respect towards the Scots shows an intolerance that is just crass
And Indy 2 will happen this parliament if the SNP win Holyrood 21.
And I do not expect them to win Independence especially since covid 19
First, no indyref2 will not happen this parliament regardless of what happens next year, the Tories won on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2.
Second, if we go to WTO terms Brexit there is clearly a chance Scots vote for independence so any vote must wait until after the next general election and it is settled whether we are still on WTO terms Brexit with Boris or back in the single market with Starmer
You cannot get beyond spouting the same repetitive rubbish post after post
For someone who spends their spare time getting overwhelmed with excitement over replays of previous general elections, and comment on here as moments happen as if in real time, I would suggest you need to get out more
And 7 days is a week in politics.
Mind you when Indy 2 happens towards the end of next year you will reverse ferret like mad
It won't, the majority of Tory MPs in the Commons will block it
You are not very good at politics are you
Clearly you are not are you.
There will be no indyref2 unless Starmer becomes PM, the Tories will block it
Let us just say we disagree
However, please start treating the Scots with respect.
Insult them, you insult half my family including my wife
Don't be silly, he has not insulted "the Scots". He has not even insulted the SNP, which I could not blame him if he did. Your last sentence sounds a little Pythonesque!
Talking of Scotland as a colony is just about as insulting as it gets
Well Malc was the one that did that. There's a lot of self-loathing tied up with Nationalism - of all kinds, not just Scottish.
I have to agree with that one! The Brexit movement is a classic example. Odd when Malcolm bangs on about his hatred of "Tories", when in fact the Tory party has been taken over by its English Nationalist faction that have so much in common with the Scottish Nats. Both love factionalism and good old fashioned hatred and division.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
Sadly I believe it could still go either way. I am actually quite nervous about what Trump will actually do between now and November, particularly if he remains behind in the polls and has nothing to lose.
It’s perfectly possible Trump still wins.
How the Democrats campaign will be crucial to that, as he is a daemon created as a reaction to their own overreaction.
Nobody is to blame for Trump other Trump. If Americans are stupid enough to re-elect him they deserve everything that's coming to them.
I've been to New York loads on business in the last ten years and its just New York. I went twice a year under Obama, and then under Trump. Very little difference.
Maybe a bit busier, noisier and more affluent under Trump. But essentially the same.
People's hatred of Trump clouds their judgement I think. The constitution, the courts, the judiciary and Congress constrain the president. As they are meant to.
all this talk about dictatorship is the most outrageous rubbish going. It really is the stuff of thirteen year olds. Grow up.
Coronavirus infections in hospitals and care homes are spilling into the community and sustaining the outbreak to the point that cases will remain steady until September, a leading scientist has warned.
----
Under further questioning about the outbreak, Ferguson described how scientists realised in early March that the UK had been much more heavily infected than anticipated, and that this was one of the reasons the country now has if not the largest, then one of the largest, epidemics in Europe.
Can we not just bung every care home worker in the land 5 grand tax free to live on site for the next 2 months, would get the "R" down massively and pay for itself I think.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Would it be illegal - or would it just have no legal status ? It's not as though parliamentary approval is needed for an opinion poll.
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate vorting yes [edit] then the boycott has turned out to be a failure.
If SNP has a majority next year Indy ref 2 either towards the end of 2021 or in 2022 is the correct thing to do by HMG
What's wrong with the current majorities in both relevant parliaments? (You do need to add in the Scottish Greens at Holyrood.)
Nothing is going to happen in this pandemic as Nicola knows
SNP should achieve a majority with or without the greens in 2021 and then seek the indy 2.
Sometimes, you wish people would just say what they mean rather than beating around the bush:
In his published comments earlier in the day, Popovich said of the president: “He’s not just divisive. He’s a destroyer. To be in his presence makes you die. He will eat you alive for his own purposes. I’m appalled that we have a leader who can’t say ‘black lives matter.’
“That’s why he hides in the White House basement. He is a coward. He creates a situation and runs away like a grade-schooler. Actually, I think it’s best to ignore him. There is nothing he can do to make this better because of who he is: a deranged idiot.”
Source: Washington Post
You go to the Whitehouse basement because the security team tasked with keeping you safe take you there. Trump derangement undermines the actual issues.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
Spot on, it can be concealed or even dignified by terms like "Free trade" or "Sovereignty" but in reality you'd only vote for it if you dislike and disrespect foreigners and want to demonstrate that fact to them. I thought that was all implicit in the vote to be honest.
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
A point well made. I have always thought, having spent quite a bit of time in France, that it would be amusing to see the reaction of a group of Frenchmen being told by a Brexit supporter that he was "not patriotic" because he is in favour of the EU!
No it isn't. It's the same patronising EU-twaddle dished out to the public for decades. 'Nothing to see here dear - you can still have your maypole dancing and warm beer and feel British dontcha know. Don't worry, we won't ban cups of tea!'.
There were profound constitutional and democratic issues with our membership of the EU. These were not imagined - they were written down in laws ffs. If other countries don't feel the same, that's fine, we're not responsible for those countries. As for 'English' exceptionalism, various other parts of Europe have been content to live under a wide variety of less than democratic systems within living memory - that isn't imagined either. So it hardly seems like a vicious calumny to suggest that 'sovereignty and free trade' do not rate quite as highly on the priority list of some citizens on the continent as they do here. God forbid we might actually have the right idea about something.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
Spot on, it can be concealed or even dignified by terms like "Free trade" or "Sovereignty" but in reality you'd only vote for it if you dislike and disrespect foreigners and want to demonstrate that fact to them. I thought that was all implicit in the vote to be honest.
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
A point well made. I have always thought, having spent quite a bit of time in France, that it would be amusing to see the reaction of a group of Frenchmen being told by a Brexit supporter that he was "not patriotic" because he is in favour of the EU!
No it isn't. It's the same patronising EU-twaddle dished out to the public for decades. 'Nothing to see here dear - you can still have your maypole dancing and warm beer and feel British dontcha know. Don't worry, we won't ban cups of tea!'.
There were profound constitutional and democratic issues with our membership of the EU. These were not imagined - they were written down in laws ffs. If other countries don't feel the same, that's fine, we're not responsible for those countries. As for 'English' exceptionalism, various other parts of Europe have been content to live under a wide variety of less than democratic systems within living memory - that isn't imagined either. So it hardly seems like a vicious calumny to suggest that 'sovereignty and free trade' do not rate quite as highly on the priority list of some citizens on the continent as they do here. God forbid we might actually have the right idea about something.
Exactly, anotherextory is essentially saying anyone who argues free trade, economic and policy flexibility, subsidiarity, or greater democratic connection is, in fact, simply hiding behind grand words to cover up their racism, and in fact that no-one could honestly have come to a pro-Brexit decision based solely on those legitimate considerations.
Sometimes, you wish people would just say what they mean rather than beating around the bush:
In his published comments earlier in the day, Popovich said of the president: “He’s not just divisive. He’s a destroyer. To be in his presence makes you die. He will eat you alive for his own purposes. I’m appalled that we have a leader who can’t say ‘black lives matter.’
“That’s why he hides in the White House basement. He is a coward. He creates a situation and runs away like a grade-schooler. Actually, I think it’s best to ignore him. There is nothing he can do to make this better because of who he is: a deranged idiot.”
Source: Washington Post
You go to the Whitehouse basement because the security team tasked with keeping you safe take you there. Trump derangement undermines the actual issues.
China delayed releasing coronavirus info, frustrating WHO
The recordings, obtained by the Associated Press (AP), show officials complaining in meetings during the week of 6 January that Beijing was not sharing data needed to evaluate the risk of the virus to the rest of the world. It was not until 20 January that China confirmed coronavirus was contagious and 30 January that the WHO declared a global emergency.
And yet Taiwan had told them it was contagious - and taken steps to protect themselves on that basis - on 31st December. But of course the WHO doesn't listen to Taiwan as it doesn't recognise it.
Mr. Ex_Tory, you realise Germany benefits massively from the single currency permanently weakening its exchange rate, making its huge exports far more competitive than would otherwise be the case?
Couple that with the lingering after-effects of war guilt and wanting to be 'good Europeans' and it's not hard to see why Germany likes the EU.
You may disagree with leaving the EU but caricaturing those who voted that way makes as much sense as painting pro-EU types as traitors.
Mr. Foremain, if they were English nationalists we'd have an English Parliament. Perhaps even one supported by those famous pro-England zealots: the Welsh.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
Spot on, it can be concealed or even dignified by terms like "Free trade" or "Sovereignty" but in reality you'd only vote for it if you dislike and disrespect foreigners and want to demonstrate that fact to them. I thought that was all implicit in the vote to be honest.
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
A point well made. I have always thought, having spent quite a bit of time in France, that it would be amusing to see the reaction of a group of Frenchmen being told by a Brexit supporter that he was "not patriotic" because he is in favour of the EU!
No it isn't. It's the same patronising EU-twaddle dished out to the public for decades. 'Nothing to see here dear - you can still have your maypole dancing and warm beer and feel British dontcha know. Don't worry, we won't ban cups of tea!'.
There were profound constitutional and democratic issues with our membership of the EU. These were not imagined - they were written down in laws ffs. If other countries don't feel the same, that's fine, we're not responsible for those countries. As for 'English' exceptionalism, various other parts of Europe have been content to live under a wide variety of less than democratic systems within living memory - that isn't imagined either. So it hardly seems like a vicious calumny to suggest that 'sovereignty and free trade' do not rate quite as highly on the priority list of some citizens on the continent as they do here. God forbid we might actually have the right idea about something.
Oh I see, its because of the Nazis and the Communists that the Europeans don't get it? They're all living in a fantasy world of enslavement to the EU and eventually the UK will lead them all to freedom again, like a WW2 redux?
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Absolute and utter bollox of the highest order. If the majority in Scotland want it then under any rule of law ( dictatorship maybe excluded) then they are entitled to vote , become independent etc. Just because some English want to retain us as a colony it does not make the case for Britain to stay as a union, Britain is not ONE country. How fe***ng dumb can people on here be.
You are not a colony you dipshit. Scotland has been massively overrepresented in both the modern British state and the British Empire. Scotland is just as much part of Britain as England is. Your colony crap is just chippy nonsense and definitely is "absolute and utter bollox of the highest order". You clearly do not know the history of the country that you claim your own. Typical Little Scotlander, so like your nationalistic small minded Little Englander cousins.
Indeed, if Scotland was truly a colony we would have done what Madrid has done, banned any indyref in 2014 and also scrapped Holyrood and imposed direct rule from Westminster and not even allowed Scottish MPs in the Commons
As I recall that is exactly what you were advocating. So clearly you do regard Scotland as a colony.
I have not advocated the above, only no indyref2 for a generation.
I was merely comparing that as mild compared to Madrid and Beijing's actions
You're backtracking. We have all seen you advocate following Madrid's example, are you retracting that now?
We can certainly ignore an illegal independence referendum, Madrid has set the precedent, even if we do not go as far as them
What makes a referendum illegal then , regale with your knowledge of the law and explain why the government of Scotland cannot call a referendum on anything it wants. Where is that written in the constitution as per your heroes in Madrid.
Actually, Big-G, he is right about that. The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not federal. So whereas in the USA (for example) any powers not transferred to the centre remain with the states, in the UK any powers not transferred to the Scottish Parliament remain with Westminster. In fact Schedule 5 of the 1998 act creating the Scottish Parliament specifically says constitutional matters are reserved and particularly mentions that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
So a referendum held without Westminster’s approval would be illegal. Whether that would make it wise to refuse one, or to ignore the result if one was held, is another question entirely.
Would it be illegal - or would it just have no legal status ? It's not as though parliamentary approval is needed for an opinion poll.
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate vorting yes [edit] then the boycott has turned out to be a failure.
If SNP has a majority next year Indy ref 2 either towards the end of 2021 or in 2022 is the correct thing to do by HMG
What's wrong with the current majorities in both relevant parliaments? (You do need to add in the Scottish Greens at Holyrood.)
Nothing is going to happen in this pandemic as Nicola knows
SNP should achieve a majority with or without the greens in 2021 and then seek the indy 2.
Anytthing else is a pipedream
Thanks. That's a perfectly good practical issue, assuming no vaccine etc.. But the Unionists were making similar demands - for a majority in the next election - well before Covid-19 was thought of. I was just wondering what your rationale was.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
Spot on, it can be concealed or even dignified by terms like "Free trade" or "Sovereignty" but in reality you'd only vote for it if you dislike and disrespect foreigners and want to demonstrate that fact to them. I thought that was all implicit in the vote to be honest.
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
A point well made. I have always thought, having spent quite a bit of time in France, that it would be amusing to see the reaction of a group of Frenchmen being told by a Brexit supporter that he was "not patriotic" because he is in favour of the EU!
No it isn't. It's the same patronising EU-twaddle dished out to the public for decades. 'Nothing to see here dear - you can still have your maypole dancing and warm beer and feel British dontcha know. Don't worry, we won't ban cups of tea!'.
There were profound constitutional and democratic issues with our membership of the EU. These were not imagined - they were written down in laws ffs. If other countries don't feel the same, that's fine, we're not responsible for those countries. As for 'English' exceptionalism, various other parts of Europe have been content to live under a wide variety of less than democratic systems within living memory - that isn't imagined either. So it hardly seems like a vicious calumny to suggest that 'sovereignty and free trade' do not rate quite as highly on the priority list of some citizens on the continent as they do here. God forbid we might actually have the right idea about something.
Exactly, anotherextory is essentially saying anyone who argues free trade, economic and policy flexibility, subsidiarity, or greater democratic connection is, in fact, simply hiding behind grand words to cover up their racism, and in fact that no-one could honestly have come to a pro-Brexit decision based solely on those legitimate considerations.
I'm sure there will be weird loop holes due to Washington D.C.'s unique status.
Yes. Legislation to stop the federal government sending federal troops into the states won't apply cos its not a state.
I don't think that's correct.
The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the army etc for law enforcement within the territory of the United States, which I think would include Washington DC: ...From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment...
And the sole authority over Washington DC is Congress, not the President.
F1: just checked and my tip on Hamilton scoring at under 20.5 races is currently still unsettled (ie not voided) on Ladbrokes. Wouldn't be surprised if they void that, although if the market overall is green for the bookie maybe it'll end up paying out.
Bet on Hamilton winning under 9.5 races also still up.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
Sadly I believe it could still go either way. I am actually quite nervous about what Trump will actually do between now and November, particularly if he remains behind in the polls and has nothing to lose.
It’s perfectly possible Trump still wins.
How the Democrats campaign will be crucial to that, as he is a daemon created as a reaction to their own overreaction.
Nobody is to blame for Trump other than the moron himself. If Americans are stupid enough to re-elect him they deserve everything that's coming to them.
The problem is that "what's coming to them" varies depending upon who "them" is, not how they vote.
For many white racists who don't care about the deaths of blacks and yearn for the days of Jim Crow laws, stoking up racial tensions and seeing more black men murdered is something they can live with.
Mr. Ex_Tory, you realise Germany benefits massively from the single currency permanently weakening its exchange rate, making its huge exports far more competitive than would otherwise be the case?
Couple that with the lingering after-effects of war guilt and wanting to be 'good Europeans' and it's not hard to see why Germany likes the EU.
You may disagree with leaving the EU but caricaturing those who voted that way makes as much sense as painting pro-EU types as traitors.
Mr. Foremain, if they were English nationalists we'd have an English Parliament. Perhaps even one supported by those famous pro-England zealots: the Welsh.
Back to the "Germany ripping off the rest of Europe" stereo-type? Who's employing cariacatures' now?
Never mind that the two largest countries in the EU have just proposed a massive grants (and loan) scheme to support the poorest countries - its all just a pyramid scheme right?
There's even a WWII reference in there that Mark Francois would blush at!
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
Spot on, it can be concealed or even dignified by terms like "Free trade" or "Sovereignty" but in reality you'd only vote for it if you dislike and disrespect foreigners and want to demonstrate that fact to them. I thought that was all implicit in the vote to be honest.
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
A point well made. I have always thought, having spent quite a bit of time in France, that it would be amusing to see the reaction of a group of Frenchmen being told by a Brexit supporter that he was "not patriotic" because he is in favour of the EU!
No it isn't. It's the same patronising EU-twaddle dished out to the public for decades. 'Nothing to see here dear - you can still have your maypole dancing and warm beer and feel British dontcha know. Don't worry, we won't ban cups of tea!'.
There were profound constitutional and democratic issues with our membership of the EU. These were not imagined - they were written down in laws ffs. If other countries don't feel the same, that's fine, we're not responsible for those countries. As for 'English' exceptionalism, various other parts of Europe have been content to live under a wide variety of less than democratic systems within living memory - that isn't imagined either. So it hardly seems like a vicious calumny to suggest that 'sovereignty and free trade' do not rate quite as highly on the priority list of some citizens on the continent as they do here. God forbid we might actually have the right idea about something.
Exactly, anotherextory is essentially saying anyone who argues free trade, economic and policy flexibility, subsidiarity, or greater democratic connection is, in fact, simply hiding behind grand words to cover up their racism, and in fact that no-one could honestly have come to a pro-Brexit decision based solely on those legitimate considerations.
Its all they have left. When they have lost the main argument and cannot reconcile themselves with that fact they have no other recourse but to claim it was because of the pure evil nature of their opponents. That way they keep the false veneer of a moral victory as a comfort blanket to hide behind.
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I often hear this argument on PB. 'How can you be on the side of Farage/Orange marchers/people who put St George flags on their houses/people who put awful posters up about immigrants?'. When the issue in question is a binary choice, I am always puzzled by this. How can anyone be so morally unconvinced of a conclusion that they have come to that they would reverse this view because it picked up a fellow traveller who they found less than savoury?
I think it is because if those people also believe in one side of that binary choice then it is an indication for caution and question. Therefore when someone like Farage uses hate filled messages against immigrants to try to persuade people to vote Brexit, and the other advocates of Brexit do not clearly and unequivocally condemn it, it is an indicator that many people on that side secretly, if not overtly approve of the message. Therefore it is my opinion that most (tho not all) people who voted Brexit are racist to some degree or other. The real reason to vote for it is the dislike of most things foreign.
And yet many of us on here condemned it at the time and since. As did many others outside in the wider Brexit movement. The real problem is that people like you are dishonest lying fuckwits who will stoop to any means to attack Brexit and those who supported it. As far as you are concerned the only acceptable reaction from Brexiteers would be to disown the whole thing. I have sympathy for almost all former Remainers for having failed to achieve their aims of preventing Brexit. I know from experience how hard it is when you don't win. But for people like you who have always resorted to smears and lies and continue to do so even though the argument is done and dusted I have no sympathy at all. I hope it hurts.
What a shame you have gone back to being an angry twat again when I was previously beginning to like you. I don't want to "prevent Brexit", I think people like you need to own it, but then again people like you often don't own the things that affect others. A lot of the people who voted for it won't get its ill effects. It was, and is, an idiots charter. Pointless and stupid. We will, no doubt rejoin one day, with full fat, and I will laugh and laugh, just like I am laughing at the idiots who thought Boris Johnson would make a good Prime Minister.
Coronavirus infections in hospitals and care homes are spilling into the community and sustaining the outbreak to the point that cases will remain steady until September, a leading scientist has warned.
----
Under further questioning about the outbreak, Ferguson described how scientists realised in early March that the UK had been much more heavily infected than anticipated, and that this was one of the reasons the country now has if not the largest, then one of the largest, epidemics in Europe.
Can we not just bung every care home worker in the land 5 grand tax free to live on site for the next 2 months, would get the "R" down massively and pay for itself I think.
As I said a couple of weeks ago, Coronavirus should be separated, in the NHS, and in care, from the mainstream health service. Own hospitals (if possible) certainly own wings if not. Own recuperation homes. I agree with your point about staff living in too if that is possible.
The benefits would be: -Equipment, environment, and care could be tailored specifically to cv-19 treatement -No cross-infection of other patients -Less staff sickness as staffed by immune staff, or staff taking regular cv tests -Best practise in cv-19 treatment protocols more easily shared, mortality rates decrease, shorter time between diagnosis and cure -NHS can get back to work
Drawbacks: -Costs a bit more. Drop in the ocean with everything else that's happening.
It would also have the political benefit of getting the Government back on track and taking positive action.
F1: just checked and my tip on Hamilton scoring at under 20.5 races is currently still unsettled (ie not voided) on Ladbrokes. Wouldn't be surprised if they void that, although if the market overall is green for the bookie maybe it'll end up paying out.
Bet on Hamilton winning under 9.5 races also still up.
Good luck with that 20.5 bet. There's really no reason why it shouldn't stand, given the known uncertainty over the number of races at the time it was placed.
Comments
"This is the opposite of what is seen in previous years, when the mortality rates were lower in Asian and Black ethnic groups than White ethnic groups."
MPs demonstrably can work from home, so they should.
A court challenge from an MP will probably fail on the technicality that they're not employees I think though. But it all rather goes against the spirit of the legislation, and given the PM and health secretary caught Covid-19 doubtless through lots of in person meetings...
However, please start treating the Scots with respect.
Insult them, you insult half my family including my wife
The government has asked people to work from home if they can, but if they can't work from home then they should return to work if it is safe.
So when Barnier and Sturgeon spoke to each other, they were actually breaking the law.
However, I also note they have not been prosecuted for it. Maybe Sturgeon would cite that as a precedent?
What I find very funny are posters like Philip Thompson who engage in the most incredible intellectual contortions about liberty and self-determination etc. but never stop to think what all the other members of the EU think, do Spaniards feel less Spanish as a result of EU membership? Do Poles worry about their personal liberty in the face of the EU (rather than their own government)?
Even those kind of thoroughly intelletual arguments - props to him for attempting to inject some reason into a debate that is basically about the view from the cave by the way - are still couched in an English exceptionalism frame of mind. As if only the British could be concerned about Sovereignty and Free Trade and all the other European countries are suffering a curious form of False Consciousness. Truly amazing.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5
It is Malc G not me
Coronavirus: Public told to cut water use amid surge in lockdown demand https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52893790
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
It's not as though parliamentary approval is needed for an opinion poll.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/trump-no-richard-nixon/612511/
...If Trump seeks historical parallels for his reelection campaign, here’s one that is much more apt. There was a campaign in which the party of the president presided over a deadly pandemic at the same time as a savage depression and a nationwide spasm of bloody urban racial violence. The year was 1920. The party in power through these troubles went on to suffer the worst defeat in U.S. presidential history, a loss by a margin of 26 points in the popular vote. The triumphant challenger, Warren Harding, was not some charismatic superhero of a candidate. He didn’t need to be. In 2020 as in 1920, the party of the president is running on the slogan Let us fix the mess we made. It didn’t work then. It’s unlikely to work now.
Risk segmentation of some kind is clearly the way forward, as I have said.
(P.S. I think you mean selfish not narcissistic)
Put it this way, I wouldn’t care to try and argue it was legal in front of the Supreme Court.
Even if it is true it is painfully obviously skewed. What about people killed for non violent crimes? What about people killed for no crime at all?
I know my stats are bollocks but that doesn't matter. Absolute lols.
EDIT: It also cannot possibly have ALL shooting deaths because there is no federal legal obligation for the police in America to record that data. So many don't.
No white man convicted of murdering a black man in Alabama between 1865 and 1965. Lots of black men convicted of killing white men between those dates. Therefore.....
Holyrood would have toi give approval - for the spending and general political backing. But I do appreciate you meant Westminster.
The argument is that the poll would then be 'advisory' only but to deny a clear Yes victory would be bad optics especially if driven by a 80% or whatever English Pmt at Westminster with its ruling party a small minority in Scotland.
The Unionist strategy might be to boycott the poll - but you know what the rule in FPTP voting is, you don't vote, you don't give yourself a say. And if there is a more than 50% of the electorate vorting yes [edit] then the boycott has turned out to be a failure.
But equally, I can’t imagine one would be held unless Holyrood wanted it.
The SNP would though be absolutely taking the piss to call a wildcat referendum before a Holyrood election, and if they win the 2021 Holyrood election they'd still be taking the piss unless for the first time ever Scottish turnout at Holyrood exceeds Scottish turnout at Westminster - and in that case assuming they win a majority (with or without Green support) I'm sure the British parliament would agree another referendum anyway so the question of whether to hold a wildcat one wouldn't arise. Indeed even an SNP or SNP+Green majority on the usual low Holyrood turnout would probably suffice. But whilst a wildcat referendum would be illegitimate if not necessarily illegal, it plays to SNP brand values in the longer term to say they want to hold a referendum, the English "colonial rulers" are stopping them, and they may roar like lions and hold one anyway.
What makes me hesitate is the denominator. How accurate are the arrest figures? If the arrest figures match the crime figures then its a valid comparison. If however the Police do have a racial bias and disproportionately arrest innocent blacks then that would be a totally inappropriate denominator to use.
So unless Sean Connery is feeling VERY generous, it couldn’t be done without Westminster’s approval.
On the whole though I agree with you. I think the reason Nicola Sturgeon called for a referendum is she knew she wouldn’t get it. It isn’t certain she’d win, but it is certain that if she did it would be an economic disaster for Scotland to become independent at this moment, and I think she’s smart enough to realise that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7391475.stm
Washington DC is not a state.
I imagine Puerto Rico and Guam have similar loopholes.
But that again comes back to the point I made on Scotland - these powers are not in the constitution, therefore they belong to states and the centre cannot interfere without a request for help.
I’m off for some exercise. Later.
I see that we have a couple of cricket internationals booked now too, which is good news - but as with football and F1, the primary revenues there are from the TV money, so it makes sense to find a way to make it happen even if the ground has to be empty.
The Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 can certainly decide parameters and procedures for revolutions on devolved matters, but it doesn't circumvent the Scotland Act 1998 for reserved matters.
For reserved matters there would still need to be assent provided by Westminster as happened last time for the 2014 referendum and as Sturgeon has already requested for, for a proposed IndyRef 2.
----
Under further questioning about the outbreak, Ferguson described how scientists realised in early March that the UK had been much more heavily infected than anticipated, and that this was one of the reasons the country now has if not the largest, then one of the largest, epidemics in Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/02/covid-19-spilling-out-of-hospitals-and-care-homes-says-uk-expert
The recordings, obtained by the Associated Press (AP), show officials complaining in meetings during the week of 6 January that Beijing was not sharing data needed to evaluate the risk of the virus to the rest of the world. It was not until 20 January that China confirmed coronavirus was contagious and 30 January that the WHO declared a global emergency.
https://apnews.com/3c061794970661042b18d5aeaaed9fae
In his published comments earlier in the day, Popovich said of the president: “He’s not just divisive. He’s a destroyer. To be in his presence makes you die. He will eat you alive for his own purposes. I’m appalled that we have a leader who can’t say ‘black lives matter.’
“That’s why he hides in the White House basement. He is a coward. He creates a situation and runs away like a grade-schooler. Actually, I think it’s best to ignore him. There is nothing he can do to make this better because of who he is: a deranged idiot.”
Source: Washington Post
The don't even perceive the attempted snub of leaving the club, they just think the UK has lost it, like an elderly uncle who one day appears to Sunday lunch wearing a toga and a pith helmet.
Amusing.
Sad.
People wanting to lay Trump at anything close to evens might need to act fairly soon.
Maybe a bit busier, noisier and more affluent under Trump. But essentially the same.
People's hatred of Trump clouds their judgement I think. The constitution, the courts, the judiciary and Congress constrain the president. As they are meant to.
all this talk about dictatorship is the most outrageous rubbish going. It really is the stuff of thirteen year olds. Grow up.
SNP should achieve a majority with or without the greens in 2021 and then seek the indy 2.
Anytthing else is a pipedream
There were profound constitutional and democratic issues with our membership of the EU. These were not imagined - they were written down in laws ffs. If other countries don't feel the same, that's fine, we're not responsible for those countries. As for 'English' exceptionalism, various other parts of Europe have been content to live under a wide variety of less than democratic systems within living memory - that isn't imagined either. So it hardly seems like a vicious calumny to suggest that 'sovereignty and free trade' do not rate quite as highly on the priority list of some citizens on the continent as they do here. God forbid we might actually have the right idea about something.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1267826528470986757
Couple that with the lingering after-effects of war guilt and wanting to be 'good Europeans' and it's not hard to see why Germany likes the EU.
You may disagree with leaving the EU but caricaturing those who voted that way makes as much sense as painting pro-EU types as traitors.
Mr. Foremain, if they were English nationalists we'd have an English Parliament. Perhaps even one supported by those famous pro-England zealots: the Welsh.
Just had an email from The Jockey Club celebrating the return of racing. As such I thought people might enjoy this.
https://twitter.com/roar1968/status/1266068400872267776
The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the army etc for law enforcement within the territory of the United States, which I think would include Washington DC:
...From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment...
And the sole authority over Washington DC is Congress, not the President.
Bet on Hamilton winning under 9.5 races also still up.
For many white racists who don't care about the deaths of blacks and yearn for the days of Jim Crow laws, stoking up racial tensions and seeing more black men murdered is something they can live with.
Never mind that the two largest countries in the EU have just proposed a massive grants (and loan) scheme to support the poorest countries - its all just a pyramid scheme right?
There's even a WWII reference in there that Mark Francois would blush at!
The benefits would be:
-Equipment, environment, and care could be tailored specifically to cv-19 treatement
-No cross-infection of other patients
-Less staff sickness as staffed by immune staff, or staff taking regular cv tests
-Best practise in cv-19 treatment protocols more easily shared, mortality rates decrease, shorter time between diagnosis and cure
-NHS can get back to work
Drawbacks:
-Costs a bit more. Drop in the ocean with everything else that's happening.
It would also have the political benefit of getting the Government back on track and taking positive action.