That is, I saw my first Post-Lockdown Parking Ticket Warden today.
Anybody else?
Passed a parked car on the walk home that had been carelessly parked - back foot or so over a double yellow. Nice fixed penalty notice slapped on the windscreen accordingly. The enforcement officers have clearly been sent back out.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
As far as I am aware, there are four protected constituencies - the two in Scotland, and two on the Isle of Wight. Ynys Môn has certainly not been protected up to now - the latest proposals were to merge it with Bangor.
Has this changed? If so when? It must have been recently.
There's a post further down in the comments suggesting that an amendment has been accepted in committee to keep Anglesey separate from the mainland.
Thanks. Have tracked the story down now. Technically it is a proposal, but one that seems likely to be adopted.
In some ways that makes sense. Môn is quite a distinctive area, and as one of the poorest areas in the U.K. probably needs a voice distinct from the rather wealthier university city of Bangor to push its case.
But if Ben Lake thinks Wales should keep forty seats, I have a bridge to sell him.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
I strongly suspect that the biggest factor is that effectively Scotland had an earlier lockdown than some parts of the rest of the UK. Not by date, but by state of the outbreak. Back in March it seemed that a London lock down might happen, as that was the obvious focus at the time. We locked down based primarily on what was happening in London. So for those further behind the curve such as Scotland, and the SW of England say, our effective lockdown date was earlier (in the outbreak). If that makes any sense, This is not to say that by staying stricter, longer and perhaps better trust I government Scotland hasn't added to this, but I don't think the SW of England has more trust in the UK gov, or a 5 mile restriction, but you are hard pressed to find cases down here.
The Prof makes a similar point (if reported only briefly) re timing.
However the comparison doesn't quite take into account different population densities, I think. I was wondering, does the SW include the Bristol/Bath/Clevedon/Avonmouth conurbation? On checking, it does, but that's equivalent population wise only to the eastern part of the Central Belt (basically Edinburgh and the resrt of Lothian). There's nothing in the SW to compare with Greater Glasgow (over a million people). So that's quite a big difference with the SW, even if one matches off Plymouth and Exeter and Taunton with say Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. So maybe the different policies did help.
Northern Ireland is doing better than Scotland or SW England. eg No deaths today, no one in ICU, just one new case
The population density of Northern Ireland is 133 per sq km
The population density of Scotland is 65 per sq km
I think the differences are just down to how deeply a region was seeded, originally, and how connected the region has been, since.
Northern Ireland has the advantage of the Irish Sea, and fewer international air links, so it has done best
Hm. An average popularion density dfoesn't mean much when dealing with the Highlands and Castlemilk all at once - but if one compared NI with say Fife or Angus (one big city and some smaller ones and lots of farms) then your thesis might well hold water.
Northern Ireland should impose BORDER controls on Scotland, given the higher Scots death rate.....
In all seriousness, I reckon international air links are pretty crucial. All the worst hit places are major air hubs. Madrid. Milan. London. Paris. NYC. The virus dispersed itself by air travel, like a pigeon on the Tube; cities with air links to China will have had it spreading, unseen, in their streets, from late November (or even earlier)
Cornwall has almost zero air links with the outside world, and has almost zero cases now, and zero deaths. That suggests Cornwall locked down before the virus could really get in
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
Which court case is this Malcolm?
He seems to think the Court of Session, and then the UK Supreme Court will rule that it's in the remit of Scottish government to hold a s.30less indyref..
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
IANA Constitutional L but my sense is that the right to hold a referendum potentially breaking up the UK is definitely reserved to Westminster. Otherwise any one could have a referendum anywhere and say "I'm independent! Not paying any taxes!"
Going back to Uber, I reckon they're going bust within 12 months.
They had 9bn in "Unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments" at end March. They're losing something like 3bn a quarter.
Coronavirus isn't going away any time soon in their main US market or their second largest market, Brazil.
Could all be over by end of the year.
They're not going to go bust because someone will be prepared to invest in them, even if not at current prices.
Ultimately, at some point CV-19 will be over, either because a hundred million people have died and the rest of us have some form of immunity, or because a vaccine is created.
There will then again be a need for an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. Uber is an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. It also has a massive market share in places like London, Los Angeles, etc.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
Sorry for not reply; been gardening.
In answer to your question - I'm afraid so. Card carrying member in the various incarnations for 50 plus years.
I guess I could best be described as an Orange Booker. I am strongly anti-authoritarianism, jobs worth and political correctness so you could also say I also come from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the party.
I am socially very liberal. I have also been called a lefty by some of our more conservative Conservatives on here, although I suspect my economic views are actually to the right of many of them.
We have often reacted to threads in exactly the same manner on here in the past and 'liked' each others posts quite a few times, so I suspect we have views quite a bit in common.
And me quite a lefty. That's interesting isn't it. There must be some Orange Book in me and some Socialist in you. All good!
But I am woke and that's a fact. Not "woke" - woke.
Definitely not even a smidgen of socialism in me (although again some of our more conservative members here would disagree).
Stocky's description was spot on for me. As you say he is very good at these descriptions isn't he?
I'm trying to think of where we have agreed a lot and I think it has been analysing what we consider some of the flaws in some of the conservative posts on here.
There is also the difficulty in pin pointing liberalism on a straight line that goes from left to right. It doesn't sit on such a straight line. It is not in the middle. The middle is occupied by Social Democrats and they are not liberals (although I feel comfortable with them).
I think some of my views would be considered a long way to the left and some a long way to the right. For instance my views on prostitution, drugs, etc would be considered by conservatives as being way to the left, however I also think the conservatives often interfere far to much in the market place and in peoples lives putting them to the left of me.
And sound money. I sense we agree on that. Left to me does not mean magic money tree. It means resolutely grounded but more widely accessible money tree.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
"What on earth does the Government think it’s doing? What possible reason is there for reimposing a full lockdown on Leicester? In an act of sheer lunacy, Matt Hancock announced this morning that non-essential shops have been told to close today and schools asked to shut their doors to the majority of children from Thursday. Pubs, restaurants and hair salons that have been gearing up to re-open on Saturday have now been told to remain closed."
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
IANA Constitutional L but my sense is that the right to hold a referendum potentially breaking up the UK is definitely reserved to Westminster. Otherwise any one could have a referendum anywhere and say "I'm independent! Not paying any taxes!"
I mean it's right there in the Scotland Act:
The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(a)the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b)the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
(c)the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
(d)the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,
(e)the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.
That is, I saw my first Post-Lockdown Parking Ticket Warden today.
Anybody else?
Passed a parked car on the walk home that had been carelessly parked - back foot or so over a double yellow. Nice fixed penalty notice slapped on the windscreen accordingly. The enforcement officers have clearly been sent back out.
A council told my son a week ago that as coronavirus "was basically over" he has 30 days to pay the arrears (they told him not to pay whilst out of work due to lock down)
Thing is - he starts work Saturday so has no savings as burnt through those
LadyG, re: world famous Cafe du Monde in New Orelans, note that it's ancien regime old-school cofffee shop with very limited menu. No matter, cause what you want to order is an order of beignet (with powdered sugar) with cafe au lait. Don't ask for alterations, substitutions, soy milk or any other malarkey. Just beignet & cafe au lait - very simple, very traditional, very perfect.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
There will then again be a need for an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. Uber is an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. It also has a massive market share in places like London, Los Angeles, etc.
So, I would not bet on Uber going bust.
So what do you think Uber's share is of: - the London taxi market - the London taxi plus public transport market?
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
Which court case is this Malcolm?
He seems to think the Court of Session, and then the UK Supreme Court will rule that it's in the remit of Scottish government to hold a s.30less indyref..
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
Which court case is this Malcolm?
He seems to think the Court of Session, and then the UK Supreme Court will rule that it's in the remit of Scottish government to hold a s.30less indyref..
Right, that will be the FOAS judicial review that has been sisted (stayed) for some time now. I think that there will be a number of issues in front of that case which has barely got to the starting line yet.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
Sturgeon doesn't want a winning referendum. Its the SNP's current destiny to remain in power as long as Independence doesn't happen. Sturgeon will make sure it fails and then blame the UK....
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
I strongly suspect that the biggest factor is that effectively Scotland had an earlier lockdown than some parts of the rest of the UK. Not by date, but by state of the outbreak. Back in March it seemed that a London lock down might happen, as that was the obvious focus at the time. We locked down based primarily on what was happening in London. So for those further behind the curve such as Scotland, and the SW of England say, our effective lockdown date was earlier (in the outbreak). If that makes any sense, This is not to say that by staying stricter, longer and perhaps better trust I government Scotland hasn't added to this, but I don't think the SW of England has more trust in the UK gov, or a 5 mile restriction, but you are hard pressed to find cases down here.
The Prof makes a similar point (if reported only briefly) re timing.
However the comparison doesn't quite take into account different population densities, I think. I was wondering, does the SW include the Bristol/Bath/Clevedon/Avonmouth conurbation? On checking, it does, but that's equivalent population wise only to the eastern part of the Central Belt (basically Edinburgh and the resrt of Lothian). There's nothing in the SW to compare with Greater Glasgow (over a million people). So that's quite a big difference with the SW, even if one matches off Plymouth and Exeter and Taunton with say Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. So maybe the different policies did help.
Northern Ireland is doing better than Scotland or SW England. eg No deaths today, no one in ICU, just one new case
The population density of Northern Ireland is 133 per sq km
The population density of Scotland is 65 per sq km
I think the differences are just down to how deeply a region was seeded, originally, and how connected the region has been, since.
Northern Ireland has the advantage of the Irish Sea, and fewer international air links, so it has done best
Hm. An average popularion density dfoesn't mean much when dealing with the Highlands and Castlemilk all at once - but if one compared NI with say Fife or Angus (one big city and some smaller ones and lots of farms) then your thesis might well hold water.
Northern Ireland should impose BORDER controls on Scotland, given the higher Scots death rate.....
In all seriousness, I reckon international air links are pretty crucial. All the worst hit places are major air hubs. Madrid. Milan. London. Paris. NYC. The virus dispersed itself by air travel, like a pigeon on the Tube; cities with air links to China will have had it spreading, unseen, in their streets, from late November (or even earlier)
Cornwall has zero air links with the outside world, and has almost zero cases now, and zero deaths. That suggests Cornwall locked down before the virus could really get in
Well, you're arguing there for Scotland closing the border with England as well - and Wales doing the same too, at least on public figures of deaths today (1 in S,. 6 in W, 167 for England - even allowing for statistical fluctioation and late reporting ...).
Re NI, you need to remember the numbers coming to Glasgow for footie matches.
At the current level, however, we need to go for a finer grain effect. Gretna is of course on the northern continuation of the M6 road axis.
I also wonder about main line trains - one other poster was referring to the motorways today but the map is not far off the BR network either.
It may all well turn out to be a combvination of early seeding, lockdown uynofficial and official, and continued lockdown combined with tracing ...
Going back to Uber, I reckon they're going bust within 12 months.
They had 9bn in "Unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments" at end March. They're losing something like 3bn a quarter.
Coronavirus isn't going away any time soon in their main US market or their second largest market, Brazil.
Could all be over by end of the year.
They're not going to go bust because someone will be prepared to invest in them, even if not at current prices.
Ultimately, at some point CV-19 will be over, either because a hundred million people have died and the rest of us have some form of immunity, or because a vaccine is created.
There will then again be a need for an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. Uber is an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. It also has a massive market share in places like London, Los Angeles, etc.
So, I would not bet on Uber going bust.
Yes. The tech that means universal, ubiquitous, instant ride hailing, and frictionless payment, and location folowing, is not going away. People love the ease of Uber. 3.5m riders in London, tens of millions worldwide
It's just a question of who gets the precise model right, and benefits. Uber has a number of problems, but it also has a strong brand, and a head start.
I think a lot of people who confidently expect Uber's failure simply dislike the technological model on which it is based, perhaps because they see the company as exploitative, the gig economy, etc
Young people, especially, love Uber. They've grown up with it. Which is good for Uber. See here
That is, I saw my first Post-Lockdown Parking Ticket Warden today.
Anybody else?
Passed a parked car on the walk home that had been carelessly parked - back foot or so over a double yellow. Nice fixed penalty notice slapped on the windscreen accordingly. The enforcement officers have clearly been sent back out.
A council told my son a week ago that as coronavirus "was basically over" he has 30 days to pay the arrears (they told him not to pay whilst out of work due to lock down)
Thing is - he starts work Saturday so has no savings as burnt through those
Empathize with your son. Council is putting squeeze on him, because their own financial situation is dire. Same basic reason another council is clamping down (pun intended) on parking offenses l- to raise some revenue to throw in the hole.
Same situation here in USA and all over - local government has been hit HARD by the costs (monetary in this instance) of the Crud.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
IANA Constitutional L but my sense is that the right to hold a referendum potentially breaking up the UK is definitely reserved to Westminster. Otherwise any one could have a referendum anywhere and say "I'm independent! Not paying any taxes!"
It's not just that. If the Scottish Parliament could claim the right to exercise a reserved power under its own authority then there would be nothing to stop it from issuing orders to the armed forces or changing the head of state at will. It would create something resembling a Schrodinger's Union, in which Scotland would be both in and out at the same time. It's a logical impossibility.
That said, even if - by some mysterious and as yet unexplained means - Scotland were found to be in possession of a right to hold a binding independence referendum yet not to exercise any other reserved authority, I would favour immediate dissolution of the Union under such circumstances. If the Scottish Parliament can keep holding plebiscites over and over again until it gets the answer it wants then it's highly likely to get that answer eventually - after creating potentially many years of instability and uncertainty. Might as well short circuit that process and just proceed directly to separation.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
Which court case is this Malcolm?
The one from Martin Keatings, crowdfunded and believe he has a top QC on it. Last update I saw it was due to be in court with likelihood an August date would be approved for trial. I will try to get the detail.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
So what do you think Uber's share is of: - the London taxi market - the London taxi plus public transport market?
Hint: it's pathetic
You need to work on your blockquotes...
When you say "taxi market", I assume you mean "minicabs and taxi cabs".
And they have 3.5 million monthly riders. I imagine that's less than black cabs. But not a million miles less. South of the river, Uber dominates, while in Hampstead we used to use Gett.
3.5m users taking 4 trips an average a month is 12 million trips a month. If you assume the average is £8, and they get 15%, then that's £1.20/trip. Which is close to £15m a month in revenue, or £180m a year.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Because she is head of the Zoomer faction now so has to hold zoom-orthodox positions.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
Which court case is this Malcolm?
David, If you have come here looking for information on the constitutionality of the Scottish Parliament Legislating for a referendum court case (#PeoplesAS30) then please follow: @PeoplesAS30 and @ForwardAsOneYes | #Scotref #Indyref2
PS: knowing little about it would be interested in your opinion.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Indeed the constitution is explicit that this is a reserved matter.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
IANA Constitutional L but my sense is that the right to hold a referendum potentially breaking up the UK is definitely reserved to Westminster. Otherwise any one could have a referendum anywhere and say "I'm independent! Not paying any taxes!"
It's not just that. If the Scottish Parliament could claim the right to exercise a reserved power under its own authority then there would be nothing to stop it from issuing orders to the armed forces or changing the head of state at will. It would create something resembling a Schrodinger's Union, in which Scotland would be both in and out at the same time. It's a logical impossibility.
That said, even if - by some mysterious and as yet unexplained means - Scotland were found to be in possession of a right to hold a binding independence referendum yet not to exercise any other reserved authority, I would favour immediate dissolution of the Union under such circumstances. If the Scottish Parliament can keep holding plebiscites over and over again until it gets the answer it wants then it's highly likely to get that answer eventually - after creating potentially many years of instability and uncertainty. Might as well short circuit that process and just proceed directly to separation.
Yes indeed. If Scotland has the right to call an indyref and then declare UDI without Westminster's approval then the UK is already over.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)
I strongly suspect that the biggest factor is that effectively Scotland had an earlier lockdown than some parts of the rest of the UK. Not by date, but by state of the outbreak. Back in March it seemed that a London lock down might happen, as that was the obvious focus at the time. We locked down based primarily on what was happening in London. So for those further behind the curve such as Scotland, and the SW of England say, our effective lockdown date was earlier (in the outbreak). If that makes any sense, This is not to say that by staying stricter, longer and perhaps better trust I government Scotland hasn't added to this, but I don't think the SW of England has more trust in the UK gov, or a 5 mile restriction, but you are hard pressed to find cases down here.
The Prof makes a similar point (if reported only briefly) re timing.
However the comparison doesn't quite take into account different population densities, I think. I was wondering, does the SW include the Bristol/Bath/Clevedon/Avonmouth conurbation? On checking, it does, but that's equivalent population wise only to the eastern part of the Central Belt (basically Edinburgh and the resrt of Lothian). There's nothing in the SW to compare with Greater Glasgow (over a million people). So that's quite a big difference with the SW, even if one matches off Plymouth and Exeter and Taunton with say Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. So maybe the different policies did help.
Northern Ireland is doing better than Scotland or SW England. eg No deaths today, no one in ICU, just one new case
The population density of Northern Ireland is 133 per sq km
The population density of Scotland is 65 per sq km
I think the differences are just down to how deeply a region was seeded, originally, and how connected the region has been, since.
Northern Ireland has the advantage of the Irish Sea, and fewer international air links, so it has done best
Hm. An average popularion density dfoesn't mean much when dealing with the Highlands and Castlemilk all at once - but if one compared NI with say Fife or Angus (one big city and some smaller ones and lots of farms) then your thesis might well hold water.
Northern Ireland should impose BORDER controls on Scotland, given the higher Scots death rate.....
In all seriousness, I reckon international air links are pretty crucial. All the worst hit places are major air hubs. Madrid. Milan. London. Paris. NYC. The virus dispersed itself by air travel, like a pigeon on the Tube; cities with air links to China will have had it spreading, unseen, in their streets, from late November (or even earlier)
Cornwall has zero air links with the outside world, and has almost zero cases now, and zero deaths. That suggests Cornwall locked down before the virus could really get in
Well, you're arguing there for Scotland closing the border with England as well - and Wales doing the same too, at least on public figures of deaths today (1 in S,. 6 in W, 167 for England - even allowing for statistical fluctioation and late reporting ...).
Re NI, you need to remember the numbers coming to Glasgow for footie matches.
At the current level, however, we need to go for a finer grain effect. Gretna is of course on the northern continuation of the M6 road axis.
I also wonder about main line trains - one other poster was referring to the motorways today but the map is not far off the BR network either.
It may all well turn out to be a combvination of early seeding, lockdown uynofficial and official, and continued lockdown combined with tracing ...
LadyG, re: world famous Cafe du Monde in New Orelans, note that it's ancien regime old-school cofffee shop with very limited menu. No matter, cause what you want to order is an order of beignet (with powdered sugar) with cafe au lait. Don't ask for alterations, substitutions, soy milk or any other malarkey. Just beignet & cafe au lait - very simple, very traditional, very perfect.
i missed out on the beignet but I did enjoy a muffuletta!
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Because she is head of the Zoomer faction now so has to hold zoom-orthodox positions.
Probably not bad news for Nicola Sturgeon though, on the whole. It keeps the issue bubbling away without changing the fundamental point she can’t do anything about it.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
She is a clever cookie as we have seen , and gave Westminster a bloody nose last time they said she was cuckoo.
I quoted you much earlier in the thread. I ripped off something you posted ages ago re defining what you considered a liberal to be. Just thought I should let you know I was plagiarising you.
Of course if it wasn't you I stole the stuff from then just ignore this as drivel.
If I posted it, you're more than welcome to plagiarise. The problem is I don't remember posting it but if it's not me, whoever did post it is very close to me politically.
I suppose the key word in all of that is "from". I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives and socialists and others who would say they believe in freedom but is it more about the freedom TO than the freedom FROM?
I'd have thought freedom FROM ignorance, hunger, squalor, poverty, inequality, oppression and disease would be laudable aspirations for any party at any time.
The second part of that (and a commonality I see between socialists and interventionists like Johnson) is the notion only the State can provide that freedom - only the State can set you free.
Philosophically, I'm a localist - the devolution of authority and decision-making as far down as possible would be my ideal. Leaving the EU quite rightly brought key powers back to Westminster but there has been an continues to be an accumulation of authority around Westminster, Whitehall and even No.10.
As part of that, I'm a fervent believer in proportional voting at local elections - less convinced about Westminster which is slightly different. It is to me obscene that the 35% who didn't vote Labour in Newham in 2018 (whether they voted Conservative, Labour, LD, Green, TUSC or whatever makes no odds) are completely unrepresented on the Council where Labour has all 60 seats.
I'm not disputing Labour's right to a mandate to govern but 20 opposition councillors to scrutinise and hold the Council to account would be valuable. There are plenty of other examples in London and elsewhere of one party control leading to a stagnation and lack of faith in local democracy, the revivial of which would do some much for our Government and governance.
In the absence of accountable local democracy, central Government takes over and all power ends up there.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Er, no it doesn't. There's a logical difference between holding a referendum full stop, and having it being regarded as legally binding by Westminster.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
She is positioning herself as the fundy, Salmondite candidate to succeed Sturgeon, if it all gets messy
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
Jumping to conclusions methinks.
In practice Westminster would have to go along with a referendum if Holyrood called for one, with a fresh mandate from the Scottish electorate. The alternative would be an oppressive denial of democracy that would guarantee Scottish independence. If Westminster were to behave like Madrid over Catalonia it would be a disaster for the Union.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England is a reserved matter, that is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament to determine. The question is really how broad that provision is. Does it stop the Scottish Parliament asking the Scots views on the matter? I wouldn't pretend to be a constitutional lawyer but it seems to me that the natural reading of the above provision is that the Scottish Parliament cannot proceed with any steps that are incompatible with that Union without the authority of Westminster. That seemed to be the accepted position in 2014. But we shall see.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
So you are now predicting the scope, when has a referendum ever been legally binding. They can have a referendum on something they do have competence over. You think if a referendum had a 70%/30% Yes that Westminster could flout International opinion / Law etc. They would look like real plonkers.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Er, no it doesn't. There's a logical difference between holding a referendum full stop, and having it being regarded as legally binding by Westminster.
But she's asking if it can hold a legally binding referendum, unless the tweet is wrong?
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Er, no it doesn't. There's a logical difference between holding a referendum full stop, and having it being regarded as legally binding by Westminster.
But she's saying a legally-binding referendum could be held.
If she was simply saying an advisory referendum could legally be held (since its just advisory so doesn't change the constitution and isn't legally binding) then I could see that potentially winning a court case. But she's saying a legally-binding one could be held and that's clearly wrong.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Indeed the constitution is explicit that this is a reserved matter.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.
what constitution is that then , can you provide a copy.
Trump didn’t care when the virus was pulverizing blue states but a resurgence in swing states just adds to his problems.
I doubt he cares now other than the impact it has on his reelection chances.
To begin with I think be believed he was going to able to pass the blame on to Democratic Governors in states like NY. The upsurge in Florida, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina poses him real problems.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
Jumping to conclusions methinks.
In practice Westminster would have to go along with a referendum if Holyrood called for one, with a fresh mandate from the Scottish electorate. The alternative would be an oppressive denial of democracy that would guarantee Scottish independence. If Westminster were to behave like Madrid over Catalonia it would be a disaster for the Union.
Holyrood under the SNP will ALWAYS want a referendum. If Boris agrees next year that sets an appalling precedent that every demand by a Nat government for a vote must be granted. Which means eventually indy must happen, because if you have ten referendums you'll probably win one, by sheer luck
Boris will therefore say No. Ball back in Sturgeon's court
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Because she is head of the Zoomer faction now so has to hold zoom-orthodox positions.
oh dear, looks like unionists wetting their pants, great addition to the debate.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Er, no it doesn't. There's a logical difference between holding a referendum full stop, and having it being regarded as legally binding by Westminster.
But she's asking if it can hold a legally binding referendum, unless the tweet is wrong?
She said 'legally sanctioned'. I have to go now, ort I'd check what she meant by 'legally sanctioned' - this may simply mean 'permission to hold' in view of the SC ruling (as indeed in the case of Brexit 2017 IIRC).
>> in US, referendum means a law that has already been passed by legislature (and often the governor) and is being referred to the electorate for an up or down vote, typically approve or reject; it is a law BEFORE the public vote, but does not come into operation UNTIL it is upheld by popular majority.
>> again in US, initiative means a proposed law advocated by a party, organization, etc. which conducts a petition drive by gathering signatures from voters, and after reaching required number of sigs, is submitted either to the legislature or to the people directly for a yes or no vote; it is NOT a law until it is approved.
>> seems to me that Scottish "referendum" is really a plebiscite, defined as when the government submit a proposal for yes or no vote that is NOT a law (yet) and is also not an initiative as defined above, that is a very specific proposal drafted by an outside-of-government group. However, misuse of plebiscites by Napoleon (I & III), Hitler & other dictators made the word pejorative in English.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Er, no it doesn't. There's a logical difference between holding a referendum full stop, and having it being regarded as legally binding by Westminster.
But she's saying a legally-binding referendum could be held.
If she was simply saying an advisory referendum could legally be held (since its just advisory so doesn't change the constitution and isn't legally binding) then I could see that potentially winning a court case. But she's saying a legally-binding one could be held and that's clearly wrong.
Cherry is also ignoring the strong probability that if the SNP called a vote without Westminster's approval, it would be boycotted en masse by the Unionists.
So YES could win by 80/20 but the vote would have no validity at all, and it would just envenom Scottish politics to the point of violence. This is exactly what happened in Catalonia
There won't be a UDI referendum and Boris will refuse an official one while he is PM. The SNP's best bet is Starmer agreeing in 2024
So what do you think Uber's share is of: - the London taxi market - the London taxi plus public transport market?
Hint: it's pathetic
You need to work on your blockquotes...
When you say "taxi market", I assume you mean "minicabs and taxi cabs".
And they have 3.5 million monthly riders. I imagine that's less than black cabs. But not a million miles less. South of the river, Uber dominates, while in Hampstead we used to use Gett.
3.5m users taking 4 trips an average a month is 12 million trips a month. If you assume the average is £8, and they get 15%, then that's £1.20/trip. Which is close to £15m a month in revenue, or £180m a year.
I reckon that should be a pretty decent business.
The killer issue for Uber in the UK (and Europe as a whole) is VAT. They currently avoid it by claiming that you are paying the individual driver but the actual payment is made to Uber with Uber then pass the money to the driver.
I believe the tax tribunal arguments are still ongoing but if Uber is found responsible it's going to be a lot of money.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
So you are now predicting the scope, when has a referendum ever been legally binding. They can have a referendum on something they do have competence over. You think if a referendum had a 70%/30% Yes that Westminster could flout International opinion / Law etc. They would look like real plonkers.
There's no international law that says parts of a country must be granted independence or else Spain, China and Russia could be dealing with that now.
All the world's largest power blocs are against your idea that constituent parts of a state can unilaterally choose to leave it. The US fought a Civil War against that.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Er, no it doesn't. There's a logical difference between holding a referendum full stop, and having it being regarded as legally binding by Westminster.
But she's asking if it can hold a legally binding referendum, unless the tweet is wrong?
She said 'legally sanctioned'. I have to go now, ort I'd check what she meant by 'legally sanctioned' - this may simply mean 'permission to hold' in view of the SC ruling (as indeed in the case of Brexit 2017 IIRC).
If it is accepted that Indyref 2 is not binding and merely a consultation exercise I think it is very likely that Unionists would boycott it. Turnout in 2014 was very high. If turnout in this consultation was half of that I think the UK government would be entitled to just ignore it.
On topic, were I still a member of the LDs, I would have little or no hesitation in supporting Ed Davey.
The Coalition is history and by 2024 will be ancient history.
The one thing for me the Party has to do is, pace Cameron, "stop banging on about Europe". The War is over, the Party lost and at the end it was even willing to disregard democracy itself to get what it perceived as being important.
The trouble is, there's nothing more important than democracy if you are a democrat - to ignore or seek to thwart the will of the people as expressed (rightly or wrongly) in a referendum was completely wrong and crossed a dangerous line.
There's a question about whether referenda are appropriate as a way of dealing with the big questions of the day - after 2016, many will be less convinced. There will in time be a credible position seeking to join or re-join the EU and as long as the conditions of re-joining are explicitly stated within a Manifesto, that represents a mandate if that party wins an overall majority.
Had Labour won in 1983 they would have a mandate to leave the EEC - the Conservatives took us into the EEC without a referendum.
If it is accepted that Indyref 2 is not binding and merely a consultation exercise I think it is very likely that Unionists would boycott it. Turnout in 2014 was very high. If turnout in this consultation was half of that I think the UK government would be entitled to just ignore it.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
1 - she believes it and/or
2 - It serves her political purposes to propose it
At the very least raising the prospect of a referendum without Westminster gets people talking about a referendum generally.
If it is accepted that Indyref 2 is not binding and merely a consultation exercise I think it is very likely that Unionists would boycott it. Turnout in 2014 was very high. If turnout in this consultation was half of that I think the UK government would be entitled to just ignore it.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Because she is head of the Zoomer faction now so has to hold zoom-orthodox positions.
Probably not bad news for Nicola Sturgeon though, on the whole. It keeps the issue bubbling away without changing the fundamental point she can’t do anything about it.
On balance I think this is good for Sturgeon as it outs Cherry as a 'zoomer' which, in the eyes of the public at large makes her seem less serious.
In general I view Cherry as being entirely mercenary in her political views, in reality I think you couldn't fit a fag paper between Sturgeon and Cherry but Cherry wants to be leader and to do so she needs her own powerbase and the potions she has taken have been solely secure that base of support.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
1 - she believes it and/or
2 - It serves her political purposes to propose it
At the very least raising the prospect of a referendum without Westminster gets people talking about a referendum generally.
As with all things regarding Scottish Independence what piece of bad news is being hidden by this discussion...
Some better news for the US economy today with manufacturing snapping back faster than expected.
Big jobs data number tomorrow .Unemployment rate forecast to fall from 13.3% to 12.5%
still extremely high relatively.
Plus states now reversing the easing of lockdown.
Reckon Trumpsky will be crowing about these numbers. Like how olf Hoobert Hever used to crow 1930-32 about the odd bit of positive flotsam amid the tidal wave of negativity.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
If someone has the power to authorise a referendum they can make the result binding by requiring in the authorising Act that the result be enacted I imagine - Parliament simply didn't include that.
If it is accepted that Indyref 2 is not binding and merely a consultation exercise I think it is very likely that Unionists would boycott it. Turnout in 2014 was very high. If turnout in this consultation was half of that I think the UK government would be entitled to just ignore it.
The ideal result would be 35% turnout, 99% for Yes...
35% turnout, 51% Yes would be a very different problem but equally entertaining.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
Jumping to conclusions methinks.
In practice Westminster would have to go along with a referendum if Holyrood called for one, with a fresh mandate from the Scottish electorate. The alternative would be an oppressive denial of democracy that would guarantee Scottish independence. If Westminster were to behave like Madrid over Catalonia it would be a disaster for the Union.
Holyrood under the SNP will ALWAYS want a referendum. If Boris agrees next year that sets an appalling precedent that every demand by a Nat government for a vote must be granted. Which means eventually indy must happen, because if you have ten referendums you'll probably win one, by sheer luck
Boris will therefore say No. Ball back in Sturgeon's court
Holyrood would have a fresh parliament and mandate next summer.
Denying that referendum would be as effective as the Late Victorian and Edwardian convulsions over Irish Home Rule. The breakup of the Union would be both more certain and more acrimonious.
Independence is an issue of Scottish self determination, not for those of us in the rUK. I was a Unionist, but like many English do not want to hold the Scots prisoner. I would vote Yes if I had a vote in Scotland now. The countries have simply diverged too much for the Union to be sustainable for much longer. I can see no reason for that gap to narrow.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Er, no it doesn't. There's a logical difference between holding a referendum full stop, and having it being regarded as legally binding by Westminster.
But she's asking if it can hold a legally binding referendum, unless the tweet is wrong?
She said 'legally sanctioned'. I have to go now, ort I'd check what she meant by 'legally sanctioned' - this may simply mean 'permission to hold' in view of the SC ruling (as indeed in the case of Brexit 2017 IIRC).
Ah, my mistake. So an advisory referendum?
The last thing any referendum should be is "advisory".
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Indeed the constitution is explicit that this is a reserved matter.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.
what constitution is that then , can you provide a copy.
Yes it is total bollox , there is no written constitution. As we know when Johnson decided to shut parliament for numerous weeks. If the SNP get a majority in it's own parliament, they should be allowed to hold a legally binding referendum. It is a union between countries , that both joined, surely if one wants to leave, it is upto them.
If it is accepted that Indyref 2 is not binding and merely a consultation exercise I think it is very likely that Unionists would boycott it. Turnout in 2014 was very high. If turnout in this consultation was half of that I think the UK government would be entitled to just ignore it.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
So you are now predicting the scope, when has a referendum ever been legally binding. They can have a referendum on something they do have competence over. You think if a referendum had a 70%/30% Yes that Westminster could flout International opinion / Law etc. They would look like real plonkers.
There's no international law that says parts of a country must be granted independence or else Spain, China and Russia could be dealing with that now.
Yes. I support that there be a referendum, and that the result be respected, but the idea international law is relevant here is bonkers, no more than 'I want it so bad, let it be true pretty please', lots of places want to be independent and most of the world could agree and it still might not happen. States don't mind looking like plonkers on some issues.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
Not only that but its about 9 months until Holyrood gets dissolved for the next election. There frankly isn't time even without COVID to hold a referendum before the next election now. With COVID it would be silly to even consider it.
Put it in the manifesto and if it still gets refused then consider alternatives.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Indeed the constitution is explicit that this is a reserved matter.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.
what constitution is that then , can you provide a copy.
If it is accepted that Indyref 2 is not binding and merely a consultation exercise I think it is very likely that Unionists would boycott it. Turnout in 2014 was very high. If turnout in this consultation was half of that I think the UK government would be entitled to just ignore it.
There are of course further tricks Parliament could use, and indeed, have used in the past. For example;
1) Say that any vote for change has to have the support of 40% of the electorate (the 1979 solution). Would be a strange, hypocritical irony given the Brexit vote is being implemented on the back of around 38%, but Johnson has never been worried about consistency.
2) Declare that a referendum can be held only if two-thirds of Holyrood vote for it - the Novara Media solution. That would probably actually be the perfect solution for the SNP, as if they ever get two-thirds of the votes in Holyrood they would win a referendum anyway. In he meanwhile they couldn’t hold one but could keep agitating for one.
Would these be profoundly undemocratic? Yes. Would that stop Boris Johnson? Errrr...
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England is a reserved matter, that is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament to determine. The question is really how broad that provision is. Does it stop the Scottish Parliament asking the Scots views on the matter? I wouldn't pretend to be a constitutional lawyer but it seems to me that the natural reading of the above provision is that the Scottish Parliament cannot proceed with any steps that are incompatible with that Union without the authority of Westminster. That seemed to be the accepted position in 2014. But we shall see.
That 45 page pdf from Aiden O'Neill disputes that David, I read some but as all legalise it is beyond me.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Indeed the constitution is explicit that this is a reserved matter.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.
what constitution is that then , can you provide a copy.
Yes it is total bollox , there is no written constitution. As we know when Johnson decided to shut parliament for numerous weeks. If the SNP get a majority in it's own parliament, they should be allowed to hold a legally binding referendum. It is a union between countries , that both joined, surely if one wants to leave, it is upto them.
It's not a federation. Up until very recently the UK was a unitary state.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Yeah, how can you have a legally binding referendum on something that you don't have competence over?
The other point is we have a recent Supreme Court ruling that referendums in this country are not legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign.
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Er, no it doesn't. There's a logical difference between holding a referendum full stop, and having it being regarded as legally binding by Westminster.
But she's asking if it can hold a legally binding referendum, unless the tweet is wrong?
She said 'legally sanctioned'. I have to go now, ort I'd check what she meant by 'legally sanctioned' - this may simply mean 'permission to hold' in view of the SC ruling (as indeed in the case of Brexit 2017 IIRC).
Ah, my mistake. So an advisory referendum?
The last thing any referendum should be is "advisory".
Funny you say that's the last thing they should be, given that's the default of what they are here.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Because she is head of the Zoomer faction now so has to hold zoom-orthodox positions.
Probably not bad news for Nicola Sturgeon though, on the whole. It keeps the issue bubbling away without changing the fundamental point she can’t do anything about it.
On balance I think this is good for Sturgeon as it outs Cherry as a 'zoomer' which, in the eyes of the public at large makes her seem less serious.
In general I view Cherry as being entirely mercenary in her political views, in reality I think you couldn't fit a fag paper between Sturgeon and Cherry but Cherry wants to be leader and to do so she needs her own powerbase and the potions she has taken have been solely secure that base of support.
Asking because I don’t know:
Given that the position she’s put forward doesn’t stand up to even quite cursory scrutiny, do you think this might be a move against Nicola Sturgeon (who after all is not in an invulnerable position at the moment) rather than a genuine attempt at gaining independence?
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Indeed the constitution is explicit that this is a reserved matter.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.
what constitution is that then , can you provide a copy.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
Not only that but its about 9 months until Holyrood gets dissolved for the next election. There frankly isn't time even without COVID to hold a referendum before the next election now. With COVID it would be silly to even consider it.
Put it in the manifesto and if it still gets refused then consider alternatives.
Some interestingf comments this evening (have just come back briefly from the herring). I don't think anyone is seriously wantinhg indyref2 now - simply to clarify the legal ground. Which is fair enough.
one point not considered: if the Scots courts do agree with Ms Cherry, then Mr Johnson has much less in the way of options, other than changing the law - which in itself would be inflammatory.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Indeed the constitution is explicit that this is a reserved matter.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.
what constitution is that then , can you provide a copy.
Yes it is total bollox , there is no written constitution. As we know when Johnson decided to shut parliament for numerous weeks. If the SNP get a majority in it's own parliament, they should be allowed to hold a legally binding referendum. It is a union between countries , that both joined, surely if one wants to leave, it is upto them.
A lack of a codified constitution does not mean the rule of law is no holds barred, I don't know why people pretend the lack of a 'written' constitution means that. You undermine yourself with your own example, since Johnson's decision was found to be unlawful, he was constrained from what he wanted to do despite nothing codified saying he could not do it. People frequently make statements implying that lack of a written constitution means there is no constitution, which must come as a surprise to constitutional experts.
As to the second point, I agree they should be allowed to hold a legally binding referendum if they want one, even though I dislike that they want one, and especially so soon after the last one. But 'should be allowed' does not mean it is legal to do it. I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer the question of if it would be legal, but again and again and again and again and again people bring up that because they should be able to do it, it is to be inferred that they can, or that if would be unfair if they cannot, therefore it is to be inferred they can.
I don't see how that is the case. If it is law it's law, if it is not it's not, and whether they 'should' be able to do it or it would be fair to do it that way seems pretty irrelevant.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
Jumping to conclusions methinks.
In practice Westminster would have to go along with a referendum if Holyrood called for one, with a fresh mandate from the Scottish electorate. The alternative would be an oppressive denial of democracy that would guarantee Scottish independence. If Westminster were to behave like Madrid over Catalonia it would be a disaster for the Union.
Holyrood under the SNP will ALWAYS want a referendum. If Boris agrees next year that sets an appalling precedent that every demand by a Nat government for a vote must be granted. Which means eventually indy must happen, because if you have ten referendums you'll probably win one, by sheer luck
Boris will therefore say No. Ball back in Sturgeon's court
Clock is ticking down , it is only a case of when now, Bozo the clown will not be able to stop it for long. We cannot be held prisoner by a Dictator. He is only making it more certain to be a win, if the unionists had not been so craven they could have spun the dice and possibly had a chance but by being cowards they have ensured the result.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
No, she doesn’t believe it, because it’s not about law, it’s about fact. Unless she’s thick, which I’m assuming she isn’t. She’s saying it because she wants it to be true. Like Cummings and his guidance.
Indeed the constitution is explicit that this is a reserved matter.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.
what constitution is that then , can you provide a copy.
Yes it is total bollox , there is no written constitution. As we know when Johnson decided to shut parliament for numerous weeks. If the SNP get a majority in it's own parliament, they should be allowed to hold a legally binding referendum. It is a union between countries , that both joined, surely if one wants to leave, it is upto them.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
She is a QC and so I think she may have better grasp of law than your goodself. She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be. Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England is a reserved matter, that is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament to determine. The question is really how broad that provision is. Does it stop the Scottish Parliament asking the Scots views on the matter? I wouldn't pretend to be a constitutional lawyer but it seems to me that the natural reading of the above provision is that the Scottish Parliament cannot proceed with any steps that are incompatible with that Union without the authority of Westminster. That seemed to be the accepted position in 2014. But we shall see.
That 45 page pdf from Aiden O'Neill disputes that David, I read some but as all legalise it is beyond me.
He’s changed his tune from a few years back, then.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
If it is legal, whether it's under Scots alw or not, it is not a wildcat refertendum. And a political party manifesto is not an act of constitutional law.
But some interesting thoughts re strategies. Yet what makes you think Mr Johnson would fold? Why should he? He could block the court case, and change the law meanwhile, as his predecessor did with the Brexit legislation.
If it is accepted that Indyref 2 is not binding and merely a consultation exercise I think it is very likely that Unionists would boycott it. Turnout in 2014 was very high. If turnout in this consultation was half of that I think the UK government would be entitled to just ignore it.
There are of course further tricks Parliament could use, and indeed, have used in the past. For example;
1) Say that any vote for change has to have the support of 40% of the electorate (the 1979 solution). Would be a strange, hypocritical irony given the Brexit vote is being implemented on the back of around 38%, but Johnson has never been worried about consistency.
2) Declare that a referendum can be held only if two-thirds of Holyrood vote for it - the Novara Media solution. That would probably actually be the perfect solution for the SNP, as if they ever get two-thirds of the votes in Holyrood they would win a referendum anyway. In he meanwhile they couldn’t hold one but could keep agitating for one.
Would these be profoundly undemocratic? Yes. Would that stop Boris Johnson? Errrr...
Yes. I actually think minimum thresholds are not a terrible idea, but it's partisan intention would be blatant given previous examples. They could probably get to 40% too.
Comments
In some ways that makes sense. Môn is quite a distinctive area, and as one of the poorest areas in the U.K. probably needs a voice distinct from the rather wealthier university city of Bangor to push its case.
But if Ben Lake thinks Wales should keep forty seats, I have a bridge to sell him.
In all seriousness, I reckon international air links are pretty crucial. All the worst hit places are major air hubs. Madrid. Milan. London. Paris. NYC. The virus dispersed itself by air travel, like a pigeon on the Tube; cities with air links to China will have had it spreading, unseen, in their streets, from late November (or even earlier)
Cornwall has almost zero air links with the outside world, and has almost zero cases now, and zero deaths. That suggests Cornwall locked down before the virus could really get in
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-01/institutional-racism-is-endemic-says-harry-and-commits-to-changing-our-societies
Ultimately, at some point CV-19 will be over, either because a hundred million people have died and the rest of us have some form of immunity, or because a vaccine is created.
There will then again be a need for an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. Uber is an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. It also has a massive market share in places like London, Los Angeles, etc.
So, I would not bet on Uber going bust.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(a)the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b)the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
(c)the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
(d)the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,
(e)the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.
Thing is - he starts work Saturday so has no savings as burnt through those
Only @TOPPING comes close.
She obviously belies you can have a "referendum" that can be legal
Not proven anywhere at all that it would be illegal, given you don't have clue as to what the referendum scope would be.
Why do you think "Yes", fact Bozo the clown says so is not a good guide.
I too would like the answer
Re NI, you need to remember the numbers coming to Glasgow for footie matches.
At the current level, however, we need to go for a finer grain effect. Gretna is of course on the northern continuation of the M6 road axis.
I also wonder about main line trains - one other poster was referring to the motorways today but the map is not far off the BR network either.
It may all well turn out to be a combvination of early seeding, lockdown uynofficial and official, and continued lockdown combined with tracing ...
It's just a question of who gets the precise model right, and benefits. Uber has a number of problems, but it also has a strong brand, and a head start.
I think a lot of people who confidently expect Uber's failure simply dislike the technological model on which it is based, perhaps because they see the company as exploitative, the gig economy, etc
Young people, especially, love Uber. They've grown up with it. Which is good for Uber. See here
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/#2
Same situation here in USA and all over - local government has been hit HARD by the costs (monetary in this instance) of the Crud.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
That said, even if - by some mysterious and as yet unexplained means - Scotland were found to be in possession of a right to hold a binding independence referendum yet not to exercise any other reserved authority, I would favour immediate dissolution of the Union under such circumstances. If the Scottish Parliament can keep holding plebiscites over and over again until it gets the answer it wants then it's highly likely to get that answer eventually - after creating potentially many years of instability and uncertainty. Might as well short circuit that process and just proceed directly to separation.
When you say "taxi market", I assume you mean "minicabs and taxi cabs".
And they have 3.5 million monthly riders. I imagine that's less than black cabs. But not a million miles less. South of the river, Uber dominates, while in Hampstead we used to use Gett.
3.5m users taking 4 trips an average a month is 12 million trips a month. If you assume the average is £8, and they get 15%, then that's £1.20/trip. Which is close to £15m a month in revenue, or £180m a year.
I reckon that should be a pretty decent business.
If you have come here looking for information on the constitutionality of the Scottish Parliament Legislating for a referendum court case (#PeoplesAS30) then please follow: @PeoplesAS30 and @ForwardAsOneYes
| #Scotref #Indyref2
PS: knowing little about it would be interested in your opinion.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so.
As you're a lady currently, is that a vignette from your dating history?
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
Had one in the sun in Jackson Square. V nice
So her argument fails the most basic test of logic.
I suppose the key word in all of that is "from". I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives and socialists and others who would say they believe in freedom but is it more about the freedom TO than the freedom FROM?
I'd have thought freedom FROM ignorance, hunger, squalor, poverty, inequality, oppression and disease would be laudable aspirations for any party at any time.
The second part of that (and a commonality I see between socialists and interventionists like Johnson) is the notion only the State can provide that freedom - only the State can set you free.
Philosophically, I'm a localist - the devolution of authority and decision-making as far down as possible would be my ideal. Leaving the EU quite rightly brought key powers back to Westminster but there has been an continues to be an accumulation of authority around Westminster, Whitehall and even No.10.
As part of that, I'm a fervent believer in proportional voting at local elections - less convinced about Westminster which is slightly different. It is to me obscene that the 35% who didn't vote Labour in Newham in 2018 (whether they voted Conservative, Labour, LD, Green, TUSC or whatever makes no odds) are completely unrepresented on the Council where Labour has all 60 seats.
I'm not disputing Labour's right to a mandate to govern but 20 opposition councillors to scrutinise and hold the Council to account would be valuable. There are plenty of other examples in London and elsewhere of one party control leading to a stagnation and lack of faith in local democracy, the revivial of which would do some much for our Government and governance.
In the absence of accountable local democracy, central Government takes over and all power ends up there.
I wouldn't pretend to be a constitutional lawyer but it seems to me that the natural reading of the above provision is that the Scottish Parliament cannot proceed with any steps that are incompatible with that Union without the authority of Westminster.
That seemed to be the accepted position in 2014. But we shall see.
You think if a referendum had a 70%/30% Yes that Westminster could flout International opinion / Law etc. They would look like real plonkers.
Trump 11 / 18.5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.170211116
If she was simply saying an advisory referendum could legally be held (since its just advisory so doesn't change the constitution and isn't legally binding) then I could see that potentially winning a court case. But she's saying a legally-binding one could be held and that's clearly wrong.
To begin with I think be believed he was going to able to pass the blame on to Democratic Governors in states like NY. The upsurge in Florida, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina poses him real problems.
Boris will therefore say No. Ball back in Sturgeon's court
>> in US, referendum means a law that has already been passed by legislature (and often the governor) and is being referred to the electorate for an up or down vote, typically approve or reject; it is a law BEFORE the public vote, but does not come into operation UNTIL it is upheld by popular majority.
>> again in US, initiative means a proposed law advocated by a party, organization, etc. which conducts a petition drive by gathering signatures from voters, and after reaching required number of sigs, is submitted either to the legislature or to the people directly for a yes or no vote; it is NOT a law until it is approved.
>> seems to me that Scottish "referendum" is really a plebiscite, defined as when the government submit a proposal for yes or no vote that is NOT a law (yet) and is also not an initiative as defined above, that is a very specific proposal drafted by an outside-of-government group. However, misuse of plebiscites by Napoleon (I & III), Hitler & other dictators made the word pejorative in English.
So YES could win by 80/20 but the vote would have no validity at all, and it would just envenom Scottish politics to the point of violence. This is exactly what happened in Catalonia
There won't be a UDI referendum and Boris will refuse an official one while he is PM. The SNP's best bet is Starmer agreeing in 2024
Plus states now reversing the easing of lockdown.
I believe the tax tribunal arguments are still ongoing but if Uber is found responsible it's going to be a lot of money.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
All the world's largest power blocs are against your idea that constituent parts of a state can unilaterally choose to leave it. The US fought a Civil War against that.
The Coalition is history and by 2024 will be ancient history.
The one thing for me the Party has to do is, pace Cameron, "stop banging on about Europe". The War is over, the Party lost and at the end it was even willing to disregard democracy itself to get what it perceived as being important.
The trouble is, there's nothing more important than democracy if you are a democrat - to ignore or seek to thwart the will of the people as expressed (rightly or wrongly) in a referendum was completely wrong and crossed a dangerous line.
There's a question about whether referenda are appropriate as a way of dealing with the big questions of the day - after 2016, many will be less convinced. There will in time be a credible position seeking to join or re-join the EU and as long as the conditions of re-joining are explicitly stated within a Manifesto, that represents a mandate if that party wins an overall majority.
Had Labour won in 1983 they would have a mandate to leave the EEC - the Conservatives took us into the EEC without a referendum.
2 - It serves her political purposes to propose it
At the very least raising the prospect of a referendum without Westminster gets people talking about a referendum generally.
In general I view Cherry as being entirely mercenary in her political views, in reality I think you couldn't fit a fag paper between Sturgeon and Cherry but Cherry wants to be leader and to do so she needs her own powerbase and the potions she has taken have been solely secure that base of support.
35% turnout, 51% Yes would be a very different problem but equally entertaining.
Denying that referendum would be as effective as the Late Victorian and Edwardian convulsions over Irish Home Rule. The breakup of the Union would be both more certain and more acrimonious.
Independence is an issue of Scottish self determination, not for those of us in the rUK. I was a Unionist, but like many English do not want to hold the Scots prisoner. I would vote Yes if I had a vote in Scotland now. The countries have simply diverged too much for the Union to be sustainable for much longer. I can see no reason for that gap to narrow.
As we know when Johnson decided to shut parliament for numerous weeks.
If the SNP get a majority in it's own parliament, they should be allowed to hold a legally binding referendum.
It is a union between countries , that both joined, surely if one wants to leave, it is upto them.
Put it in the manifesto and if it still gets refused then consider alternatives.
1) Say that any vote for change has to have the support of 40% of the electorate (the 1979 solution). Would be a strange, hypocritical irony given the Brexit vote is being implemented on the back of around 38%, but Johnson has never been worried about consistency.
2) Declare that a referendum can be held only if two-thirds of Holyrood vote for it - the Novara Media solution. That would probably actually be the perfect solution for the SNP, as if they ever get two-thirds of the votes in Holyrood they would win a referendum anyway. In he meanwhile they couldn’t hold one but could keep agitating for one.
Would these be profoundly undemocratic? Yes. Would that stop Boris Johnson? Errrr...
Given that the position she’s put forward doesn’t stand up to even quite cursory scrutiny, do you think this might be a move against Nicola Sturgeon (who after all is not in an invulnerable position at the moment) rather than a genuine attempt at gaining independence?
one point not considered: if the Scots courts do agree with Ms Cherry, then Mr Johnson has much less in the way of options, other than changing the law - which in itself would be inflammatory.
As to the second point, I agree they should be allowed to hold a legally binding referendum if they want one, even though I dislike that they want one, and especially so soon after the last one. But 'should be allowed' does not mean it is legal to do it. I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer the question of if it would be legal, but again and again and again and again and again people bring up that because they should be able to do it, it is to be inferred that they can, or that if would be unfair if they cannot, therefore it is to be inferred they can.
I don't see how that is the case. If it is law it's law, if it is not it's not, and whether they 'should' be able to do it or it would be fair to do it that way seems pretty irrelevant.
Under international law? No, absolutely not.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/nov/08/uk-supreme-court-scottish-independence
But some interesting thoughts re strategies. Yet what makes you think Mr Johnson would fold? Why should he? He could block the court case, and change the law meanwhile, as his predecessor did with the Brexit legislation.