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.
Can't say I remember all the Hoover tweets about the "small decline" of Wall Street in October 1929.
@HYUFD will correct me if I'm wrong but Hoover's defeat in 1932 remains the heaviest suffered by any incumbent President to date.
FDR won 57-40 and 472-59 in the Electoral College, a significant landslide (not as big as Nixon's in 1972 or Reagan's in 1984 admittedly).
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.
He can stop it for as long as he is PM. Which could be another decade approximately.
Absolutely I 100% agree if he does that then it means when the referendum is eventually held it will be more likely to be a Yes - but it will also be someone else's problem.
If Boris wants to save the union he should agree to the referendum. If Boris wants to be selfish and not have this issue dog his time as PM he shouldn't.
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.
Yes indeed that is it in a nutshell, makes you wonder why the unionists are so terrified that they deny people their democratic rights.. Looks like we would have been as well off with Adolf.
Anyway I must go , some wild salmon to be done on the BBQ.
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!
Had one in the sun in Jackson Square. V nice
Muffuletta is classic NO sandwich, of Sicilian origin; many immigrants from there came to Crescent City in late 1800s (enough to spark the infamous "Maffia Riots" when they were hanging Sicilians from the lamp posts) and their offspring are thick on the ground today.
Also responsible for that other NO classic "wop salad" which don't know if they still call it that; when I first saw "wop salad" on a menu damn near fell out of my chair!
Maybe best thing about New Orleans and South Louisiana is this: you can eat high or low, you know it will be GOOOOOOOOD, IF making shortish visit, stick to the CLASSICS. For example, po-boy (oyster & shrimp are best) should be "dressed" with lettuce, tomato, mayo with ketchup and Tabasco sauce to taste. NOTHING ELSE unless you want to miss out on the real thing.
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.
I feel like your sentences contradict each other. You set out an alternative approach even if Holyrood called for one (again). Not one I support, but there's no guarantee they would politically concede at that point, though I suspect they would given the alternative being the Madrid option which most would find unpalatable. But Madrid itself would say their actions are not a disaster for its arrangements, since Catalonia is not and is not likely to be independent, and you can see that argument being made. In fact if HYUFD is on he'll probably make it.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal? Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Moderate Labour and most certainly moderate Tories are almost certainly in the wrong party.
I was. Took a relapse whilst in a terrible mental state back in April to cement that
Are you back in the yellows or reds now? I'm confused.
Yellows. Under a massive depressive cloud I listened to the people telling me to rejoin the reds and wage war against the Trots. So abruptly quit the LibDems and applied to rejoin Labour. Which prompted a massive shit storm in the CLP and my application was rejected and rightly so.
Its only as the shit storm was raging that it was clear that my time in Labour really was done. I'm not a socialist, don't identify any longer with the state control ask the unions approach. My local LibDems are nice people, they understood my relapse, I've been welcomed back. I should have stood my ground and stuck with what I had started - but I genuinely went a little crazy through April and craved any kind of old world normal. When you are climbing the walls and feeling trapped, you make daft decisions. Mine was abruptly to try and rejoin Labour.
You didn't need to wage war actively against the far left. You just needed to turn up to vote in parliamentary selection meetings and ward councillor selections, and vote in key ballots such as NEC elections. You could choose where you put your efforts in selecting how and where you campaigned if you wanted to be active. Control of your CLP means very little by itself so there really wasn't any need to turn up and indulge the far left.
Oh yes I did. The lunatics still infest the asylum. They are a cancerous growth on the body politic that needs zapping. As I didn't really have much interest in Labour politics all that I had was some good friends and war with loonies.
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.
Because ultimately Johnson does what is best for Johnson. And getting rid of a recalcitrant Scotland makes it much easier boh for him to pose as a champion of democracy and to hold power at Westminster.
That’s to leave aside the fact that refusing it under such circumstances could - and should - be considered a breach of Scotland’s right to self-determination.
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.
Divorce is mutually advantageous. Consider:
1. As in Northern Ireland, not far short of half of the population of Scotland wants rid of the Union, and a large fraction of that is passionate about the cause. Even if the necessary 50%+1 for separation can't be found straight away, those kinds of numbers are terminally destabilising 2. For all of the Scots in favour of outright independence, and probably a good few on top of that who aren't, the "Governments we didn't vote for" argument is salient. Even those who see continued advantage in some form of political union don't like being under a Conservative Government picked by English voters very much 3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
My own preference (given that support for Scottish secession seems highly unlikely to subside, and there is no realistic prospect of the Union being remodelled as a federal arrangement with an English Parliament,) would be for independence for Scotland and the subsequent reunification of Ireland. England and Wales could then sit down and have an adult conversation about whether they would like to construct a new British state or go their separate ways.
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.
It would go to the Supreme Court.
I know last time they sided with the Scottish court, but this is a much more clear-cut case.
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.
*********************
Well if it's doomed it's doomed, and Boris might as well try his luck anyway, refuse a vote, and hope that something happens by 2024 or whenever, and the SNP fall from power. Miracle: Union saved.
Your position has no political logic.
Boris could also kick indyref into the long grass by saying "No, there won't be another vote, but I will call a Royal Commission to seek a final Federal Settlement for all four nations, up to and including Devomax"
A lot of less angry Scots might breathe a sigh of relief at that. Polls show many don't want a vote, not yet
One issue of course is whether if Scotland did hold a referendum not approved by Westminster and declared independence as a result of it, whether any other countries (and particularly the EU) would recognise that independence.
I just wonder a bit how the Spanish would react, for example.
Because if they don’t, that really would mess with the Scottish economy.
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.
Can't say I remember all the Hoover tweets about the "small decline" of Wall Street in October 1929.
@HYUFD will correct me if I'm wrong but Hoover's defeat in 1932 remains the heaviest suffered by any incumbent President to date.
FDR won 57-40 and 472-59 in the Electoral College, a significant landslide (not as big as Nixon's in 1972 or Reagan's in 1984 admittedly).
Hoover was famous for constantly being upbeat after Wall Street laid the big egg. Fundamentals sound, conditions improving, outlook hopeful, prosperity right around the corner.
After three years of this happy-crap, nobody believed anything he said, even went it was (very rarely) true. Not even the rock-ribbed Republicans who clinched their teeth and voted for him anyway in 1932.
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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
I did a thread header I believe on this just after the election, its a very serious possibility for next time.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
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.
Here's the thing.
Uber is just an efficient mini cab service.
The Uber drivers are exactly the same guys who used to work for Swiss Cottage Cars. The only difference is that Uber takes a slightly smaller cut, and customers find their offering much more attractive (no more sitting on hold and explaining where you to a man on the phone and needing to have cash for your journey).
The same rules should apply to Uber, Lyft, Addison Lee, and Swiss Cottage Cars.
One issue of course is whether if Scotland did hold a referendum not approved by Westminster and declared independence as a result of it, whether any other countries (and particularly the EU) would recognise that independence.
I just wonder a bit how the Spanish would react, for example.
Because if they don’t, that really would mess with the Scottish economy.
Can't see it being any more successful than the Catalan attempt at UDI.
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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
To be honest, as I expect the SNP to call for a vote in their manifesto, and to win the elections next year, I am also expecting a referendum on independence in 2023.
The only thing I can think of that might prevent it is a formal split in the SNP, with multiple candidates standing against each other.
Not impossible, but not very likely.
Edit - On dates, Oddschecker show offers of 1/7 on 2021 or later which is free money, and 14/5 on 2023 which looks a touch long to me. I’d put it at 2/1. So there’s value 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.
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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
The Quebecois thought they were on an inevitable march to independence. They came very close.
But they failed. And there hasn't been a vote since and a vote doesn't look likely any time soon.
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 unexpeioctedly 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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
Or it will be like devolution after 1979. The Tories simply say "no" for as long as they remain in Downing Street then when Labour finally get into Downing Street (potentially on the back of SNP votes) they're forced to address this as one of the first things in their in tray.
As a long suffering WHU and England fan, I urge you to be less forgiving of the past. David James was good in Carry on at your convenience but other than that I wouldn't be so sure
"Scots alw" - the ancient Scots custom that sanctions open season for hunting Englishmen 24/7 except on Hogmanay when of course Hibernians have better things to do.
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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
The Quebecois thought they were on an inevitable march to independence. They came very close.
But they failed. And there hasn't been a vote since and a vote doesn't look likely any time soon.
And it might be that is what happens with Sindy. Maybe not. But I think the issue is going to be tested in same way as Quebec.
However, wise move or not, I can see Boris possibly dragging things out until the next GE, assuming his government stays the course as it should have the numbers to do. So I think 2024 is the most likely time for one, with a non-zero chance of it being earlier if he caves (probably if Cummings says just focus on ENgland or something).
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.
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
I did a thread header I believe on this just after the election, its a very serious possibility for next time.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
Labour would be eviscerated at the following GE if that happened. It's part of the reason I'm very much against any Labour-SNP confidence and supply deal.
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 unexpeioctedly 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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
Or it will be like devolution after 1979. The Tories simply say "no" for as long as they remain in Downing Street then when Labour finally get into Downing Street (potentially on the back of SNP votes) they're forced to address this as one of the first things in their in tray.
That's why i said 'or someone'. I think 2024 is most likely, he probably can delay things that long. The political atmosphere will be super toxic post Holyrood elections though, if as seems likely the SNP cleanup.
One issue of course is whether if Scotland did hold a referendum not approved by Westminster and declared independence as a result of it, whether any other countries (and particularly the EU) would recognise that independence.
I just wonder a bit how the Spanish would react, for example.
Because if they don’t, that really would mess with the Scottish economy.
Can't see it being any more successful than the Catalan attempt at UDI.
Although hopefully it would not go the same way.
Message to Johnson, keep Hyufd a long way from the policing aspects.
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?
Yes, it is absolutely a move against Sturgeon.
Cherry wants to be leader. Cherry has a problem though, she is a proxy for Alex Salmond. But with Salmond cleared of all charges there is a significant portion of her base who want the real thing in Big Eck back rather than a figurehead in Cherry.
Combined with the SNP resurging at the 2019 election she finds herself with far less runway and tools to work with. Thus having to come out for a wildcat referendum to shore up her 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.
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.
Aiden's argument, AIUI, is that sovereignty is vested in the Scottish people, not in any Parliament and any Parliament, specifically Westminster, cannot defy that will. It is therefore a breach of Scottish sovereignty to deny the Scottish people a referendum when they have voted for it by having a pro independence majority in Holyrood.
I think it is an argument that has been run in various ways before without any obvious success but a part of the price that we paid for the prorogation decision of the Supreme Court is that the distinction between what is law and what is politics is now blurred to an unprecedented extent. This makes the outcome slightly less predictable.
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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
To be honest, as I expect the SNP to call for a vote in their manifesto, and to win the elections next year, I am also expecting a referendum on independence in 2023.
The only thing I can think of that might prevent it is a formal split in the SNP, with multiple candidates standing against each other.
Not impossible, but not very likely.
Even if Sturgeon wins, and asks for a vote, and Boris agrees (not likely, to my mind, for reasons adduced below), then there are still obstacles to getting a vote.
Not least: the country (or the world?) being in chaos and meltdown, due to post-plague economic Depression. And also Brexit still being played out.
It would be irresponsible, if not bonkers, to call a vote on secession in that climate. It would also risk an indy Scotland (if YES won) being hurled into default, immediately, as a skeptical world pulled the debt plug.
If there is a quick V shaped covid recovery. then maybe. Right now a prolonged slump looks likelier. Sadly.
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.
"Scots alw" - the ancient Scots custom that sanctions open season for hunting Englishmen 24/7 except on Hogmanay when of course Hibernians have better things to do.
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.
Manoeuvres to replace Sturgeon is the actual answer. SNP party members are interested in one thing only: independence. Therefore Cherry needs to say something big on Indyref2. May amount to idle chatter or it may be a big constitutional bust up.
"Scots alw" - the ancient Scots custom that sanctions open season for hunting Englishmen 24/7 except on Hogmanay when of course Hibernians have better things to do.
And Caledonians of course. Though I see why Scots seethe; for one thing, England still has substantial unpaid late fees re: tardy return of Stone of Scone.
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?
Yes, it is absolutely a move against Sturgeon.
Cherry wants to be leader. Cherry has a problem though, she is a proxy for Alex Salmond. But with Salmond cleared of all charges there is a significant portion of her base who want the real thing in Big Eck back rather than a figurehead in Cherry.
Combined with the SNP resurging at the 2019 election she finds herself with far less runway and tools to work with. Thus having to come out for a wildcat referendum to shore up her support.
Thanks. Interesting.
Will be especially interesting to see how Sturgeon responds. I have considerable respect for her energy and judgement, and nobody has ever got rich by betting on her getting things wrong.
But a leadership challenge, even an informal one, is the last thing she needs right now given everything else she has to deal with.
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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
The Quebecois thought they were on an inevitable march to independence. They came very close.
But they failed. And there hasn't been a vote since and a vote doesn't look likely any time soon.
And it might be that is what happens with Sindy. Maybe not. But I think the issue is going to be tested in same way as Quebec.
However, wise move or not, I can see Boris possibly dragging things out until the next GE, assuming his government stays the course as it should have the numbers to do. So I think 2024 is the most likely time for one, with a non-zero chance of it being earlier if he caves (probably if Cummings says just focus on ENgland or something).
I agree there will be a 2nd indyref at some point. The once in a generation argument will exhaust itself.
Latter half of the 2020s would be my bet. More than a decade can be seen as "a generation". PM Starmer will grant it.
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
I did a thread header I believe on this just after the election, its a very serious possibility for next time.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
Labour would be eviscerated at the following GE if that happened. It's part of the reason I'm very much against any Labour-SNP confidence and supply deal.
They may not have a choice in the matter. If the SNP are in a kingmaker position they would 100% demand it and Labour would have no ability to refuse. Just like the Tories had to concede the AV referendum to Clegg.
As a cynical Tory who doesn't believe in the union that's why I think simply refusing the referendum may be the best thing. Cynically just stoke the resentment and leave this as a ticking time bomb to go off when Labour regain power. Though they might pass voting reform or something else then so that could be concerning.
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.
I feel like your sentences contradict each other. You set out an alternative approach even if Holyrood called for one (again). Not one I support, but there's no guarantee they would politically concede at that point, though I suspect they would given the alternative being the Madrid option which most would find unpalatable. But Madrid itself would say their actions are not a disaster for its arrangements, since Catalonia is not and is not likely to be independent, and you can see that argument being made. In fact if HYUFD is on he'll probably make it.
I think Westminster would lack both the ability and the will to send in the stormtroopers like Madrid did, with their more recent history of fascism. Not least because many English would be sympathetic to the Scots. We cannot maintain a Union by force, at least for anything more than the very short term.
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.
I feel like your sentences contradict each other. You set out an alternative approach even if Holyrood called for one (again). Not one I support, but there's no guarantee they would politically concede at that point, though I suspect they would given the alternative being the Madrid option which most would find unpalatable. But Madrid itself would say their actions are not a disaster for its arrangements, since Catalonia is not and is not likely to be independent, and you can see that argument being made. In fact if HYUFD is on he'll probably make it.
I think Westminster would lack both the ability and the will to send in the stormtroopers like Madrid did, with their more recent history of fascism. Not least because many English would be sympathetic to the Scots. We cannot maintain a Union by force, at least for anything more than the very short term.
I agree it would be a bad idea and I don't think they have the will for it, but in the event of, say, a UDI or non sanction referendum, I wouldn't be surprised for more people to suggest it.
In that at least, silly as it is, I think sometimes people dismiss how emotive an issue it will be on this side of the border. Whilst any vote is a matter for those in Scotland (and regrettably I think there should be one), it is not an issue irrelevant to the rest of the Union so when people talk blandly of how others should stay out of things I think that is unreasonable and unfair.
Homeless back on the streets in Edinburgh tonight. This makes me sad.
I suppose they have been turfed out of the hotels they were staying in. If there was one tiny consolation to this horrible epidemic, it was magically a solution could be found to the unsolvable problem of not being able to accommodate homeless people. I know it wasn't altruism; it was fear the rest of us had of being infected by them. But still, the wind that blows no-one any good did, for a while, settle benignly on some very vulnerable people and show that it is possible to sort the immediate problem 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.
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.
He or someone will fold eventually because the problem is how many support Independence and an Independence referendum (the latter not merely being those who support the former). Unless the number who support that decreases, the issue will not go away, and while playing for time to see if support drops is one strategy, it is not working so far and personally I doubt it will in the near future. Meaning eventually there will be a confrontation, or some other stategy to try to decrease support will be needed (eg the high risk 'defeat Indy a second time and hope it then drops as an issue' strategy).
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
The Quebecois thought they were on an inevitable march to independence. They came very close.
But they failed. And there hasn't been a vote since and a vote doesn't look likely any time soon.
And it might be that is what happens with Sindy. Maybe not. But I think the issue is going to be tested in same way as Quebec.
However, wise move or not, I can see Boris possibly dragging things out until the next GE, assuming his government stays the course as it should have the numbers to do. So I think 2024 is the most likely time for one, with a non-zero chance of it being earlier if he caves (probably if Cummings says just focus on ENgland or something).
I agree there will be a 2nd indyref at some point. The once in a generation argument will exhaust itself.
Latter half of the 2020s would be my bet. More than a decade can be seen as "a generation". PM Starmer will grant it.
2030s is my guess.
Easily can be called a Scottish generation
Allows Starmer's successor to grant it after Starmer loses the next election.
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.
Here's the thing.
Uber is just an efficient mini cab service.
The Uber drivers are exactly the same guys who used to work for Swiss Cottage Cars. The only difference is that Uber takes a slightly smaller cut, and customers find their offering much more attractive (no more sitting on hold and explaining where you to a man on the phone and needing to have cash for your journey).
The same rules should apply to Uber, Lyft, Addison Lee, and Swiss Cottage Cars.
That's where it get's difficult as paying a driver directly makes it clear they are self employed, once you centralise payments there is one hell of a problem
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.
Homeless back on the streets in Edinburgh tonight. This makes me sad.
I suppose they have been turfed out of the hotels they were staying in. If there was one tiny consolation to this horrible epidemic, it was magically a solution could be found to the unsolvable problem of not being able to accommodate homeless people. I know it wasn't altruism; it was fear the rest of us had of being infected by them. But still, the wind that blows no-one any good did, for a while, settle benignly on some very vulnerable people and show that it is possible to sort the immediate problem out.
There are aspects of the "return to normal" with which I'm not happy either. We had the opportunity to look at some things and make some changes.
The one profound change which I think will stick is homeworking and all that flows from that.
Homeless back on the streets in Edinburgh tonight. This makes me sad.
I suppose they have been turfed out of the hotels they were staying in. If there was one tiny consolation to this horrible epidemic, it was magically a solution could be found to the unsolvable problem of not being able to accommodate homeless people. I know it wasn't altruism; it was fear the rest of us had of being infected by them. But still, the wind that blows no-one any good did, for a while, settle benignly on some very vulnerable people and show that it is possible to sort the immediate problem out.
That is indeed unfortunate. We have shown that it is possible to sort this. We should not have let the opportunity pass.
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
I did a thread header I believe on this just after the election, its a very serious possibility for next time.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
Labour would be eviscerated at the following GE if that happened. It's part of the reason I'm very much against any Labour-SNP confidence and supply deal.
They may not have a choice in the matter. If the SNP are in a kingmaker position they would 100% demand it and Labour would have no ability to refuse. Just like the Tories had to concede the AV referendum to Clegg.
As a cynical Tory who doesn't believe in the union that's why I think simply refusing the referendum may be the best thing. Cynically just stoke the resentment and leave this as a ticking time bomb to go off when Labour regain power. Though they might pass voting reform or something else then so that could be concerning.
I'm going to be honest here, and say that as a Labour supporter, I'd rather we sought another GE than take power in those circumstances. The SNP would support a Labour government "in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man."
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
I did a thread header I believe on this just after the election, its a very serious possibility for next time.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
Labour would be eviscerated at the following GE if that happened. It's part of the reason I'm very much against any Labour-SNP confidence and supply deal.
They may not have a choice in the matter. If the SNP are in a kingmaker position they would 100% demand it and Labour would have no ability to refuse. Just like the Tories had to concede the AV referendum to Clegg.
As a cynical Tory who doesn't believe in the union that's why I think simply refusing the referendum may be the best thing. Cynically just stoke the resentment and leave this as a ticking time bomb to go off when Labour regain power. Though they might pass voting reform or something else then so that could be concerning.
I'm going to be honest here, and say that as a Labour supporter, I'd rather we sought another GE than take power in those circumstances. The SNP would support a Labour government "in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man."
If the SNP are kingmakers, support Labour in exchange for a Sindy II, and win, wouldn’t that in any case mean Labour were turned out again?
That’s why Novara were advocating the 2/3 majority at Holyrood for a further vote.
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
I did a thread header I believe on this just after the election, its a very serious possibility for next time.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
Labour would be eviscerated at the following GE if that happened. It's part of the reason I'm very much against any Labour-SNP confidence and supply deal.
They may not have a choice in the matter. If the SNP are in a kingmaker position they would 100% demand it and Labour would have no ability to refuse. Just like the Tories had to concede the AV referendum to Clegg.
As a cynical Tory who doesn't believe in the union that's why I think simply refusing the referendum may be the best thing. Cynically just stoke the resentment and leave this as a ticking time bomb to go off when Labour regain power. Though they might pass voting reform or something else then so that could be concerning.
I'm going to be honest here, and say that as a Labour supporter, I'd rather we sought another GE than take power in those circumstances. The SNP would support a Labour government "in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man."
If the SNP are kingmakers, support Labour in exchange for a Sindy II, and win, wouldn’t that in any case mean Labour were turned out again?
That’s why Novara were advocating the 2/3 majority at Holyrood for a further vote.
Were they? I thought Bastani was a supporter of Scottish indy, so I wouldn't havve expected he'd say something like that.
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
I did a thread header I believe on this just after the election, its a very serious possibility for next time.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
Labour would be eviscerated at the following GE if that happened. It's part of the reason I'm very much against any Labour-SNP confidence and supply deal.
They may not have a choice in the matter. If the SNP are in a kingmaker position they would 100% demand it and Labour would have no ability to refuse. Just like the Tories had to concede the AV referendum to Clegg.
As a cynical Tory who doesn't believe in the union that's why I think simply refusing the referendum may be the best thing. Cynically just stoke the resentment and leave this as a ticking time bomb to go off when Labour regain power. Though they might pass voting reform or something else then so that could be concerning.
I'm going to be honest here, and say that as a Labour supporter, I'd rather we sought another GE than take power in those circumstances. The SNP would support a Labour government "in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man."
I think you're right but I can't imagine that working out well for Labour either way. Being able to take power but to refuse it I can't see that playing well and if it becomes a new election on an England v Scotland basis then that could be like 2015 again. I can't see how it plays to Labour's advantage either way.
Again as a cynic why I see no partisan advantage whatsoever to granting a second referendum. Its the right thing to do, it should be granted, for the future of the union it should be granted but for dirty, cynical partisan purposes it shouldn't.
re Brexit, note that in Virginia there is a movement in Blue Ridge, Shenandoah Valley & Alleghany sections in NW VA, to secede from Old Dominion and join up with West Virginia (which was part of VA before Civil War) which is also rural & conservative. Name of this glorious cause? Vexit
Notion of leaving existing state to make your own is as American as cherry pie. Here is WA State, there is perennial but futile agitation for Eastern WA to secede and either be it's own Idaho OR join up with the real thing. Note that east of Cascade Mtns WA is dry desert, irrigated cropland, rural, conservative, in contrast to rainy, maritime, urban, progressive Western WA.
It is so far beyond parody it circles the universe and gives parody a seeing-to from behind
Its this sort of thing that makes a Trump win conceivable.
How is it that the two options that Americans get to choose between are Trump and Biden. It's like a forced choice between syphilis and gonorrhoea.
I agree that it is appalling that a country of 330m couldn't come up with better options than this. But one is amiably dozy the other is deeply malevolent. Its not a hard choice.
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.
Far from obvious that Holyrood elected on circa 50% turnout could even morally override the 2014 Independence Vote which saw almost 85% turnout. A serious attempt to do so could lead to Direct Rule - as happened to Stormont in Spring 1972. Alternatively Westminster might encourage Pro-Union supporters to boycott such a vote - thereby undermining its legitimacy.
re Liberal Democrats, what are their prospects for next GE? Would seem that playing EU card could be politically profitable in the choppy, oily wake of Brexit. One other hand, from these shores (Pacific in my case) LDs look like a one-trick pony. Otherwise, they tend to fall between two stools, like the Labour party just did under brilliant leadership of Yard Gnome.
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.
Far from obvious that Holyrood elected on circa 50% turnout could even morally override the 2014 Independence Vote which saw almost 85% turnout. A serious attempt to do so could lead to Direct Rule - as happened to Stormont in Spring 1972. Alternatively Westminster might encourage Pro-Union supporters to boycott such a vote - thereby undermining its legitimacy.
I see 3 options. (1) Joanna Cherry and her chums manage to force a binding referendum. I think this is vanishingly unlikely but not impossible now that the courts think politics is a game they should play. (2) The Scottish government goes for a "consultative" referendum which unionists will almost certainly boycott. (3) the SNP get a clear majority in the 2021 elections on an express mandate for Indyref 2.
(3) is the only one that works which is why it is Nicola's favoured option. Her being replaced by someone like Cherry would bring some welcome relief to the Unionist cause.
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
I did a thread header I believe on this just after the election, its a very serious possibility for next time.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
Labour would be eviscerated at the following GE if that happened. It's part of the reason I'm very much against any Labour-SNP confidence and supply deal.
They may not have a choice in the matter. If the SNP are in a kingmaker position they would 100% demand it and Labour would have no ability to refuse. Just like the Tories had to concede the AV referendum to Clegg.
As a cynical Tory who doesn't believe in the union that's why I think simply refusing the referendum may be the best thing. Cynically just stoke the resentment and leave this as a ticking time bomb to go off when Labour regain power. Though they might pass voting reform or something else then so that could be concerning.
I'm going to be honest here, and say that as a Labour supporter, I'd rather we sought another GE than take power in those circumstances. The SNP would support a Labour government "in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man."
If the SNP are kingmakers, support Labour in exchange for a Sindy II, and win, wouldn’t that in any case mean Labour were turned out again?
That’s why Novara were advocating the 2/3 majority at Holyrood for a further vote.
Were they? I thought Bastani was a supporter of Scottish indy, so I wouldn't havve expected he'd say something like that.
It wasn’t the egregious Dr Peters-Bastani himself. It was one of his guests, Tom Kibasi. See here at 6.14.00 (worth going from 6.10.00) https://youtu.be/H3RQWEziIKw
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.
I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
It is so far beyond parody it circles the universe and gives parody a seeing-to from behind
Its this sort of thing that makes a Trump win conceivable.
How is it that the two options that Americans get to choose between are Trump and Biden. It's like a forced choice between syphilis and gonorrhoea.
I agree that it is appalling that a country of 330m couldn't come up with better options than this. But one is amiably dozy the other is deeply malevolent. Its not a hard choice.
It's a sad choice, if you think America has grave problems that need fixing fast.
Dozy Joe Biden doesn't feel like a man to sort it all out. He'll probably try and grope China thinking it's an intern.
On the other hand, a 2nd term Trump might actually try and sell America to China, so, yes, it has to be Biden.
Comments
@HYUFD will correct me if I'm wrong but Hoover's defeat in 1932 remains the heaviest suffered by any incumbent President to date.
FDR won 57-40 and 472-59 in the Electoral College, a significant landslide (not as big as Nixon's in 1972 or Reagan's in 1984 admittedly).
Absolutely I 100% agree if he does that then it means when the referendum is eventually held it will be more likely to be a Yes - but it will also be someone else's problem.
If Boris wants to save the union he should agree to the referendum.
If Boris wants to be selfish and not have this issue dog his time as PM he shouldn't.
Which do you think it will be?
Anyway I must go , some wild salmon to be done on the BBQ.
Also responsible for that other NO classic "wop salad" which don't know if they still call it that; when I first saw "wop salad" on a menu damn near fell out of my chair!
Maybe best thing about New Orleans and South Louisiana is this: you can eat high or low, you know it will be GOOOOOOOOD, IF making shortish visit, stick to the CLASSICS. For example, po-boy (oyster & shrimp are best) should be "dressed" with lettuce, tomato, mayo with ketchup and Tabasco sauce to taste. NOTHING ELSE unless you want to miss out on the real thing.
You are completely obsessed
That’s to leave aside the fact that refusing it under such circumstances could - and should - be considered a breach of Scotland’s right to self-determination.
1. As in Northern Ireland, not far short of half of the population of Scotland wants rid of the Union, and a large fraction of that is passionate about the cause. Even if the necessary 50%+1 for separation can't be found straight away, those kinds of numbers are terminally destabilising
2. For all of the Scots in favour of outright independence, and probably a good few on top of that who aren't, the "Governments we didn't vote for" argument is salient. Even those who see continued advantage in some form of political union don't like being under a Conservative Government picked by English voters very much
3. Conversely, the continued presence of a large bloc of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons presents a serious constitutional problem. The prospect exists of a future Westminster Government, which for 80% of the time effectively now functions as the English Government, being run by a minority faction of English MPs propped up by Scottish votes. It also creates the ridiculous prospect of said Government negotiating independence with Scotland whilst simultaneously being reliant for its existence on the backing of Scottish MPs
My own preference (given that support for Scottish secession seems highly unlikely to subside, and there is no realistic prospect of the Union being remodelled as a federal arrangement with an English Parliament,) would be for independence for Scotland and the subsequent reunification of Ireland. England and Wales could then sit down and have an adult conversation about whether they would like to construct a new British state or go their separate ways.
I know last time they sided with the Scottish court, but this is a much more clear-cut case.
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.
*********************
Well if it's doomed it's doomed, and Boris might as well try his luck anyway, refuse a vote, and hope that something happens by 2024 or whenever, and the SNP fall from power. Miracle: Union saved.
Your position has no political logic.
Boris could also kick indyref into the long grass by saying "No, there won't be another vote, but I will call a Royal Commission to seek a final Federal Settlement for all four nations, up to and including Devomax"
A lot of less angry Scots might breathe a sigh of relief at that. Polls show many don't want a vote, not yet
I just wonder a bit how the Spanish would react, for example.
Because if they don’t, that really would mess with the Scottish economy.
After three years of this happy-crap, nobody believed anything he said, even went it was (very rarely) true. Not even the rock-ribbed Republicans who clinched their teeth and voted for him anyway in 1932.
Either way, things will get increasingly fraught, the SNP will if denied despite being so popular try increasingly extreme political measures, and sooner or later conceding a referendum will be the easiest, though risky, path remaining.
He's worse than David James.
A Tory majority in England, but not the UK - leading to a Labour PM but the Opposition having a majority when it comes to English votes is a very serious possibility next time. It would be a constitutional nightmare.
Uber is just an efficient mini cab service.
The Uber drivers are exactly the same guys who used to work for Swiss Cottage Cars. The only difference is that Uber takes a slightly smaller cut, and customers find their offering much more attractive (no more sitting on hold and explaining where you to a man on the phone and needing to have cash for your journey).
The same rules should apply to Uber, Lyft, Addison Lee, and Swiss Cottage Cars.
The only thing I can think of that might prevent it is a formal split in the SNP, with multiple candidates standing against each other.
Not impossible, but not very likely.
Edit - On dates, Oddschecker show offers of 1/7 on 2021 or later which is free money, and 14/5 on 2023 which looks a touch long to me. I’d put it at 2/1. So there’s value there.
But they failed. And there hasn't been a vote since and a vote doesn't look likely any time soon.
However, wise move or not, I can see Boris possibly dragging things out until the next GE, assuming his government stays the course as it should have the numbers to do. So I think 2024 is the most likely time for one, with a non-zero chance of it being earlier if he caves (probably if Cummings says just focus on ENgland or something).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Message to Johnson, keep Hyufd a long way from the policing aspects.
Cherry wants to be leader.
Cherry has a problem though, she is a proxy for Alex Salmond. But with Salmond cleared of all charges there is a significant portion of her base who want the real thing in Big Eck back rather than a figurehead in Cherry.
Combined with the SNP resurging at the 2019 election she finds herself with far less runway and tools to work with. Thus having to come out for a wildcat referendum to shore up her support.
I think it is an argument that has been run in various ways before without any obvious success but a part of the price that we paid for the prorogation decision of the Supreme Court is that the distinction between what is law and what is politics is now blurred to an unprecedented extent. This makes the outcome slightly less predictable.
Not least: the country (or the world?) being in chaos and meltdown, due to post-plague economic Depression. And also Brexit still being played out.
It would be irresponsible, if not bonkers, to call a vote on secession in that climate. It would also risk an indy Scotland (if YES won) being hurled into default, immediately, as a skeptical world pulled the debt plug.
If there is a quick V shaped covid recovery. then maybe. Right now a prolonged slump looks likelier. Sadly.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
Will be especially interesting to see how Sturgeon responds. I have considerable respect for her energy and judgement, and nobody has ever got rich by betting on her getting things wrong.
But a leadership challenge, even an informal one, is the last thing she needs right now given everything else she has to deal with.
Latter half of the 2020s would be my bet. More than a decade can be seen as "a generation". PM Starmer will grant it.
As a cynical Tory who doesn't believe in the union that's why I think simply refusing the referendum may be the best thing. Cynically just stoke the resentment and leave this as a ticking time bomb to go off when Labour regain power. Though they might pass voting reform or something else then so that could be concerning.
In that at least, silly as it is, I think sometimes people dismiss how emotive an issue it will be on this side of the border. Whilst any vote is a matter for those in Scotland (and regrettably I think there should be one), it is not an issue irrelevant to the rest of the Union so when people talk blandly of how others should stay out of things I think that is unreasonable and unfair.
I suppose they have been turfed out of the hotels they were staying in. If there was one tiny consolation to this horrible epidemic, it was magically a solution could be found to the unsolvable problem of not being able to accommodate homeless people. I know it wasn't altruism; it was fear the rest of us had of being infected by them. But still, the wind that blows no-one any good did, for a while, settle benignly on some very vulnerable people and show that it is possible to sort the immediate problem out.
Easily can be called a Scottish generation
Allows Starmer's successor to grant it after Starmer loses the next election.
Addison Lee from memory are now regarded as workers rather than self employed see https://www.zoom.taxi/addison-lee-must-classify-drivers-as-workers-court-rules/ . That is where the VAT issue ultimately stems from.
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20
The one profound change which I think will stick is homeworking and all that flows from that.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1278399239920418816?s=20
That’s why Novara were advocating the 2/3 majority at Holyrood for a further vote.
Again as a cynic why I see no partisan advantage whatsoever to granting a second referendum. Its the right thing to do, it should be granted, for the future of the union it should be granted but for dirty, cynical partisan purposes it shouldn't.
Here are links pro & con re: Vexit
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/get-to-know-vexit-a-really-bad-idea.html
Notion of leaving existing state to make your own is as American as cherry pie. Here is WA State, there is perennial but futile agitation for Eastern WA to secede and either be it's own Idaho OR join up with the real thing. Note that east of Cascade Mtns WA is dry desert, irrigated cropland, rural, conservative, in contrast to rainy, maritime, urban, progressive Western WA.
But yes, just seen Romney. Also a good shout!
www.vexit2020.org
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1253474772702429189
(1) Joanna Cherry and her chums manage to force a binding referendum. I think this is vanishingly unlikely but not impossible now that the courts think politics is a game they should play.
(2) The Scottish government goes for a "consultative" referendum which unionists will almost certainly boycott.
(3) the SNP get a clear majority in the 2021 elections on an express mandate for Indyref 2.
(3) is the only one that works which is why it is Nicola's favoured option. Her being replaced by someone like Cherry would bring some welcome relief to the Unionist cause.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
Dozy Joe Biden doesn't feel like a man to sort it all out. He'll probably try and grope China thinking it's an intern.
On the other hand, a 2nd term Trump might actually try and sell America to China, so, yes, it has to be Biden.
If Trump suddenly retires, tho....