It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
Absolutely Westminster is supreme if you wish to say that Scotland is not sovereign and not equal.
That is not what Charles was saying. We all know you view Scotland as a subordinate part of the UK that you'd be prepared to send Stormtroopers too in order to prevent dissent. But for people who claim to respect Scotland or view it as "an equal partner" then that is a different matter.
Westminster could have as many referenda on Europe as it wanted as it was a sovereign independent power. Scotland is not but if people wish to say it is then they should afford Scots the same right.
What do you mean - if someone "wishes to say" that Scotland is not sovereign?
Scotland is NOT sovereign. This is a fact.
Legally or ethically?
Sovereignty is a bit of a myth though, a polite fiction. Hence phrases like "popular sovereignty" or "parliamentary sovereignty".
One could say the UK was 'always sovereign' in the EU because we could choose to leave, if one wishes to say that Scotland is sovereign within the UK because they choose to remain and could choose to leave then they must be permitted to choose whether to remain or leave.
If you're prepared to say the Scots have no right to demand to leave democratically then you are explicitly saying the Scottish people are not sovereign or an equal partner.
I'll stay out of the ethics for these purposes because I'm talking about the legal situation.
The UK is a sovereign state. Hence it required no permission from anybody to hold a vote on whether to leave the EU. Scotland is not a sovereign state. Therefore it requires the permission of the UK parliament (Westminster) to hold a vote on whether to leave the UK.
So would England. So would Wales and NI - although in the latter case the permission has been granted in advance via the GFA if certain conditions are met.
So - legally - Scotland is not sovereign but it IS an equal partner (in this respect) since the other constituent parts of the UK are also not sovereign.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
Among the things which would be excellent but won't happen is the Tories going into a 2024 election on a manifesto promise to abolish the Scottish parliament altogether and return to a proper union. Scotland has the same population as Yorkshire. In the total UK political sphere Scotland is acting and being treated as if it's as important as the USA or China, while Yorkshire (for example) is just a region of local interest only.
England would give strong support to a Tory party promising proper parity to Scotland.
Personally I would prefer an English Parliament in a Federal UK to scrapping Holyrood but some Tories would prefer to scrap Holyrood and Cardiff Bay and return to the Union as originally intended. The 'Abolish the Welsh Assembly' parry is standing in the Welsh elections next year for example
The asymmetric devolution is a huge part of the problem. The issue is how we resolve the situation in a way that doesn’t create the cost of hundreds of extra politicians in an English Parliament.
The way I’d probably do it initially, is to reduce the current HoC to a Senate of two or three members per county, with the English Parliament (and associated departments) all moved somewhere like Birmingham.
On topic, inevitable? Getting close to that I think. The timescale is still highly uncertain. As a non-resident Scot I don't have a vote, but I would have voted No in 2014 and would vote Yes now. Scotland is its own country and needs to forge its own way in the world, free from the death grip of Westminster politics.
Allow me to run that through PB translate:
'Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit. Scotland is its own Brexit, and Brexit Brexit, free from Brexit, Brexit Brexit. And whilst I'm on the Brexit, Brexit.'
It will come down to whether he knew the pornographer Richard Desmond was Jewish or not. As he is usually described as a pornographer not much attention has been given to his religion.
And whether he knew that the puppet-master metaphor is now regarded as an antisemitic trope.
From a way previous post re the LD election contest.
If the LDs want to have any chance of breaking through to become a major credible force, then they need to take a (big) risk and go with Moran. I think there is a decent chance that, under SKS, the Labour leadership manages to p1ss a number of its more left wing activists, members and even MPs who are excited by Israel / Palestine, Black Lives Matter, the environment etc as it strives to recover WWC votes in the North and Midlands. A Moran-led LD party could be a natural home for many of these types (and would fit in with much of the LD rank and file) and it could mean that the LDs, not Labour, becomes the natural home for liberal graduates / professionals which could be quite meaningful.
Yes, that loses them socially liberal Tory-style seats but, quite frankly, going down that route just leads them to being a perpetual minor party that, if push came to shove, would have to join up with the Tories in a coalition.
Of the top 50 LD target seats just 4 are held by Labour, the vast majority are held by the Tories.
It is Tory Remain voters they need to win seats not Labour voters who are largely tactically voting for them anyway.
That means Davey not Moran
Pro-Remain Tory seats are a cul-de-sac. It means the LD being boxed into a corner of being socially liberal but conservative enough financially to attract those voters. The problem is that, once you strip out Brexit (which will go away), the Conservative party is actually quite liberal in many ways (and certainly a bit more diverse than the LDs).
Far more room on the left. Easy to see a Moran-led LD party / Greens / Labour left combining forces
From a way previous post re the LD election contest.
If the LDs want to have any chance of breaking through to become a major credible force, then they need to take a (big) risk and go with Moran. I think there is a decent chance that, under SKS, the Labour leadership manages to p1ss a number of its more left wing activists, members and even MPs who are excited by Israel / Palestine, Black Lives Matter, the environment etc as it strives to recover WWC votes in the North and Midlands. A Moran-led LD party could be a natural home for many of these types (and would fit in with much of the LD rank and file) and it could mean that the LDs, not Labour, becomes the natural home for liberal graduates / professionals which could be quite meaningful.
Yes, that loses them socially liberal Tory-style seats but, quite frankly, going down that route just leads them to being a perpetual minor party that, if push came to shove, would have to join up with the Tories in a coalition.
There's the Greens in that space too, though, remember. And they have serious potential upside if you look at how they perform in some other Western European countries.
See comment to HYFUD - easy to see a Moran-led LD party combining, formally or not, with the Greens.
From a way previous post re the LD election contest.
If the LDs want to have any chance of breaking through to become a major credible force, then they need to take a (big) risk and go with Moran. I think there is a decent chance that, under SKS, the Labour leadership manages to p1ss a number of its more left wing activists, members and even MPs who are excited by Israel / Palestine, Black Lives Matter, the environment etc as it strives to recover WWC votes in the North and Midlands. A Moran-led LD party could be a natural home for many of these types (and would fit in with much of the LD rank and file) and it could mean that the LDs, not Labour, becomes the natural home for liberal graduates / professionals which could be quite meaningful.
Yes, that loses them socially liberal Tory-style seats but, quite frankly, going down that route just leads them to being a perpetual minor party that, if push came to shove, would have to join up with the Tories in a coalition.
Of the top 50 LD target seats just 4 are held by Labour, the vast majority are held by the Tories.
It is Tory Remain voters they need to win seats not Labour voters who are largely tactically voting for them anyway.
That means Davey not Moran
Pro-Remain Tory seats are a cul-de-sac. It means the LD being boxed into a corner of being socially liberal but conservative enough financially to attract those voters. The problem is that, once you strip out Brexit (which will go away), the Conservative party is actually quite liberal in many ways (and certainly a bit more diverse than the LDs).
Far more room on the left. Easy to see a Moran-led LD party / Greens / Labour left combining forces
Not to win seats, the LDs are far more likely to win seats from the Tories in Surrey and Hampshire and Sussex and the posh parts of London now than they are to win seats from Labour in Liverpool and Manchester and East London.
As you point out the Greens already offer a home for voters who want an alternative left of Starmer Labour, the LDs are supposed to be the centrist party
Stopped three times. Once for 90 on an empty three lane dual carriageway at midnight (fair cop, although annoying as you do the same speed on most motorways most of the time and not get nicked. Other one - missed the turn off a round a bout, checked it was safe, indicated and went round again. Cops thought I was taking the piss. Breathalysed negative. Off you go sir. Last one, car in outside lane of dual carriageway, nothing on the inside. Didn't want to undertake, so stayed behind. Got flashed by a car behind, close up the arse. dabbed my brakes to indicate back off, so the unmarked plod pulls me over to bollock me. I felt he took was driving poorly (hence I suspect why nothing further happened). All because the car in front was driving poorly...
Going around if you miss your exit - or if you’re in any doubt as to whether you’ll make your exit - is exactly the correct way to behave.
Accidents on roundabouts and motorways usually happen because someone swerves at the last minute, realising they’re about to go the wrong way.
Pilots get taught this very early in their training - if in doubt, go around, and if you are questioning whether you are in doubt, then you are.
I think the plod thought I had seen them and was taking the p!ss. I wasn't, just in driving home mode, not to my friends house. They were fine about it.
On topic, inevitable? Getting close to that I think. The timescale is still highly uncertain. As a non-resident Scot I don't have a vote, but I would have voted No in 2014 and would vote Yes now. Scotland is its own country and needs to forge its own way in the world, free from the death grip of Westminster politics.
Allow me to run that through PB translate:
'Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit. Scotland is its own Brexit, and Brexit Brexit, free from Brexit, Brexit Brexit. And whilst I'm on the Brexit, Brexit.'
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Comments
The UK is a sovereign state. Hence it required no permission from anybody to hold a vote on whether to leave the EU. Scotland is not a sovereign state. Therefore it requires the permission of the UK parliament (Westminster) to hold a vote on whether to leave the UK.
So would England. So would Wales and NI - although in the latter case the permission has been granted in advance via the GFA if certain conditions are met.
So - legally - Scotland is not sovereign but it IS an equal partner (in this respect) since the other constituent parts of the UK are also not sovereign.
The way I’d probably do it initially, is to reduce the current HoC to a Senate of two or three members per county, with the English Parliament (and associated departments) all moved somewhere like Birmingham.
'Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit Brexit. Scotland is its own Brexit, and Brexit Brexit, free from Brexit, Brexit Brexit. And whilst I'm on the Brexit, Brexit.'
NEW THREAD
Far more room on the left. Easy to see a Moran-led LD party / Greens / Labour left combining forces
As you point out the Greens already offer a home for voters who want an alternative left of Starmer Labour, the LDs are supposed to be the centrist party
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.