So just so I am clear, the latest, greatest theory is that this government is doomed by its own incompetence because it tried to fix the chairmanship of a Parliamentary committee and seems to have made a mess of it?
Does anyone seriously think that anyone not obsessed with politics and not thoroughly committed to their team will even notice? Anyone at all?
We have had a link to the fact that 1/3rd of the companies in the country are looking at redundancies post furlough. Its not so much wood from the trees as matchsticks to giant sequoias. We face the worst economic crisis in any of our life times. The success or failure of this government will be measured by how bad that gets. Nothing else matters.
Not so fast. There often isn't a single smoking gun that changes the climate of opinion. It is the steady drip of stuff showing what a faction is made of. There is probably no one piece of hard data proving beyond reasonable doubt that Jezza is an authoritarian Marxist who loves Assad and Hamas better than Israel, and supports our greatest enemies while intensely disliking his own country. The case is made cumulatively by strand after strand of words, actions and behaviours, every one individually deniable and denied.
Same here. There is a dangerous possibility that Boris's critics are correct; that DC + Boris is a toxic mixture of narcissism, bullying and authoritarianism. For most people the jury is still out. I suspect the day of opinion shifting may be drawing closer.
I think that the public is certain that SKS is not a Marxist, not an authoritarian, is a democrat, is a moderate within the Overton window and is not a narcissist. It's a decent start.
With respect this is a good description of politics as usual. We are about to fall off the map.
Quite right. If I had a crystal ball as well the bookies would be bankrupt. I predict that the future is unpredictable, has no map - as you say - and won't be dull.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
It has been ever thus but HMG in 2021/22 must lance the boil, grant the referendum, and go out and win it
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
Mrs Thatcher and Mr Forsyth would not approve of this specimen of modern Conservatism and UNionism (no, not you, but HYUFD).
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Why pick a discipline fight over something you had no business doing in the first place ? Party discipline is of course necessary, but completely out of place here.
What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.
If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.
I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?
Being the only one with prior experience of the committee does seem useful for the chair.
He seems like the better pick to me to chair the committee to be frank.
A plank would be better than Grayling , question is how thick and spineless are the 4 Tory MP's who voted for Grayling.
Who are these thick and spineless Conservative MPs? I think we should be told.
5 part documentary on thatcher to watch just to track down a quote. Don't know if I have the fortitude for it.
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Thatcher belongs to an era 3 decades or more ago. I suspect such a quote would emanate from her time as LOTO in the context of the 1978 Sindyref, opposing the principle of referendums.
While political history matters, no one is a oracle that speaks for all times and places.
Devolution referendum, in 1978, to be more precise, and one that is still of interest as an example of how not to do it (the dead voted No, etc.).
Edit: but your poiont stands. To demand a'generation' between polls is exactly the sort of thing that your point shows up. Situations change far more than some minds do.
Begum to be allowed by Court of Appeal back in to run her case against removal of citizenship.
Interesting to speculate what, if anything, is the government's reason for this farrago as the government are 99.9% certain to lose in the courts after a long battle. May is just be to indicate to these dreadful people that they are going to have to fight every inch through the courts, making HR lawyers rich and the taxpayer poor?
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament.
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.
If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.
I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?
Being the only one with prior experience of the committee does seem useful for the chair.
He seems like the better pick to me to chair the committee to be frank.
A plank would be better than Grayling , question is how thick and spineless are the 4 Tory MP's who voted for Grayling.
Who are these thick and spineless Conservative MPs? I think we should be told.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
It has been ever thus but HMG in 2021/22 must lance the boil, grant the referendum, and go out and win it
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
Mrs Thatcher and Mr Forsyth would not approve of this specimen of modern Conservatism and UNionism (no, not you, but HYUFD).
Both Thatcher and Forsyth opposed Scottish devolution and would never have created Holyrood in the first place, the SNP only won most seats in Scotland once they could use Holyrood to boost their profile and Scottish nationalism.
However Blair did and we have to live with it but that does not mean giving the SNP an indyref every time they win most seats at a Scottish election
Mr. Carnyx, wryly amused to hear a Scottish nationalist argue that the words of Margaret Thatcher should determine Scotland's destiny rather than the decision made by the Scottish people.
[Also, the existence of Holyrood does rather change things].
The pharma industry is unusually aware of public opinion and optics on this one.
Allowing even the idea that they won't pull their weight and might seek to profiteer from a vaccine to take hold, will sink every company that goes down that route.
What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.
Is it a crime under the Junta to speak to MP's of other parties
I’m reading about the first Junta now. I’d always vaguely assumed it was Argentinian as a term (it is Spanish derived) but the original OBE was the Warwick-Bedford alliance against Charles I.
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament.
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
Not sure that is the legal situation although that should be the way it does work. Article 1 of the 1707 Act of Union, Scottish version, goes as follows and seems definitive:
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN:
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament.
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
Legally, weren't the two countries united into one? Therefore surely it's for the UK as a whole to decide?
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
The two big risks I see are firstly that governments are gambling on specific vaccines by buying massive numbers of doses ahead of trial or approval. There will be huge pressure to approve these vaccines on possibly inconclusive trial data. They will then apply this vaccine on entire populations in short order. They have one chance to get this right. If there are any adverse effects at all, they will show up after the population has been vaccinated and will be in large absolute numbers, even if the proportion of affected patients is small.
The second risk is that if people get a whiff of any short-cuts being made to the safety regime, they will refuse to vaccinate and the programme will fail, even if the vaccine is actually safe.
Governments have made several different large bets on vaccines, though, and at the outset contemplated the possibility they might have to scrap large amounts of vaccine produced in advance of PIII trial results. I don't think there's any prospect of our going for whole of population vaccination with any given vaccine until it has been used in largish post approval trials. (The UK alone, for example, has the Imperial vaccine being produced in quantity as a backup plan, and there are multiple programs gearing up for bulk production globally.)
Getting it right won't be a simple matter, but it has at least been thought through.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
It has been ever thus but HMG in 2021/22 must lance the boil, grant the referendum, and go out and win it
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
Mrs Thatcher and Mr Forsyth would not approve of this specimen of modern Conservatism and UNionism (no, not you, but HYUFD).
Few genuine conservatives should support blocking another indy though I expect the SNP will make 2021 Holyrood election a mandate to call for it and it would probably take upto 12 months to pass all the ligitimate stages including the campaigns for the result
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Why pick a discipline fight over something you had no business doing in the first place ? Party discipline is of course necessary, but completely out of place here.
If he lied to the chief whip - the chief whip says he did; Lewis said he “made no commitment to back Grayling” - then the whip had no choice
I suspect Lewis used some weasel wording “of course I want a Tory to be chairman” or something that misled the chief whip
What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.
Is it a crime under the Junta to speak to MP's of other parties
I’m reading about the first Junta now. I’d always vaguely assumed it was Argentinian as a term (it is Spanish derived) but the original OBE was the Warwick-Bedford alliance against Charles I.
I'd always assumed it was on Oxford dining society...
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Why pick a discipline fight over something you had no business doing in the first place ? Party discipline is of course necessary, but completely out of place here.
If he lied to the chief whip - the chief whip says he did; Lewis said he “made no commitment to back Grayling” - then the whip had no choice
I suspect Lewis used some weasel wording “of course I want a Tory to be chairman” or something that misled the chief whip
The chief whip ought never to have asked in the first place.
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament.
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
Legally, weren't the two countries united into one? Therefore surely it's for the UK as a whole to decide?
Doesn't really matter as Sturgeon has publicly made it clear there won't be a referendum without a Section 30 order from Westminster. There are moves to explore the legal situation and see if Scot Parl can go solo but no-one seriously expects that to go anywhere.
There are muttering in SNP ranks about this but anything other than a Westminster sanctioned referendum is dead in the water. Unionists would mass boycott, the result would fail to win international recognition (imagine Spain's reaction) and it would bring the "cause" into disrepute. We are years away from any possible referendum.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
They won't be appeased even then. It's an external solution to an internal problem.
When someone wants a divorce, what do they really want? To be heard. To be respected. To be treated as an equal. To be understood. To be needed. These core desires are really what needs to be addressed, not the form they take politically.
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament.
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
Legally, weren't the two countries united into one? Therefore surely it's for the UK as a whole to decide?
Doesn't really matter as Sturgeon has publicly made it clear there won't be a referendum without a Section 30 order from Westminster. There are moves to explore the legal situation and see if Scot Parl can go solo but no-one seriously expects that to go anywhere.
There are muttering in SNP ranks about this but anything other than a Westminster sanctioned referendum is dead in the water. Unionists would mass boycott, the result would fail to win international recognition (imagine Spain's reaction) and it would bring the "cause" into disrepute. We are years away from any possible referendum.
I was countering the equal partner claim. The two countries ceased to exist with the passing of the act of union.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
The two big risks I see are firstly that governments are gambling on specific vaccines by buying massive numbers of doses ahead of trial or approval. There will be huge pressure to approve these vaccines on possibly inconclusive trial data. They will then apply this vaccine on entire populations in short order. They have one chance to get this right. If there are any adverse effects at all, they will show up after the population has been vaccinated and will be in large absolute numbers, even if the proportion of affected patients is small.
The second risk is that if people get a whiff of any short-cuts being made to the safety regime, they will refuse to vaccinate and the programme will fail, even if the vaccine is actually safe.
Serious question - have you ever been diagnosed with anhedonia? We finally get some pretty good news about a vaccine for this virus which is destroying lives and the economy and all you can see are negatives for the country. Not that we potentially have 30m doses of a vaccine that has a solid chance of working by the end of September, or that there is a t-cell immune response which means it could give long lasting immunity, or that the phase 1/2 safety trials have been successful?
All you can see is a possible gamble that might go wrong. It's a little bit odd.
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament.
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
Legally, weren't the two countries united into one? Therefore surely it's for the UK as a whole to decide?
Rochdale Pioneers position is I am afraid nonsense. Of course it is not for England to dictate. How could it? England is not even a parish council let alone a state. The state is the UK of Great Britain and NI. Once the union has lawfully occurred they are no longer states recognisable in international law. Only the parliament of the United Kingdom can alter this. Neither England nor Scotland can simultaneously give away a power and keep it. (Something BTW which EU enthusiasts, along with King Lear, will ultimately discover.)
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
The two big risks I see are firstly that governments are gambling on specific vaccines by buying massive numbers of doses ahead of trial or approval. There will be huge pressure to approve these vaccines on possibly inconclusive trial data. They will then apply this vaccine on entire populations in short order. They have one chance to get this right. If there are any adverse effects at all, they will show up after the population has been vaccinated and will be in large absolute numbers, even if the proportion of affected patients is small.
The second risk is that if people get a whiff of any short-cuts being made to the safety regime, they will refuse to vaccinate and the programme will fail, even if the vaccine is actually safe.
Governments have made several different large bets on vaccines, though, and at the outset contemplated the possibility they might have to scrap large amounts of vaccine produced in advance of PIII trial results. I don't think there's any prospect of our going for whole of population vaccination with any given vaccine until it has been used in largish post approval trials. (The UK alone, for example, has the Imperial vaccine being produced in quantity as a backup plan, and there are multiple programs gearing up for bulk production globally.)
Getting it right won't be a simple matter, but it has at least been thought through.
Hopefully they get it right. We need this vaccine.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
The two big risks I see are firstly that governments are gambling on specific vaccines by buying massive numbers of doses ahead of trial or approval. There will be huge pressure to approve these vaccines on possibly inconclusive trial data. They will then apply this vaccine on entire populations in short order. They have one chance to get this right. If there are any adverse effects at all, they will show up after the population has been vaccinated and will be in large absolute numbers, even if the proportion of affected patients is small.
The second risk is that if people get a whiff of any short-cuts being made to the safety regime, they will refuse to vaccinate and the programme will fail, even if the vaccine is actually safe.
Serious question - have you ever been diagnosed with anhedonia? We finally get some pretty good news about a vaccine for this virus which is destroying lives and the economy and all you can see are negatives for the country. Not that we potentially have 30m doses of a vaccine that has a solid chance of working by the end of September, or that there is a t-cell immune response which means it could give long lasting immunity, or that the phase 1/2 safety trials have been successful?
All you can see is a possible gamble that might go wrong. It's a little bit odd.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
The SNP weren't elected with a "mandate for independence" though. Their manifesto commitment was NOT independence but a second referendum on independence.
Would they have won had they argued for straight independence, or are they too reliant on moderates who aren't convinced by independence but want a strong Scottish voice in Westminster? Not sure.
I think the underlying point by Thatcher is wrong anyway, by the way, as there are three unionist parties and one nationalist (two with the Greens) so, with FPTP, it's relatively easy to see that getting a majority of MPs doesn't mean there's a nationalist majority, even if it weren't for the point that the nationalist manifesto wasn't actually all out independence as a pitch to the centre.
Begum to be allowed by Court of Appeal back in to run her case against removal of citizenship.
Interesting to speculate what, if anything, is the government's reason for this farrago as the government are 99.9% certain to lose in the courts after a long battle. May is just be to indicate to these dreadful people that they are going to have to fight every inch through the courts, making HR lawyers rich and the taxpayer poor?
This is a big issue for Johnson and Co potentially.
His government rests on the notion that it is possible in Britain to elect a government that isn;t Blairite in tone.
"The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine"
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Yes, the issue wasn't that he stood, it was the conspiracy with the Opposition MPs on the committee to ambush the will of the government on the issue. That's always going to lead to a sacking when the govt have a clear majority, if only to send a smoke signal to others.
Give it a few months, and he'll come to see the Chief Whip and beg to be let back in.
Meanwhile, a majority of 79 still isn't too much of a problem.
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Thatcher belongs to an era 3 decades or more ago.
She towers over anyone since though, and almost everyone before. She was good at, and interested in, governing, but also good at winning elections. So I think what she said is still relevant, even if it is not Gospel.
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Yes, the issue wasn't that he stood, it was the conspiracy with the Opposition MPs on the committee to ambush the will of the government on the issue. That's always going to lead to a sacking when the govt have a clear majority, if only to send a smoke signal to others.
Give it a few months, and he'll come to see the Chief Whip and beg to be let back in.
Meanwhile, a majority of 79 still isn't too much of a problem.
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
I'd suggest that, following the Clinton email scandal, most senior politicians are MUCH more cautious on use of relatively insecure electronic communications.
I'd be very surprised if Biden was saying anything at all, or at least anything he'd mind being published, on Twitter DMs. If he was then more fool him.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament.
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
Legally, weren't the two countries united into one? Therefore surely it's for the UK as a whole to decide?
No. Its like marriage. Two people join together to create a family. Whilst other members of the family clearly have a say, if my wife decided to divorce me that is for her to decide and I can't veto it. Scotland entered into Union with England to create Great Britain then the UK. England may not like Scotland leaving. But it was Scotland who signed the act of union and Scotland who can dissolve it.
Compared to other places this is pretty unique - a union on equal terms. Wales cannot declare independence without our permission because its parliament only has the powers granted to it by the UK and had no other powers before and did not get to choose its place in the UK as it was subjugated by England.
Here is reality. If Scotland wants to leave rUK cannot stop it. Scotland elects a massive majority of SNP MSPs on a manifesto of independence. Holds its referendum whether we like the idea or not. Votes for independence. rUK cannot cross its arms stamp its feet and say "shant" AND the issue just goes away. If Scotland wants to reclaim its sovereignty we cannot stop it.
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Yes, the issue wasn't that he stood, it was the conspiracy with the Opposition MPs on the committee to ambush the will of the government on the issue. That's always going to lead to a sacking when the govt have a clear majority, if only to send a smoke signal to others.
Give it a few months, and he'll come to see the Chief Whip and beg to be let back in.
Meanwhile, a majority of 79 still isn't too much of a problem.
78?
But the main outcome is that the committe has a decent chair not Mr Fayling.
"The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine"
roll up, roll up, for the shitpost of the day
It was, even the team say so. That disease X happened to be in the same family as something they already had a working vaccine for was luck. It's not like they started working on the MERS vaccine because they know COVID was coming.
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament.
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
Legally, weren't the two countries united into one? Therefore surely it's for the UK as a whole to decide?
No. Its like marriage. Two people join together to create a family. Whilst other members of the family clearly have a say, if my wife decided to divorce me that is for her to decide and I can't veto it. Scotland entered into Union with England to create Great Britain then the UK. England may not like Scotland leaving. But it was Scotland who signed the act of union and Scotland who can dissolve it.
Compared to other places this is pretty unique - a union on equal terms. Wales cannot declare independence without our permission because its parliament only has the powers granted to it by the UK and had no other powers before and did not get to choose its place in the UK as it was subjugated by England.
Here is reality. If Scotland wants to leave rUK cannot stop it. Scotland elects a massive majority of SNP MSPs on a manifesto of independence. Holds its referendum whether we like the idea or not. Votes for independence. rUK cannot cross its arms stamp its feet and say "shant" AND the issue just goes away. If Scotland wants to reclaim its sovereignty we cannot stop it.
That's not legally speaking though. That's sentimentally speaking.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
"The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine"
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
And so were many of the Yazidi girls sold into sex slavery by ISIS. I'm with the victims on this one.
"The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine"
roll up, roll up, for the shitpost of the day
It was, even the team say so. That disease X happened to be in the same family as something they already had a working vaccine for was luck. It's not like they started working on the MERS vaccine because they know COVID was coming.
They're being modest. You make your own luck.
They were researching SARS precisely because a similar virus could come in the future. That a similar virus did come is more than just luck.
"The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine"
roll up, roll up, for the shitpost of the day
Luck comes into it.
But as with S Korea's pandemic preparation, it's luck contingent on having the capacity in place before the event happens. We have a large and fairly well funded medical research establishment, which has been built up over many decades - and Oxford was fortunate (or prepared enough) to have local vaccine manufacturing capacity to enable rapid trials.
Luck is 90% preparedness. Which is why we've had a luckless public health organisation this year.
Dominic Grieve has been pretty clear that there are no bombshells contained therein.
Malcolm Rifkind was speculating this morning that the only justification he could come up with for the delay in publishing it was simply to spite Grieve, which is at least plausible, given what we know of the personalities involved.
Alternatively, the bald facts are simply unpalatable to the Leavers at the top of our government & they’re concerned that the report will undermine Brexit. It seems it’s a bit late for that, but who knows? Presumably all the report is going to say is what we already know: that the Russian government viewed Brexit as being in it’s own interest & therefore encouraged it through every channel available to it.
But perhaps this is one of those "everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows" things & our government fears that putting it out in a printed government report might have results that mere widespread belief has not (to date)?
It becomes more interesting if Russian money is implicated in any of the campaigns. That would be very naughty!
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
The two big risks I see are firstly that governments are gambling on specific vaccines by buying massive numbers of doses ahead of trial or approval. There will be huge pressure to approve these vaccines on possibly inconclusive trial data. They will then apply this vaccine on entire populations in short order. They have one chance to get this right. If there are any adverse effects at all, they will show up after the population has been vaccinated and will be in large absolute numbers, even if the proportion of affected patients is small.
The second risk is that if people get a whiff of any short-cuts being made to the safety regime, they will refuse to vaccinate and the programme will fail, even if the vaccine is actually safe.
Governments have made several different large bets on vaccines, though, and at the outset contemplated the possibility they might have to scrap large amounts of vaccine produced in advance of PIII trial results. I don't think there's any prospect of our going for whole of population vaccination with any given vaccine until it has been used in largish post approval trials. (The UK alone, for example, has the Imperial vaccine being produced in quantity as a backup plan, and there are multiple programs gearing up for bulk production globally.)
Getting it right won't be a simple matter, but it has at least been thought through.
Hopefully they get it right. We need this vaccine.
Should be OK as long as Boris doesn't prematurely declare it world beating....
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
How very interesting. I will look this up forthwith
Oh no, someone else I might be sending on a wild goose chase because I imagined something.
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Yes, the issue wasn't that he stood, it was the conspiracy with the Opposition MPs on the committee to ambush the will of the government on the issue. That's always going to lead to a sacking when the govt have a clear majority, if only to send a smoke signal to others.
Give it a few months, and he'll come to see the Chief Whip and beg to be let back in.
Meanwhile, a majority of 79 still isn't too much of a problem.
The government shouldn't have a 'will' on this particular issue. That goes directly against the statute establishing the committee.
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Yes, the issue wasn't that he stood, it was the conspiracy with the Opposition MPs on the committee to ambush the will of the government on the issue. That's always going to lead to a sacking when the govt have a clear majority, if only to send a smoke signal to others.
Give it a few months, and he'll come to see the Chief Whip and beg to be let back in.
Meanwhile, a majority of 79 still isn't too much of a problem.
78?
79. He's not joined an Opposition party yet, and will likely still vote as if he were a Conservative on most matters.
"The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine"
roll up, roll up, for the shitpost of the day
Luck comes into it.
But as with S Korea's pandemic preparation, it's luck contingent on having the capacity in place before the event happens. We have a large and fairly well funded medical research establishment, which has been built up over many decades - and Oxford was fortunate (or prepared enough) to have local vaccine manufacturing capacity to enable rapid trials.
Luck is 90% preparedness. Which is why we've had a luckless public health organisation this year.
I like the selective quote as well which omitted that I said how they got from there to here involved a lot of hard work. Disease X could have been a more infectious version of Ebola, in which case everyone would be calling Gilead geniuses for developing a treatment for it. As it turned out Disease X was like SARS.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
She isn't now, she's 20.
Although I do take your point that she was at the time and that we have an odd view on offences by minors in this country. This matter arouses a much more visceral response than numerous cases where over 18s went to join IS, just as the Bulger case (as awful as it was) remains a crime that is debated long after a lot of similarly dreadful crimes by adults have slipped from the memory.
I guess it stems from the idea that children SHOULD be innocent, but that translates into a perverse view that, where they do awful things, that's somehow WORSE than an adult doing them.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.
If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.
I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?
Being the only one with prior experience of the committee does seem useful for the chair.
He seems like the better pick to me to chair the committee to be frank.
A plank would be better than Grayling , question is how thick and spineless are the 4 Tory MP's who voted for Grayling.
Who are these thick and spineless Conservative MPs? I think we should be told.
Grayling, Hayes, Pritchard, Villiers.
Many thanks, Mr Kirk. It is good to have identified for us those MPs who will not stand up for us against an over-powerful Executive.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
How very interesting. I will look this up forthwith
Don't blame you.
If it helps I can visualise the scene. It was just her and fairly informal and I got the impression she was surrounded by journalists that she was responding to, but not in shot. Fast forward?
What makes me confident is that I was unaware of the quote before so I am not subject to having read 'False News'. This was out of the blue for me.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
A 12 year in the midlands old got put in the cells earlier this week for being nasty on the internet.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
And so were many of the Yazidi girls sold into sex slavery by ISIS. I'm with the victims on this one.
She's certainly got herself mixed up with some very, very nasty characters. But I'm with Sir Norfolk on this one. It's not simple.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.
Dominic Grieve has been pretty clear that there are no bombshells contained therein.
Malcolm Rifkind was speculating this morning that the only justification he could come up with for the delay in publishing it was simply to spite Grieve, which is at least plausible, given what we know of the personalities involved.
Alternatively, the bald facts are simply unpalatable to the Leavers at the top of our government & they’re concerned that the report will undermine Brexit. It seems it’s a bit late for that, but who knows? Presumably all the report is going to say is what we already know: that the Russian government viewed Brexit as being in it’s own interest & therefore encouraged it through every channel available to it.
But perhaps this is one of those "everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows" things & our government fears that putting it out in a printed government report might have results that mere widespread belief has not (to date)?
It becomes more interesting if Russian money is implicated in any of the campaigns. That would be very naughty!
2 of the last 3 PMs played a tennis match with the wife of Putins former deputy finance minister in exchange for a £160k donation to the Tory party. This is already in the public domain, sadly no-one cares.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
Catalonia's government held a referendum on independence from Spain, the Yes side won, Spain tried to block it then ignored the result of the poll which Unionists had boycotted. Catalonia's government then declared UDI, Spain's government ignored it and temporarily imposed direct rule and ordered the arrest of nationalist leaders.
Sturgeon has seen that and has therefore correctly said she will only hold an indyref2 if it is legal and has Westminster consent and that she will not declare UDI.
Plus Holyrood is a creation of Westminster, the original Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster in 1707
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
It has been ever thus but HMG in 2021/22 must lance the boil, grant the referendum, and go out and win it
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
2014 was a 'once in a generation vote', if we refuse to respect that and grant indyref2 less than 10 years since the first even if Unionists win it, which is by no means certain, nationalists will then be demanding indyref3 within another 10 years.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
She isn't now, she's 20.
Although I do take your point that she was at the time and that we have an odd view on offences by minors in this country. This matter arouses a much more visceral response than numerous cases where over 18s went to join IS, just as the Bulger case (as awful as it was) remains a crime that is debated long after a lot of similarly dreadful crimes by adults have slipped from the memory.
I guess it stems from the idea that children SHOULD be innocent, but that translates into a perverse view that, where they do awful things, that's somehow WORSE than an adult doing them.
Yes that's a good point. It is ridiculous imo.
She is 20 now but even the Daily Mail calls her a schoolgirl.
My point of reference is of course the African child soldiers where there was a comprehensive, and not always successful rehabilitation programme put into place which at all times acknowledged (hiya @MaxPB) that they were victims.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Parliament that could do that disappeared into Westminster (along with its English contemporary) in 1707. The power to dissolve the union remains in their successor - Westminster.
Dominic Grieve has been pretty clear that there are no bombshells contained therein.
Malcolm Rifkind was speculating this morning that the only justification he could come up with for the delay in publishing it was simply to spite Grieve, which is at least plausible, given what we know of the personalities involved.
Alternatively, the bald facts are simply unpalatable to the Leavers at the top of our government & they’re concerned that the report will undermine Brexit. It seems it’s a bit late for that, but who knows? Presumably all the report is going to say is what we already know: that the Russian government viewed Brexit as being in it’s own interest & therefore encouraged it through every channel available to it.
But perhaps this is one of those "everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows" things & our government fears that putting it out in a printed government report might have results that mere widespread belief has not (to date)?
It becomes more interesting if Russian money is implicated in any of the campaigns. That would be very naughty!
2 of the last 3 PMs played a tennis match with the wife of Putins former deputy finance minister in exchange for a £160k donation to the Tory party. This is already in the public domain, sadly no-one cares.
It is interesting in this, that no-one has considered the issue of a certain politician who invariably defended the actions of the Russian government.
For those who have once again been sucked into the HYUFD vortex of subjective and often ill informed opinion masquerading as analysis, I feel you should really take note of this recent snapshot of him in his home environment.
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Yes, the issue wasn't that he stood, it was the conspiracy with the Opposition MPs on the committee to ambush the will of the government on the issue. That's always going to lead to a sacking when the govt have a clear majority, if only to send a smoke signal to others.
Give it a few months, and he'll come to see the Chief Whip and beg to be let back in.
Meanwhile, a majority of 79 still isn't too much of a problem.
78?
79. He's not joined an Opposition party yet, and will likely still vote as if he were a Conservative on most matters.
Isn't it normal to only count those taking the whip and assume all others could vote against.
Davey's UBI proposal. Companies who owe £ to the treasury from Covid loans pay it back into a sovereign wealth fund which then gets invested to pay for UBI.
Dominic Grieve has been pretty clear that there are no bombshells contained therein.
Malcolm Rifkind was speculating this morning that the only justification he could come up with for the delay in publishing it was simply to spite Grieve, which is at least plausible, given what we know of the personalities involved.
Alternatively, the bald facts are simply unpalatable to the Leavers at the top of our government & they’re concerned that the report will undermine Brexit. It seems it’s a bit late for that, but who knows? Presumably all the report is going to say is what we already know: that the Russian government viewed Brexit as being in it’s own interest & therefore encouraged it through every channel available to it.
But perhaps this is one of those "everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows" things & our government fears that putting it out in a printed government report might have results that mere widespread belief has not (to date)?
It becomes more interesting if Russian money is implicated in any of the campaigns. That would be very naughty!
2 of the last 3 PMs played a tennis match with the wife of Putins former deputy finance minister in exchange for a £160k donation to the Tory party. This is already in the public domain, sadly no-one cares.
It is interesting in this, that no-one has considered the issue of a certain politician who invariably defended the actions of the Russian government.
Did he recently? Seemed more obsessed with Venezuela and Palestine.
But yes Putin has backed nutters on both the left and right, across the world, and it paid off handsomely for him.
Davey's UBI proposal. Companies who owe £ to the treasury from Covid loans pay it back into a sovereign wealth fund which then gets invested to pay for UBI.
And when that runs out? Given how much UBI would cost you'd need countless billions invested to pay for it out of the dividends.
What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.
If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.
I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?
Being the only one with prior experience of the committee does seem useful for the chair.
He seems like the better pick to me to chair the committee to be frank.
A plank would be better than Grayling , question is how thick and spineless are the 4 Tory MP's who voted for Grayling.
Who are these thick and spineless Conservative MPs? I think we should be told.
Surely we know the makeup of the security committee that took part in the voting
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
Catalonia's government held a referendum on independence from Spain, the Yes side won, Spain tried to block it then ignored the result of the poll which Unionists had boycotted. Catalonia's government then declared UDI, Spain's government ignored it and temporarily imposed direct rule and ordered the arrest of nationalist leaders.
Sturgeon has seen that and has therefore correctly said she will only hold an indyref2 if it is legal and has Westminster consent and that she will not declare UDI.
Plus Holyrood is a creation of Westminster, the original Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster in 1707
The main justification for IndyRef2 (given that we have already had IndyRef1) is Brexit and that Scotland voted to Remain.
A dubious referendum would lead to Spain, and probably other EU members, vetoing the accession of an independent Scotland to membership of the EU.
So, as Sturgeon herself has acknowledged, without a Section 30 order from Westminster, there can be no IndyRef2.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And who’s paying for her to return?
I'll chuck a few quid into the GoFundMe just to annoy Farage and his ilk.
I would chip in too, on the slightly more substantial grounds of disagreeing with the concept of a second tier of conditional British citizenship for minorities.
Whilst I am solidly in the Davey camp Layla Moran isn't bonkers. Her voice is quite deep and from her chest as opposed to high & nasal as some female politicians have struggled with
Davey's UBI proposal. Companies who owe £ to the treasury from Covid loans pay it back into a sovereign wealth fund which then gets invested to pay for UBI.
What have we lent £30-40bn? Assume the top end and its all paid back, safe withdrawal rate of 3% gives £1.2bn or £20 per year each.
Not a good start! And Im a fan of a sovereign wealth fund and UBI!
Dominic Grieve has been pretty clear that there are no bombshells contained therein.
Malcolm Rifkind was speculating this morning that the only justification he could come up with for the delay in publishing it was simply to spite Grieve, which is at least plausible, given what we know of the personalities involved.
Alternatively, the bald facts are simply unpalatable to the Leavers at the top of our government & they’re concerned that the report will undermine Brexit. It seems it’s a bit late for that, but who knows? Presumably all the report is going to say is what we already know: that the Russian government viewed Brexit as being in it’s own interest & therefore encouraged it through every channel available to it.
But perhaps this is one of those "everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows" things & our government fears that putting it out in a printed government report might have results that mere widespread belief has not (to date)?
It becomes more interesting if Russian money is implicated in any of the campaigns. That would be very naughty!
2 of the last 3 PMs played a tennis match with the wife of Putins former deputy finance minister in exchange for a £160k donation to the Tory party. This is already in the public domain, sadly no-one cares.
It is interesting in this, that no-one has considered the issue of a certain politician who invariably defended the actions of the Russian government.
Did he recently? Seemed more obsessed with Venezuela and Palestine.
But yes Putin has backed nutters on both the left and right, across the world, and it paid off handsomely for him.
Consider the responses to
- The Ukraine invasion - The shooting down of MH17 - Poisoning of Alexander Litvenko - Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
Re the US Presidential election, this needs to be taken into account - the implications are quite frightening, especially given what is happening. From a betting perspective, there will be the question of how / when winning bets will be paid on state wins, EC votes etc etc
Dominic Grieve has been pretty clear that there are no bombshells contained therein.
Malcolm Rifkind was speculating this morning that the only justification he could come up with for the delay in publishing it was simply to spite Grieve, which is at least plausible, given what we know of the personalities involved.
Alternatively, the bald facts are simply unpalatable to the Leavers at the top of our government & they’re concerned that the report will undermine Brexit. It seems it’s a bit late for that, but who knows? Presumably all the report is going to say is what we already know: that the Russian government viewed Brexit as being in it’s own interest & therefore encouraged it through every channel available to it.
But perhaps this is one of those "everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows" things & our government fears that putting it out in a printed government report might have results that mere widespread belief has not (to date)?
It becomes more interesting if Russian money is implicated in any of the campaigns. That would be very naughty!
2 of the last 3 PMs played a tennis match with the wife of Putins former deputy finance minister in exchange for a £160k donation to the Tory party. This is already in the public domain, sadly no-one cares.
It is interesting in this, that no-one has considered the issue of a certain politician who invariably defended the actions of the Russian government.
Did he recently? Seemed more obsessed with Venezuela and Palestine.
But yes Putin has backed nutters on both the left and right, across the world, and it paid off handsomely for him.
Consider the responses to
- The Ukraine invasion - The shooting down of MH17 - Poisoning of Alexander Litvenko - Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
to name but a few.
Fair enough, both our main parties were corrupted by Russia. The question is why does no one care, not which one is worse.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
They won't be appeased even then. It's an external solution to an internal problem.
When someone wants a divorce, what do they really want? To be heard. To be respected. To be treated as an equal. To be understood. To be needed. These core desires are really what needs to be addressed, not the form they take politically.
Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?
And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Fuck's sake she is a child.
A 12 year in the midlands old got put in the cells earlier this week for being nasty on the internet.
That's a bit of a ludicrous point.
Nobody here is arguing that offences where the alleged perpetrator is a minor shouldn't be investigated. They are just saying that the response should reflect the fact children are less culpable than adults.
And was he "put in the cells" or is what in fact happened that he and his parents accompanied police to an interview room the specific purpose of which is to interview minors, and that he was spoken to by the least intimidating bobbies the local fuzz could muster?
Comments
https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/1049955778822623233/photo/1
Edit: but your poiont stands. To demand a'generation' between polls is exactly the sort of thing that your point shows up. Situations change far more than some minds do.
Interesting to speculate what, if anything, is the government's reason for this farrago as the government are 99.9% certain to lose in the courts after a long battle. May is just be to indicate to these dreadful people that they are going to have to fight every inch through the courts, making HR lawyers rich and the taxpayer poor?
Thatcher knew this. How odd that the most headbanging of today's Tories do not.
However Blair did and we have to live with it but that does not mean giving the SNP an indyref every time they win most seats at a Scottish election
[Also, the existence of Holyrood does rather change things].
Allowing even the idea that they won't pull their weight and might seek to profiteer from a vaccine to take hold, will sink every company that goes down that route.
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN:
I don't think there's any prospect of our going for whole of population vaccination with any given vaccine until it has been used in largish post approval trials. (The UK alone, for example, has the Imperial vaccine being produced in quantity as a backup plan, and there are multiple programs gearing up for bulk production globally.)
Getting it right won't be a simple matter, but it has at least been thought through.
The article even says it has been approved for publication by No 10!
I suspect Lewis used some weasel wording “of course I want a Tory to be chairman” or something that misled the chief whip
There are muttering in SNP ranks about this but anything other than a Westminster sanctioned referendum is dead in the water. Unionists would mass boycott, the result would fail to win international recognition (imagine Spain's reaction) and it would bring the "cause" into disrepute. We are years away from any possible referendum.
When someone wants a divorce, what do they really want? To be heard. To be respected. To be treated as an equal. To be understood. To be needed. These core desires are really what needs to be addressed, not the form they take politically.
All you can see is a possible gamble that might go wrong. It's a little bit odd.
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Would they have won had they argued for straight independence, or are they too reliant on moderates who aren't convinced by independence but want a strong Scottish voice in Westminster? Not sure.
I think the underlying point by Thatcher is wrong anyway, by the way, as there are three unionist parties and one nationalist (two with the Greens) so, with FPTP, it's relatively easy to see that getting a majority of MPs doesn't mean there's a nationalist majority, even if it weren't for the point that the nationalist manifesto wasn't actually all out independence as a pitch to the centre.
His government rests on the notion that it is possible in Britain to elect a government that isn;t Blairite in tone.
roll up, roll up, for the shitpost of the day
Give it a few months, and he'll come to see the Chief Whip and beg to be let back in.
Meanwhile, a majority of 79 still isn't too much of a problem.
But no Parliament can bind its successors and the mandate of the 2021 Holyrood elections trump anything that came before it.
I'd be very surprised if Biden was saying anything at all, or at least anything he'd mind being published, on Twitter DMs. If he was then more fool him.
Compared to other places this is pretty unique - a union on equal terms. Wales cannot declare independence without our permission because its parliament only has the powers granted to it by the UK and had no other powers before and did not get to choose its place in the UK as it was subjugated by England.
Here is reality. If Scotland wants to leave rUK cannot stop it. Scotland elects a massive majority of SNP MSPs on a manifesto of independence. Holds its referendum whether we like the idea or not. Votes for independence. rUK cannot cross its arms stamp its feet and say "shant" AND the issue just goes away. If Scotland wants to reclaim its sovereignty we cannot stop it.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
They were researching SARS precisely because a similar virus could come in the future. That a similar virus did come is more than just luck.
But as with S Korea's pandemic preparation, it's luck contingent on having the capacity in place before the event happens. We have a large and fairly well funded medical research establishment, which has been built up over many decades - and Oxford was fortunate (or prepared enough) to have local vaccine manufacturing capacity to enable rapid trials.
Luck is 90% preparedness. Which is why we've had a luckless public health organisation this year.
That goes directly against the statute establishing the committee.
Although I do take your point that she was at the time and that we have an odd view on offences by minors in this country. This matter arouses a much more visceral response than numerous cases where over 18s went to join IS, just as the Bulger case (as awful as it was) remains a crime that is debated long after a lot of similarly dreadful crimes by adults have slipped from the memory.
I guess it stems from the idea that children SHOULD be innocent, but that translates into a perverse view that, where they do awful things, that's somehow WORSE than an adult doing them.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
If it helps I can visualise the scene. It was just her and fairly informal and I got the impression she was surrounded by journalists that she was responding to, but not in shot. Fast forward?
What makes me confident is that I was unaware of the quote before so I am not subject to having read 'False News'. This was out of the blue for me.
Sturgeon has seen that and has therefore correctly said she will only hold an indyref2 if it is legal and has Westminster consent and that she will not declare UDI.
Plus Holyrood is a creation of Westminster, the original Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster in 1707
She is 20 now but even the Daily Mail calls her a schoolgirl.
My point of reference is of course the African child soldiers where there was a comprehensive, and not always successful rehabilitation programme put into place which at all times acknowledged (hiya @MaxPB) that they were victims.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1283721179652657152
Davey's UBI proposal. Companies who owe £ to the treasury from Covid loans pay it back into a sovereign wealth fund which then gets invested to pay for UBI.
But yes Putin has backed nutters on both the left and right, across the world, and it paid off handsomely for him.
A dubious referendum would lead to Spain, and probably other EU members, vetoing the accession of an independent Scotland to membership of the EU.
So, as Sturgeon herself has acknowledged, without a Section 30 order from Westminster, there can be no IndyRef2.
Not a good start! And Im a fan of a sovereign wealth fund and UBI!
- The Ukraine invasion
- The shooting down of MH17
- Poisoning of Alexander Litvenko
- Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
to name but a few.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/16/with_delayed_election_tally_likely_both_sides_gird_for_battle_143723.html
Nobody here is arguing that offences where the alleged perpetrator is a minor shouldn't be investigated. They are just saying that the response should reflect the fact children are less culpable than adults.
And was he "put in the cells" or is what in fact happened that he and his parents accompanied police to an interview room the specific purpose of which is to interview minors, and that he was spoken to by the least intimidating bobbies the local fuzz could muster?