Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
To be clear the article asy Italy is a couple of hundred lower right now but about to move ahead of the UK. However, all the noise there used to be when the UK figures were the worst seems to have died down for some reason - maybe it's the wrong sort of 'exceptionalism'.
Today's stats now definitively put Italy ahead of the UK in total
And of course Italy has a significantly smaller total population. And they were meant to have learned all the right lessons from their terrible First Wave.
Here’s some good news to make the gloomy and doomy more cheerful. Much ado about nothing really.
“Brexit has failed to deliver a big hit to financial services employment in London, Financial Times research has shown, with international banks maintaining most of their staff since the vote to leave the EU and big asset managers hiring in the UK capital.
Initial warnings that tens of thousands of jobs would leave the City as a result of the 2016 Brexit vote have been drastically scaled back. An FT survey of 24 large international banks and asset managers found that the majority had increased their London headcount over the past five years.”
Yet.
In the meantime over £1.8 trillion pounds worth of assets have been moved from the UK to the EU by the financial services sector down to Brexit.
We were told hundreds of thousands of City jobs would leave. They haven't.
As you say, they might still go, but, equally, the City of London under its own UK regulations might actually grow, finding new markets - as it has done over the centuries. We don't know, but the second option is historically the likelier.
The problem for Europe is that there is not one obvious alternative. Those that have left the City have all gone off in different directions, to cities which all have their own issues
Paris: great city but French speaking, quite hostile, schools an issue, riots Amsterdam: bit small, bit dull Dublin: very small, rain Frankfurt: boring as fuck, German Luxembourg: small, boring as fuck, where even is it?
Because of this splintering none of them will ever have the critical mass of lawyers, bankers, regulators, financiers, managers, that you get in English-speaking London, making it a world leading finance centre.
Two years ago I was truly fearful for the City. Now I think, Deal or No Deal, it will endure and eventually thrive. That's what it does.
I can think of an English speaking city that might not be a bad fit.
Too cold and dark
And small. And not enough good quality office space.
You know what, though.
The real threat to the City is not France. It's a post-Covid world where physical presence is much less important than it was.
A friend of mine runs a large European equities fund. They had really cool offices above Bibendum in Chelsea.
Since Covid, they've been working from home. They've spent insane amounts on getting proper fiber optic connections to everyone's homes, and the firm has paid for even junior employees to have their places kitted out like the office.
And everyone loves it. They're giving up on Bibendum, and plan to do a week at a hotel every two months so that people stay in good contact with each other. No commuting. No rent. You can live in the country. Or indeed, in a completely different country. They reckon that - even with their additional tech costs and staying at nice hotels from time-to-time - they'll save close to a million every year.
That's the real threat of Covid - the fact you don't need to live in London any more.
Or New York. Or Paris. Or Berlin. Or any big city anywhere
And yet, people will still live in cities, I have friends who were loving WFH in Lockdown 1, now they fucking hate it. They're bored, they want business lunches, they want to go for drinks after work, they've got kids screaming as they try to type, they want office romance, they want office parties, they want to walk in handsome streets, they want to stay in a great big world city with art, restaurants, world class sport, beautiful parks, nearby airports, lots of other interesting people.
What you say applies, I reckon, to much older workers with grown up kids and big houses. A day or two in the office will be just fine for them. maybe even the hotel stays.
But young people - under 45 say - still want to work in a big city where they can drink, eat, fall in love, gossip, and go to the Tate at the weekend. They don't want to work from a cramped kitchen any more.
Basically, people want the stuff that allows them to dodge out of doing actual work. WFH means they actually have to do what they are paid to do.
Strangely I don’t remember that from the very rare occasions I worked from home.
Working from home has made them use metrics of actual work done rather than just who arrives at the office early and leaves late and management have found that the people they think are good workers because they are present longer aren't in fact their best workers after all.
Could they have done that before....yes they could but easier I guess just to look around and see who is in early and leaving late
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
It could, but nobody has got rich betting on major splits in the SNP recently. With independence a realistic possibility, they will want to hold their nerve and hang together.
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Twat.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
I'm not sure that's true - while they may not be able to hold a referendum with a binding result in law, I'm sure they could hold an indicative vote say something like the Brexit vote in 2016.
As I say below, if the vote was not sanctioned by Westminster - as in a legally binding referendum like indyref1 - it would be boycotted by No voters. The same thing happened in Catalunya and it did the Catalunyan indy cause no good at all.
It's just not going to happen.
I think scenes of the security forces dragging grannies out of polling stations was a positive for the independence cause.
And yet Catalunyan independence now looks further away than it has done for many years. Breaking the law was a fatal error by the Catalan indy leaders.
Sturgeon is too canny to do that, though she is surrounded by dangerous nutters who are prepared to take this crazy road. It will be an interesting and fiery debate within the SNP.
What law would the SNP be breaking by having an advisory referendum?
LOL , Sean will have to make one up, this should be a laugh.
The Tories are failing to win over younger voters.
It's mid-term the polls don't mean squat.
Let's see what happens at the next General Election. The crossover age went down, not up, last time.
Come on Philip, you won't be able to contain your excitement at BigG's two point Tory lead.
But you are right it means nothing at the moment. Post pandemic, post no deal, it probably will be important.
And of course neither of those dates are certain and unlikely for many months
None of it matters until polling day 2024. I expect rather a lot of foul water to pass under the bridge between now and then.
Indeed but of course a narrative can become very destructive and it amazes me how the Labour party are not cutting through in any noticeable way
2021 will be measured by 1how the vaccine rollout is managed 2 how the post Christmas surge is financed and managed. 3 the government reaction to the debt mountain, if it’s seen to fall on average and below earners then the tories will fall through the floor. 4 the length and duration of the queues at ports 5 unemployment rates
Basically it will be about competence and management, what has happened in 2020 will be forgotten.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
It could, but nobody has got rich betting on major splits in the SNP recently. With independence a realistic possibility, they will want to hold their nerve and hang together.
You underestimate the absolute idiocy of the SNP Zoomer wing.
These idiots think that replacing Sturgeon would make Independence more popular.
Demands that Brexiteers apologise and repent their sins...
You're 'not sure' you agree with that, eh?
It's bollocks in any case. I remember Alistair Meeks responding very negatively to people apologising for their Brexit sins, and don't see why anyone else driven so emtional by Brexit would respond any more reasonably to someone seeking repentence.
It is total bollocks. Hardcore Remainers are growing madder and more religious by the day. This is Savonarola raging at the Florentines.
I've been politically actively pro-European for 50 odd years and it's clear to me that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. I would almost recommend young people to learn another European language so that they can emigrate to Europe for a better life.
That seems rather extreme. There won't be good governments here and some bad governments on the continent, in coming years? Presumably you think they should emigrate to certain parts, since there are definitely parts which won't be better.
Things may be going badly, but I think it just seems self pitying to project onto that there 'woe is us, all is over forevermore'.
It's like those people are get terribly upset that we are not a super power anymore - there seem more people who act like there are millions disappointed by that, than there are people actually disappointe by it (who exist, and are loud, but frankly I find people are generally ok with being a middle tier country).
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
Plus of course the SNP winning a clear unequivocal* mandate to hold a referendum and seeing that scorned by Westminster will be electoral gold dust.
If the SNP unequivocally wins a majority to hold a referendum and Westminster spits it back and says "No" like the DUP then that would be treating Scotland with such contempt that you can add a few more percentage points to Yes and the eventual referendum.
* The last manifesto was equivocal plus the SNP didn't win a majority.
Demands that Brexiteers apologise and repent their sins...
You're 'not sure' you agree with that, eh?
It's bollocks in any case. I remember Alistair Meeks responding very negatively to people apologising for their Brexit sins, and don't see why anyone else driven so emtional by Brexit would respond any more reasonably to someone seeking repentence.
It is total bollocks. Hardcore Remainers are growing madder and more religious by the day. This is Savonarola raging at the Florentines.
I've been politically actively pro-European for 50 odd years and it's clear to me that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. I would almost recommend young people to learn another European language so that they can emigrate to Europe for a better life.
That seems rather extreme. There won't be good governments here and some bad governments on the continent, in coming years? Presumably you think they should emigrate to certain parts, since there are definitely parts which won't be better.
Things may be going badly, but I think it just seems self pitying to project onto that there 'woe is us, all is over forevermore'.
It's like those people are get terribly upset that we are not a super power anymore - there seem more people who act like there are millions disappointed by that, than there are people actually disappointe by it (who exist, and are loud, but frankly I find people are generally ok with being a middle tier country).
I think there are many of us that would actually be happier if governments of any colour acted as if we are the middle tier country we are rather than tried to project a power we no longer have
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
Breaking International law is not a matter for Westminster.
BoZo did it anyway.
That's where your cunning defence crashes to a halt...
If it's a matter for Westminster then he was entitled to do it.
All part and parcel of being a sovereign country. Which the UK is and Scotland is not.
Does Westminster want to rub Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country? Might postpone a referendum but it long term is a bloody stupid idea if you're a unionist.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
The battle is already underway, it is just concealed by the Covid crisis and Brexit. Read around Nat blogs and pundits and there is an explosive debate about what to do when Boris refuses a vote. Some of the more extreme Nats are spitting nails at Sturgeon because she refuses to contemplate UDI or a wildcat vote.
How sad that with vaccines coming the last wave is going to be the worst .
How many families are going to be having huge regrets post Christmas . January is going to be horrific when we just needed one last effort it was all thrown away . Tragic .
Couldn't agree more. Christmas should have been cancelled. Brutal, but effective.
And the sad thing is the public would largely support a lockdown now
They are not stupid, our politicians most certainly are and that includes Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster as well as Boris
Wales just gets worse and worse and our self imposed isolation Xmas is wholly justified and supported by our family
I am out and about across South Wales for work. The motorways are choc-a-bloc, supermarket car parks (and presumably) supermarkets are rammed full. Hardly anyone is socially distancing, although mask wearing is good. People are ignoring the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government have lost control!
Yesterday I had to go to Portsmouth, I expected England to be more subdued. However, the motorways were choc-a-bloc, supermarket car parks (and presumably) supermarkets are rammed full. Hardly anyone is socially distancing, although mask wearing is good. People are ignoring the Government...
Southern England is a couple of weeks behind us I fear. Johnson therefore timed his lockdown to perfection for Christmas, Welsh Government did not. We will lockdown for three weeks on the 28th. We should already be locked down.
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Twat.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
I'm not sure that's true - while they may not be able to hold a referendum with a binding result in law, I'm sure they could hold an indicative vote say something like the Brexit vote in 2016.
As I say below, if the vote was not sanctioned by Westminster - as in a legally binding referendum like indyref1 - it would be boycotted by No voters. The same thing happened in Catalunya and it did the Catalunyan indy cause no good at all.
It's just not going to happen.
I think scenes of the security forces dragging grannies out of polling stations was a positive for the independence cause.
And yet Catalunyan independence now looks further away than it has done for many years. Breaking the law was a fatal error by the Catalan indy leaders.
Sturgeon is too canny to do that, though she is surrounded by dangerous nutters who are prepared to take this crazy road. It will be an interesting and fiery debate within the SNP.
What law would the SNP be breaking by having an advisory referendum?
Depends on how they funded it. If they used public money without Westminster’s sanction, that would be outside their powers and therefore malfeasance.
If they funded it philanthropically that might be different, but equally nobody would pay much notice to it.
Utter bollox , the Scottish government can hold referendums if they wish and very easy to have a question well within their powers , they are not dumbos like Westminster. Hard to believe the tossers on here who believe Scotland is like a pet dog that has to do exactly as it is told by some arseholes in Westminster.
People are really going to need to point me to the law the Scottish government would be breaking in having an advisory referendum.
As far as I am aware the Scottish government has the power to hold plebiscites.
They're not allowed to pass laws relating to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter.
Whether they can hold an unofficial plebiscite is legally a grey area. The courts might rule that since it's unofficial it's allowed, or they might rule that since it's related to the union then it's not.
But either way rubbing Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country and insisting they can't become one even if they vote that way ... Toxic. Absolutely toxic.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
The battle is already underway, it is just concealed by the Covid crisis and Brexit. Read around Nat blogs and pundits and there is an explosive debate about what to do when Boris refuses a vote. Some of the more extreme Nats are spitting nails at Sturgeon because she refuses to contemplate UDI or a wildcat vote.
Tbf though there are also unionists on this board that want to send the tanks in so loonies to the left of me loonies to the right of me....stuck in the middle
If allegedly witty (re-)tweets and memes reflected real-world opinion, Labour would indeed be 20 points ahead. But fortunately they don't.
Irrelevant at this stage. Yes, Labour should be doing better and this is a wake-up call to SKS to get off the f*cking fence on everything. I actually foresee a strong-ish Lib Dem revival (to 12-15%) over the next six months - not that it really matters of course!
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Twat.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
I'm not sure that's true - while they may not be able to hold a referendum with a binding result in law, I'm sure they could hold an indicative vote say something like the Brexit vote in 2016.
As I say below, if the vote was not sanctioned by Westminster - as in a legally binding referendum like indyref1 - it would be boycotted by No voters. The same thing happened in Catalunya and it did the Catalunyan indy cause no good at all.
It's just not going to happen.
I think scenes of the security forces dragging grannies out of polling stations was a positive for the independence cause.
And yet Catalunyan independence now looks further away than it has done for many years. Breaking the law was a fatal error by the Catalan indy leaders.
Sturgeon is too canny to do that, though she is surrounded by dangerous nutters who are prepared to take this crazy road. It will be an interesting and fiery debate within the SNP.
What law would the SNP be breaking by having an advisory referendum?
Depends on how they funded it. If they used public money without Westminster’s sanction, that would be outside their powers and therefore malfeasance.
If they funded it philanthropically that might be different, but equally nobody would pay much notice to it.
Utter bollox , the Scottish government can hold referendums if they wish and very easy to have a question well within their powers , they are not dumbos like Westminster. Hard to believe the tossers on here who believe Scotland is like a pet dog that has to do exactly as it is told by some arseholes in Westminster.
Well, you have to believe us Malc because regardless of what you want we’re right and you’re wrong.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
Plus of course the SNP winning a clear unequivocal* mandate to hold a referendum and seeing that scorned by Westminster will be electoral gold dust.
If the SNP unequivocally wins a majority to hold a referendum and Westminster spits it back and says "No" like the DUP then that would be treating Scotland with such contempt that you can add a few more percentage points to Yes and the eventual referendum.
* The last manifesto was equivocal plus the SNP didn't win a majority.
Hard to see it not being a majority this time
I agree.
I respect the will of the Scottish voters personally. If they give the SNP a majority on a manifesto to hold a referendum then the SNP have morally won the mandate to hold one. No if's or buts. If the SNP don't win a majority then so be it, that was the Scottish voters choice too.
We are a democracy in this country not General Franco's dictatorship. Let the voters decide.
People are really going to need to point me to the law the Scottish government would be breaking in having an advisory referendum.
As far as I am aware the Scottish government has the power to hold plebiscites.
They're not allowed to pass laws relating to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter.
Whether they can hold an unofficial plebiscite is legally a grey area. The courts might rule that since it's unofficial it's allowed, or they might rule that since it's related to the union then it's not.
But either way rubbing Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country and insisting they can't become one even if they vote that way ... Toxic. Absolutely toxic.
Technically, all plebiscites in Britain are advisory because only Parliament can make laws or changes.
So I don’t think a court would accept an ‘unofficial, advisory’ referendum as an excuse for spending public money,
People are really going to need to point me to the law the Scottish government would be breaking in having an advisory referendum.
As far as I am aware the Scottish government has the power to hold plebiscites.
Why would any No voter with an IQ over 30 bother going to the voting booths, to vote in a non legally binding referendum, organised by the YESSERS, a vote held against the sovereign will of Westminster.... when they know that by simply not voting - boycotting - they can render the referendum morally invalid and politically calamitous for the Nats?
They just won't vote. The vote is advisory. Turnout will be way way down. The Nats will end up humiliated and their cause badly damaged.
Again, Sturgeon KNOWS all this. But her more extreme colleagues either don't know or don't care. That's the battle inside Nationalism.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
Breaking International law is not a matter for Westminster.
BoZo did it anyway.
That's where your cunning defence crashes to a halt...
If it's a matter for Westminster then he was entitled to do it.
All part and parcel of being a sovereign country. Which the UK is and Scotland is not.
Does Westminster want to rub Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country? Might postpone a referendum but it long term is a bloody stupid idea if you're a unionist.
Yes. Refusing a vote when a Party has won a majority promising one, seems the ideal way of ensuring a "Yes" vote. Even if that is several years later.
How sad that with vaccines coming the last wave is going to be the worst .
How many families are going to be having huge regrets post Christmas . January is going to be horrific when we just needed one last effort it was all thrown away . Tragic .
Couldn't agree more. Christmas should have been cancelled. Brutal, but effective.
And the sad thing is the public would largely support a lockdown now
They are not stupid, our politicians most certainly are and that includes Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster as well as Boris
Wales just gets worse and worse and our self imposed isolation Xmas is wholly justified and supported by our family
I am out and about across South Wales for work. The motorways are choc-a-bloc, supermarket car parks (and presumably) supermarkets are rammed full. Hardly anyone is socially distancing, although mask wearing is good. People are ignoring the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government have lost control!
Yesterday I had to go to Portsmouth, I expected England to be more subdued. However, the motorways were choc-a-bloc, supermarket car parks (and presumably) supermarkets are rammed full. Hardly anyone is socially distancing, although mask wearing is good. People are ignoring the Government...
Southern England is a couple of weeks behind us I fear. Johnson therefore timed his lockdown to perfection for Christmas, Welsh Government did not. We will lockdown for three weeks on the 28th. We should already be locked down.
The public would support a Chinese style lockdown - weld everyone in their houses. Cancel Christmas.
Except that they would each need to have 175 people road for one quiet drink. Every single day. Because *feelings*.
If allegedly witty (re-)tweets and memes reflected real-world opinion, Labour would indeed be 20 points ahead. But fortunately they don't.
Counter-intuitively, I'll offer this.
Covid has been good for the Conservative Party and the Government.
I'll explain - what causes governing parties problems aren't the big things but the little things. In times of national crisis, there can and frequently is criticism but for many people there is a deeper desire to rally behind the government of the day, to support the country, to be patriotic.
In bad times, it's possible for governing parties to get away with bad Government because of that residue of support but in good times it's impossible to get away with bad Government because people don't feel that residual loyalty and see the option of looking elsewhere.
As the twin crises of Brexit and Covud dominate, the Government retains that residual loyalty. Once normality resumes and Brexit happens, it will be "business as usual" and we'll be able to see if this is a Government of quality and competence or otherwise. If it is otherwise, the ratings will soon fall away.
Every person vaccinated, every day we move further from Brexit brings that normality nearer and once the initial euphoria has died down this Government can be judged for how it deals with day-to-day governance, not crisis management.
If allegedly witty (re-)tweets and memes reflected real-world opinion, Labour would indeed be 20 points ahead. But fortunately they don't.
Counter-intuitively, I'll offer this.
Covid has been good for the Conservative Party and the Government.
I'll explain - what causes governing parties problems aren't the big things but the little things. In times of national crisis, there can and frequently is criticism but for many people there is a deeper desire to rally behind the government of the day, to support the country, to be patriotic.
In bad times, it's possible for governing parties to get away with bad Government because of that residue of support but in good times it's impossible to get away with bad Government because people don't feel that residual loyalty and see the option of looking elsewhere.
As the twin crises of Brexit and Covud dominate, the Government retains that residual loyalty. Once normality resumes and Brexit happens, it will be "business as usual" and we'll be able to see if this is a Government of quality and competence or otherwise. If it is otherwise, the ratings will soon fall away.
Every person vaccinated, every day we move further from Brexit brings that normality nearer and once the initial euphoria has died down this Government can be judged for how it deals with day-to-day governance, not crisis management.
Depending on how much blame it gets for the original crisis.
That fairly important caveat explains results in, e.g. 1945 and 1979.
People are really going to need to point me to the law the Scottish government would be breaking in having an advisory referendum.
As far as I am aware the Scottish government has the power to hold plebiscites.
They're not allowed to pass laws relating to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter.
Whether they can hold an unofficial plebiscite is legally a grey area. The courts might rule that since it's unofficial it's allowed, or they might rule that since it's related to the union then it's not.
But either way rubbing Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country and insisting they can't become one even if they vote that way ... Toxic. Absolutely toxic.
Would it come down to finance and irresponsible that could be breaking the law
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
The battle is already underway, it is just concealed by the Covid crisis and Brexit. Read around Nat blogs and pundits and there is an explosive debate about what to do when Boris refuses a vote. Some of the more extreme Nats are spitting nails at Sturgeon because she refuses to contemplate UDI or a wildcat vote.
Tbf though there are also unionists on this board that want to send the tanks in so loonies to the left of me loonies to the right of me....stuck in the middle
Well yes indeed, Much as I admire HYUFD for his good advice on hot broth - where would we be in the Covid crisis without hot broth? - I cannot follow him down the road of Invading Scotland with tanks to keep them in the union.
When Scotland calls a legal indyref2, and if that indyref is passed by YES, then with great sadness Scotland must be allowed to go. That's democracy.
I am merely pointing out the more practical legal elements of democracy, and there is no way Boris (or any Tory PM) is going to allow a vote if they look like losing. And Westminster has that power. And I do not believe there is anything much that the Nats can do about that. It is the law of the land.
2024 will be the Nats best chance, under a weak Starmer premiership, when he is forced to agree to a vote.
The problem for the Nats is that by then YES may be less popular, Sturgeon may have gone, and so on. Alternatively, the UK's refusal to allow an earlier vote may send YES to 65% in the polls and they win easily. In 2024.
We shall see. Dangerous times for the Union. But then it's dangerous times for bloody everything and everyone.
The reality is that Scotland can’t hold another binding referendum unless it’s in line with the constitutional requirements of the UK unless that is the Supreme Court do something outlandish if any court action ends up there . Even if you got a good turnout internationally it won’t be seen as legitimate.
The irony of course that support for Indy will be at its highest during this Parliament so it’s frustrating for the SNP . If Labour get in I’d expect support for Indy to fall . Personally I think if the SNP get a majority next year then Westminster shouldn’t stand in the way but that’s not going to happen under Johnson.
A big issue with a UDI is it won’t get international recognition and on economic terms you won’t be able to raise money on the markets which all countries need to do .
Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is going to be very complex and you’d need huge co-operation to do that so as much as I can understand the frustration of Scots it’s impossible to see any other way than doing this on the same terms as in 2014.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
Breaking International law is not a matter for Westminster.
BoZo did it anyway.
That's where your cunning defence crashes to a halt...
If it's a matter for Westminster then he was entitled to do it.
All part and parcel of being a sovereign country. Which the UK is and Scotland is not.
Does Westminster want to rub Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country? Might postpone a referendum but it long term is a bloody stupid idea if you're a unionist.
UK is a kingdom not a country and Fatso cannot ignore International law, Scotland is not a pet dog to be put in its kennel just because England want to. It is not a colony and if a country wants to be independent then under International law it will be.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
The battle is already underway, it is just concealed by the Covid crisis and Brexit. Read around Nat blogs and pundits and there is an explosive debate about what to do when Boris refuses a vote. Some of the more extreme Nats are spitting nails at Sturgeon because she refuses to contemplate UDI or a wildcat vote.
Tbf though there are also unionists on this board that want to send the tanks in so loonies to the left of me loonies to the right of me....stuck in the middle
Well yes indeed, Much as I admire HYUFD for his good advice on hot broth - where would we be in the Covid crisis without hot broth? - I cannot follow him down the road of Invading Scotland with tanks to keep them in the union.
When Scotland calls a legal indyref2, and if that indyref is passed by YES, then with great sadness Scotland must be allowed to go. That's democracy.
I am merely pointing out the more practical legal elements of democracy, and there is no way Boris (or any Tory PM) is going to allow a vote if they look like losing. And Westminster has that power. And I do not believe there is anything much that the Nats can do about that. It is the law of the land.
2024 will be the Nats best chance, under a weak Starmer premiership, when he is forced to agree to a vote.
The problem for the Nats is that by then YES may be less popular, Sturgeon may have gone, and so on. Alternatively, the UK's refusal to allow an earlier vote may send YES to 65% in the polls and they win easily. In 2024.
We shall see. Dangerous times for the Union. But then it's dangerous times for bloody everything and everyone.
I was surprised with his Broth recommendations as was under the impression broth is a scottish thing.
People are really going to need to point me to the law the Scottish government would be breaking in having an advisory referendum.
As far as I am aware the Scottish government has the power to hold plebiscites.
They're not allowed to pass laws relating to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter.
Whether they can hold an unofficial plebiscite is legally a grey area. The courts might rule that since it's unofficial it's allowed, or they might rule that since it's related to the union then it's not.
But either way rubbing Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country and insisting they can't become one even if they vote that way ... Toxic. Absolutely toxic.
Technically, all plebiscites in Britain are advisory because only Parliament can make laws or changes.
So I don’t think a court would accept an ‘unofficial, advisory’ referendum as an excuse for spending public money,
Referendums are organised by Parliament so can entail an automatic law change in the event of a Yes vote as part of the referendum. Eg the AV referendum was I'm pretty sure not advisory.
What the court will or will not accept is unclear until the court has decided. It depends essentially if the court decides if it is related to the union - they could decide that since that's the topic of the referendum it is. Or they could decide that since it is just an unofficial plebiscite and only a Parliamentary bill would change the union that it is not.
We honestly don't know how the court would rule until it does since it's not a matter that has gone before the court before. I see a lot of wishful thinking from people on both sides certain that they are right, but until the court rules I see no certainty.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
The battle is already underway, it is just concealed by the Covid crisis and Brexit. Read around Nat blogs and pundits and there is an explosive debate about what to do when Boris refuses a vote. Some of the more extreme Nats are spitting nails at Sturgeon because she refuses to contemplate UDI or a wildcat vote.
Tbf though there are also unionists on this board that want to send the tanks in so loonies to the left of me loonies to the right of me....stuck in the middle
I know of only one on this board who has made such idiotic suggestions
The rest of us who value the union will make the case at the right time and I am confident it can be won
If allegedly witty (re-)tweets and memes reflected real-world opinion, Labour would indeed be 20 points ahead. But fortunately they don't.
This poll is a bit late to the party given the events of the last few days. Fieldwork for this one started on 27 Nov and stopped on Tuesday, a period that contained the vaccine announcement and a general consensus that Covid cases were going down or, at least, remaining stable - both of which would have given a Tory bounce. During the fieldwork there was also a partial lifting of lockdown (more good news) and much of it took place while noises regarding a deal remained broadly positive (which polling indicates people want). However, since Tuesday we have had Johnson's catastrophic dinner in Brussels, probable No Deal, and Covid accelerating clearly again. If this week is going have any effect on polling it won't show up in this one.
Furthermore, methodologically, how "Changes since 3-4 Dec" works (given that that was within the 27 Nov - 8 Dec period of this pol and thus basically a subset) I have no idea, but I am sure someone can enlighten me.
Either way, its a bit meaningless four years out from a GE.
People are really going to need to point me to the law the Scottish government would be breaking in having an advisory referendum.
As far as I am aware the Scottish government has the power to hold plebiscites.
They're not allowed to pass laws relating to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter.
Whether they can hold an unofficial plebiscite is legally a grey area. The courts might rule that since it's unofficial it's allowed, or they might rule that since it's related to the union then it's not.
But either way rubbing Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country and insisting they can't become one even if they vote that way ... Toxic. Absolutely toxic.
Technically, all plebiscites in Britain are advisory because only Parliament can make laws or changes.
So I don’t think a court would accept an ‘unofficial, advisory’ referendum as an excuse for spending public money,
Referendums are organised by Parliament so can entail an automatic law change in the event of a Yes vote as part of the referendum. Eg the AV referendum was I'm pretty sure not advisory.
What the court will or will not accept is unclear until the court has decided. It depends essentially if the court decides if it is related to the union - they could decide that since that's the topic of the referendum it is. Or they could decide that since it is just an unofficial plebiscite and only a Parliamentary bill would change the union that it is not.
We honestly don't know how the court would rule until it does since it's not a matter that has gone before the court before. I see a lot of wishful thinking from people on both sides certain that they are right, but until the court rules I see no certainty.
That was before the SC ruling on the subject, that regardless of the wording of the act Parliament cannot devolve power to the voters.
If allegedly witty (re-)tweets and memes reflected real-world opinion, Labour would indeed be 20 points ahead. But fortunately they don't.
Counter-intuitively, I'll offer this.
Covid has been good for the Conservative Party and the Government.
I'll explain - what causes governing parties problems aren't the big things but the little things. In times of national crisis, there can and frequently is criticism but for many people there is a deeper desire to rally behind the government of the day, to support the country, to be patriotic.
In bad times, it's possible for governing parties to get away with bad Government because of that residue of support but in good times it's impossible to get away with bad Government because people don't feel that residual loyalty and see the option of looking elsewhere.
As the twin crises of Brexit and Covud dominate, the Government retains that residual loyalty. Once normality resumes and Brexit happens, it will be "business as usual" and we'll be able to see if this is a Government of quality and competence or otherwise. If it is otherwise, the ratings will soon fall away.
Every person vaccinated, every day we move further from Brexit brings that normality nearer and once the initial euphoria has died down this Government can be judged for how it deals with day-to-day governance, not crisis management.
I find it very difficult to take seriously anything Brexit voters say these days. With the personnel involved was it possible to see any other outcome? No one even seems surprised that the UK are sending gunboats so barking mad are their movers and shakers. I think we've heard enough of their wisdom.
People are really going to need to point me to the law the Scottish government would be breaking in having an advisory referendum.
As far as I am aware the Scottish government has the power to hold plebiscites.
They're not allowed to pass laws relating to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter.
Whether they can hold an unofficial plebiscite is legally a grey area. The courts might rule that since it's unofficial it's allowed, or they might rule that since it's related to the union then it's not.
But either way rubbing Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country and insisting they can't become one even if they vote that way ... Toxic. Absolutely toxic.
Technically, all plebiscites in Britain are advisory because only Parliament can make laws or changes.
So I don’t think a court would accept an ‘unofficial, advisory’ referendum as an excuse for spending public money,
Referendums are organised by Parliament so can entail an automatic law change in the event of a Yes vote as part of the referendum. Eg the AV referendum was I'm pretty sure not advisory.
What the court will or will not accept is unclear until the court has decided. It depends essentially if the court decides if it is related to the union - they could decide that since that's the topic of the referendum it is. Or they could decide that since it is just an unofficial plebiscite and only a Parliamentary bill would change the union that it is not.
We honestly don't know how the court would rule until it does since it's not a matter that has gone before the court before. I see a lot of wishful thinking from people on both sides certain that they are right, but until the court rules I see no certainty.
Two courts - the top one in Scotland, and the Supreme Court in London. But, as you say, we don't know.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
Breaking International law is not a matter for Westminster.
BoZo did it anyway.
That's where your cunning defence crashes to a halt...
If it's a matter for Westminster then he was entitled to do it.
All part and parcel of being a sovereign country. Which the UK is and Scotland is not.
Does Westminster want to rub Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country? Might postpone a referendum but it long term is a bloody stupid idea if you're a unionist.
UK is a kingdom not a country and Fatso cannot ignore International law, Scotland is not a pet dog to be put in its kennel just because England want to. It is not a colony and if a country wants to be independent then under International law it will be.
International law has always been a load of meaningless bollocks. It is in the words of my avatar "more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
Which international court do you believe has the authority to rule that Scotland can become independent? Through what mechanism?
Internationally neither courts nor countries will interfere. People regard secession as an internal affair not an international one. Spain, USA and more do not recognise secession in the way you wish they did.
Stick to the democratic process. That will be far more fruitful and rewarding.
The reality is that Scotland can’t hold another binding referendum unless it’s in line with the constitutional requirements of the UK unless that is the Supreme Court do something outlandish if any court action ends up there . Even if you got a good turnout internationally it won’t be seen as legitimate.
The irony of course that support for Indy will be at its highest during this Parliament so it’s frustrating for the SNP . If Labour get in I’d expect support for Indy to fall . Personally I think if the SNP get a majority next year then Westminster shouldn’t stand in the way but that’s not going to happen under Johnson.
A big issue with a UDI is it won’t get international recognition and on economic terms you won’t be able to raise money on the markets which all countries need to do .
Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is going to be very complex and you’d need huge co-operation to do that so as much as I can understand the frustration of Scots it’s impossible to see any other way than doing this on the same terms as in 2014.
Also, of course, Scotland seceding via an advisory referendum called by the Nats against the will of Westminster (something I see as impossible, but let's go with it) will be EXTREMELY controversial across parts of the world, eg the EU and, in particular Spain.
Indy Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Why on earth would the Spanish welcome in this country which has just declared UDI, thereby encouraging all the secessionists in Catalunya to try exactly the same trick?
They would not. Spain would veto Scottish membership. Instantly. So Scotland would be stuck outside the UK and outside the EU.
Spain will only accept Scotland as a new member if it has secured independence via the established method of 2014, an indyref granted by and agreed with Westminster.
Again, I imagine Sturgeon knows all this too, and yet her wilder followers haven't worked it out.
if Scotland’s intention is to join the EU post independence then that alone means any referendum has to go through Westminster.
France , Spain especially aren’t going to give the green light and set a precedent. If it’s seen as legal within the constitutional framework of the UK then they won’t veto .
Because the argument they’ve always made is that Corsica and Catalonia would need to adhere to the constitutions of their countries to have a legally binding referendum .
What if No Deal happens and..... it turns out it's no big deal?
eg There are a few lorry queues for a few weeks. A brief shortage of prosecco. Camembert increases by 20% in price, so people switch to British versions.
And that's it.
So many of us - even on this site - are using words like "calamity", and "disaster". We are all told we are driving off a cliff.
What if it just turns out we are driving through a muddy field then back on to a normal road? What would that do to politics? Would Remainers change their minds?
I'm not predicting this, but it is a politically fascinating possibility, in multiple ways.
We'll stay a first world wealthy nation, obviously, but will we prosper c.f. having a good and close relationship with the EU? It won't be provable either way - a pity since it means the "debate" has no end - but speaking for myself, yes, if I conclude that we are prospering (in this relative sense) from a position wholly outside the EU, and the condition lasts, this particular Remainer will change their mind. I will no longer consider Brexit to be a piece of immense stupidity.
I'll still consider it to be a real shame, however, that for reasons which in many cases do not bear close examination we chose to bail out of what I view as an essentially benign and enlightened project. Not the USE - imo a unicorn/bogeyman rather than a realistic prospect - but just the nations of Europe working together and attempting to build, in our corner of the planet, a place with positive progressive values to call home and be proud of.
I know this probably comes over as precious and liberal elitey, but it's genuinely how I feel about the issue. I did not vote Remain just purely because I thought Leave would hit the economy. I voted Remain because I believe in the European Union and I really valued our place in it.
Out of curiousity with no attempt to trick you when would you consider the EU has gone too far towards being a superstate? Tax harmonisation? National budgets having to be approved by the commission? I suspect the first will certainly happen within the next 20 years as its already being talked about.
It's more about the overall substance than any one specific. If it got to a point where in my view membership of the EU was preventing the UK doing lots of important things it wanted to do, or conversely was forcing the UK to do lots of important things it did not want to do, then I'd be saying, "hang on, is this quite the way to carry on?" But we were a long long way off that in my estimation, it wasn't even in sight, and furthermore I doubt we'd have ever got there, because if a very non-nationalistic person like me feels like that way, it would inevitably mean that huge numbers of other people had started feeling that way years ago, and therefore it wouldn't have happened. USE against the clear wishes of the people of Europe is never going to be created. The EU is a collection of democracies. For all the quibbles, that's the essence of it. We know what totalitarianism looks like and Brussels is not it.
While I can understand that view it does have a problem. By the time we get that far it would be even more difficult for a country to leave than it currently is. Frankly I think this decade is the last that it will be possible to leave the eu. I would suggest it is already pretty much impossible to leave if you are in the eurozone
Paradoxically I think it's the other way round. Seceding from a sovereign state has been done countless times. The more the EU resembles a sovereign state, the more leaving it resembles secession.
No, Pagan is right. Once you are in the single currency, it becomes virtually impossible to leave. It is too dangerous, destabilising, complex, difficult.
Look how hard it has been for the UK to leave, and we were already semi-detached, and not in the euro.
Legally , EU secession will always be possible, but in practise for many European countries it is too late.
Indeed. Certainly any country that has joined the Euro has made a decision that is pretty much irrevocable from their perspective. Maybe not from the EU perspective, Greece came seriously close to being shown the door, but from the member's perspective the price of leaving would make ours look like a bag of chips.
As an aside anyone else getting an issue occasionally when trying to reply that "Body is 1 character too short" ? If so how do you get around it
I've found it happen if you try to quote a person who has used the < symbol in their message. Eg saying that there are < three weeks to go until end of transition.
It seems you can use the symbol in your own post but you can't quote someone who has used it. My guess is that the symbol buggers up the coding when inside the blockquote code.
If I'm right I should be able to post this but you shouldn't be able to quote me. I had this issue yesterday and I was able to fix it by replacing the < symbol in the person's post I was quoting with the words less than.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
It could, but nobody has got rich betting on major splits in the SNP recently. With independence a realistic possibility, they will want to hold their nerve and hang together.
You underestimate the absolute idiocy of the SNP Zoomer wing.
These idiots think that replacing Sturgeon would make Independence more popular.
As an aside anyone else getting an issue occasionally when trying to reply that "Body is 1 character too short" ? If so how do you get around it
I've found it happen if you try to quote a person who has used the < symbol in their message. Eg saying that there are < three weeks to go until end of transition.
It seems you can use the symbol in your own post but you can't quote someone who has used it. My guess is that the symbol buggers up the coding when inside the blockquote code.
If I'm right I should be able to post this but you shouldn't be able to quote me. I had this issue yesterday and I was able to fix it by replacing the < symbol in the person's post I was quoting with the words less than.
testing by quoting you edit: nope that worked fine
Is this person well-known? Seems like everything is crap. So vote for me instead. Impressive range of suits with hankies mind.
Popped up on my Facebook endorsing the Plandemic conspiracy bollocks. As un-enthused I am with the alternatives, I don't think I'll be getting behind that dude.
if Scotland’s intention is to join the EU post independence then that alone means any referendum has to go through Westminster.
France , Spain especially aren’t going to give the green light and set a precedent. If it’s seen as legal within the constitutional framework of the UK then they won’t veto .
Because the argument they’ve always made is that Corsica and Catalonia would need to adhere to the constitutions of their countries to have a legally binding referendum .
I'd expect any EU joining would be subject to..........another bloody referendum, post SCexit.
Smart and insightful Remainers will realise that the UK publicly saying it will police enforcement of its waters in the event of No Deal is the best chance there is of getting a Deal.
I can only conclude from what I've seen on here today that there aren't that many of them, or they're staying quiet.
I can't comprehend the focus on fishing by either side, I really cannot.
Fishing accounts for 0.1% of the UK's GDP and this is the hill to die on?
I know I work in the Banking & Financial Services sector but a bit more focus on that during any deal may have been more of a priority. Heck even manufacturing.
Sadly that is the same argument that says that it is worth sacrificing one person (against their will) to save 100. It is not an argument I can support.
Mr Spock would like to have a few words with you.
But nobody is going die if we maintain the status quo or worse regarding fishing.
Nobody will die by just letting Trump continue to be President despite the votes either.
But elections have consequences. America voted for Biden - Britain voted to take back control.
Don't be a Trumpist: Respect democracy.
Have you missed Trump's handling of Covid-19?
Of course people will die if Trump is allowed to remain President.
I hereby appoint you "Captain Shit Analogies'.
Now I'm working this weekend because of Brexit, so if anyone outdoes you, you'll have to let me know so I can award your crown to someone else.
Not just shit analogies - an absurd argument coupled to it. Respecting democracy goes as far as acknowledging Johnson is PM. It does not extend to ignoring his manifest incompetence.
There are now 8, count 'em, London boroughs with higher rates than the highest in the NE. Plenty more in Essex. Not sure how they can justify our Tier 3 and your Tier 2 any longer. Will be interesting to see Tory backbenchers react. Cos regions will be moving up, not down, at review time. The very opposite to which they were led to expect.
For those that don't know, Brian Rose, is sha we say any "interesting" individual....lots of dodgy going ons, most recently crowd funded £1 million for what he called a digital freedom.platform, because youtube was censoring some of hia videos e.g. having david icke on a number of times...and where this £1 million went....into thin air.
For those that don't know, Brian Rose, is sha we say any "interesting" individual....lots of dodgy going ons, most recently crowd funded £1 million for what he called a digital freedom.platform, because youtube was censoring some of hia videos e.g. having david icke on a number of times...and where this £1 million went....into thin air.
See what I mean. Quite the perfect fit for the Johnsonians.
I have been saying Tory lead since Boris invented three vaccines.
MoE stuff. Opinion polls irrelevant - just look at the polls a year before GE 2019. 2021 will be about Scotland and Scottish independence and Sadiq Khan landslide here in London.
Even if you assume (as I do) that the SNP will still be in power after the May elections, with or without a majority, there is no realistic pathway to Scottish independence in 2021.
I would personally expect a referendum in 2023 at the earliest as matters stand.
2021 will be about the shambles of our economy, not about independence.
There will be a lot of talk about it though, agitation and protests as Westminster says No despite a big SNP win. So it will take up a lot of time and attention.
And lots of ratcheting up of support for indy as BJ waves his podgy, white finger and says No. Sturgeon the gradualist will absolutely hate that.
There are now 8, count 'em, London boroughs with higher rates than the highest in the NE. Plenty more in Essex. Not sure how they can justify our Tier 3 and your Tier 2 any longer. Will be interesting to see Tory backbenchers react. Cos regions will be moving up, not down, at review time. The very opposite to which they were led to expect.
I am well aware of the shite situation developing in (east) London, Kent and Essex.
I expect them all to go to Tier 3, God help us. And (with the exception of the insane Xmas break) I reckon they could stay in Tier 3 deep into January.
Horrible. A cold hard joyless plague-ridden winter.
What if No Deal happens and..... it turns out it's no big deal?
eg There are a few lorry queues for a few weeks. A brief shortage of prosecco. Camembert increases by 20% in price, so people switch to British versions.
And that's it.
So many of us - even on this site - are using words like "calamity", and "disaster". We are all told we are driving off a cliff.
What if it just turns out we are driving through a muddy field then back on to a normal road? What would that do to politics? Would Remainers change their minds?
I'm not predicting this, but it is a politically fascinating possibility, in multiple ways.
We'll stay a first world wealthy nation, obviously, but will we prosper c.f. having a good and close relationship with the EU? It won't be provable either way - a pity since it means the "debate" has no end - but speaking for myself, yes, if I conclude that we are prospering (in this relative sense) from a position wholly outside the EU, and the condition lasts, this particular Remainer will change their mind. I will no longer consider Brexit to be a piece of immense stupidity.
I'll still consider it to be a real shame, however, that for reasons which in many cases do not bear close examination we chose to bail out of what I view as an essentially benign and enlightened project. Not the USE - imo a unicorn/bogeyman rather than a realistic prospect - but just the nations of Europe working together and attempting to build, in our corner of the planet, a place with positive progressive values to call home and be proud of.
I know this probably comes over as precious and liberal elitey, but it's genuinely how I feel about the issue. I did not vote Remain just purely because I thought Leave would hit the economy. I voted Remain because I believe in the European Union and I really valued our place in it.
Out of curiousity with no attempt to trick you when would you consider the EU has gone too far towards being a superstate? Tax harmonisation? National budgets having to be approved by the commission? I suspect the first will certainly happen within the next 20 years as its already being talked about.
It's more about the overall substance than any one specific. If it got to a point where in my view membership of the EU was preventing the UK doing lots of important things it wanted to do, or conversely was forcing the UK to do lots of important things it did not want to do, then I'd be saying, "hang on, is this quite the way to carry on?" But we were a long long way off that in my estimation, it wasn't even in sight, and furthermore I doubt we'd have ever got there, because if a very non-nationalistic person like me feels like that way, it would inevitably mean that huge numbers of other people had started feeling that way years ago, and therefore it wouldn't have happened. USE against the clear wishes of the people of Europe is never going to be created. The EU is a collection of democracies. For all the quibbles, that's the essence of it. We know what totalitarianism looks like and Brussels is not it.
While I can understand that view it does have a problem. By the time we get that far it would be even more difficult for a country to leave than it currently is. Frankly I think this decade is the last that it will be possible to leave the eu. I would suggest it is already pretty much impossible to leave if you are in the eurozone
Paradoxically I think it's the other way round. Seceding from a sovereign state has been done countless times. The more the EU resembles a sovereign state, the more leaving it resembles secession.
No, Pagan is right. Once you are in the single currency, it becomes virtually impossible to leave. It is too dangerous, destabilising, complex, difficult.
Look how hard it has been for the UK to leave, and we were already semi-detached, and not in the euro.
Legally , EU secession will always be possible, but in practise for many European countries it is too late.
I think the problem is that those who would find it easy to leave (Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, etc.) have no desire to leave. And those who have the desire and would probably benefit from departure (say Greece or Italy) would find it too destabilising.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
For veracity's sake can you link to your posts where you thought the SNPs path to independence was easy? Anticipating them greatly.
There are now 8, count 'em, London boroughs with higher rates than the highest in the NE. Plenty more in Essex. Not sure how they can justify our Tier 3 and your Tier 2 any longer. Will be interesting to see Tory backbenchers react. Cos regions will be moving up, not down, at review time. The very opposite to which they were led to expect.
I am well aware of the shite situation developing in (east) London, Kent and Essex.
I expect them all to go to Tier 3, God help us. And (with the exception of the insane Xmas break) I reckon they could stay in Tier 3 deep into January.
Horrible. A cold hard joyless plague-ridden winter.
Will Johnson back out of the xmas break rule-lift next week? I wouldn't bet against it.
While I can understand that view it does have a problem. By the time we get that far it would be even more difficult for a country to leave than it currently is. Frankly I think this decade is the last that it will be possible to leave the eu. I would suggest it is already pretty much impossible to leave if you are in the eurozone
And yet the Scots are still keen on leaving the UK, a much longer-standing tie.
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Twat.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
I'm not sure that's true - while they may not be able to hold a referendum with a binding result in law, I'm sure they could hold an indicative vote say something like the Brexit vote in 2016.
As I say below, if the vote was not sanctioned by Westminster - as in a legally binding referendum like indyref1 - it would be boycotted by No voters. The same thing happened in Catalunya and it did the Catalunyan indy cause no good at all.
It's just not going to happen.
I think scenes of the security forces dragging grannies out of polling stations was a positive for the independence cause.
And yet Catalunyan independence now looks further away than it has done for many years. Breaking the law was a fatal error by the Catalan indy leaders.
Sturgeon is too canny to do that, though she is surrounded by dangerous nutters who are prepared to take this crazy road. It will be an interesting and fiery debate within the SNP.
What law would the SNP be breaking by having an advisory referendum?
Depends on how they funded it. If they used public money without Westminster’s sanction, that would be outside their powers and therefore malfeasance.
If they funded it philanthropically that might be different, but equally nobody would pay much notice to it.
Utter bollox , the Scottish government can hold referendums if they wish and very easy to have a question well within their powers , they are not dumbos like Westminster. Hard to believe the tossers on here who believe Scotland is like a pet dog that has to do exactly as it is told by some arseholes in Westminster.
Well, you have to believe us Malc because regardless of what you want we’re right and you’re wrong.
Holyrood does not have the power to call a referendum. That's all there is to it. Calling me "twat" does not change the law. Sorry.
The twat was for BoZo, not you, but of course Holyrood can call a referendum
It would not be legally binding in very limited and specific ways, but BoZo has set the precedent for that.
Such a vote would be boycotted en masse by No voters. Rendering it politically pointless and deeply destructive of the Indy cause. There might be legal action against Nat politicians. The chances of indy would be set back by many years.
That really would be a disaster for the SNP and Sturgeon is far too sensible to go down that insane road. Which is why she is refusing to countenance it.
Then what's the SNPs best option? Presumably to hold out until an election where a hung parliament is possible. But what is peak indy has passed?
This is why many indy voters (myself included) would like to know what the SNP Plan B is.
Plan A, just hoping that Boris will merely magically relent on the grounds of democracy when the SNP win big at another election is not in of itself a bad plan per se, but it being the sole plan would seem to be bordering on the criminally insane.
Plan B is to take Westminster to the courts and then hold an "advisory" referendum if the courts rule against. But crucially not to mention this before Plan A is rejected.
The whole reason Sturgeon has got support for independence so high is the slowly, slowly don't frighten the horses approach. The "Yes" vote is very soft. It currently has a lot of people who are attracted by Sturgeon's "reasonableness".
If Sturgeon lays out the whole plan step by step to a wildcat referendum then that does two things A ) It gives Johnson every reason to refuse consent for a Westminster sanctioned referendum B ) it strips her of the aura of restraint.
She is leading non-dedicated Yessers step by step towards voting for Indy in a wildcat referendum. that can only be done with blinkers on otherwise they will shy away from the ballot box.
She may go to court. But the court will say No. It's a matter reserved for Westminster. That's where her cunning plan crashes to a halt.
The Tories will advise their voters to boycott an illegal referendum. Maybe Labour too. And the LDs. Result chaos, and a useless, incendiary, non-binding vote which makes the SNP look very dodgy and has no legal power.
The SNPs path to independence looks harder than I thought..
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
For veracity's sake can you link to your posts where you thought the SNPs path to independence was easy? Anticipating them greatly.
I'd convinced myself in all honesty that there'd be other routes to holding a legal referedum. I'm not so sure there is.
The reality is that Scotland can’t hold another binding referendum unless it’s in line with the constitutional requirements of the UK unless that is the Supreme Court do something outlandish if any court action ends up there . Even if you got a good turnout internationally it won’t be seen as legitimate.
The irony of course that support for Indy will be at its highest during this Parliament so it’s frustrating for the SNP . If Labour get in I’d expect support for Indy to fall . Personally I think if the SNP get a majority next year then Westminster shouldn’t stand in the way but that’s not going to happen under Johnson.
A big issue with a UDI is it won’t get international recognition and on economic terms you won’t be able to raise money on the markets which all countries need to do .
Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is going to be very complex and you’d need huge co-operation to do that so as much as I can understand the frustration of Scots it’s impossible to see any other way than doing this on the same terms as in 2014.
Also, of course, Scotland seceding via an advisory referendum called by the Nats against the will of Westminster (something I see as impossible, but let's go with it) will be EXTREMELY controversial across parts of the world, eg the EU and, in particular Spain.
Indy Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Why on earth would the Spanish welcome in this country which has just declared UDI, thereby encouraging all the secessionists in Catalunya to try exactly the same trick?
They would not. Spain would veto Scottish membership. Instantly. So Scotland would be stuck outside the UK and outside the EU.
Spain will only accept Scotland as a new member if it has secured independence via the established method of 2014, an indyref granted by and agreed with Westminster.
Again, I imagine Sturgeon knows all this too, and yet her wilder followers haven't worked it out.
It's telling that David Henig (who'er he) doesn't want to engage with substance of Harwood's argument though.
Perhaps because it's nonsense ? None of these neighbouring countries are demanding to first leave and then partly re-enter a trading zone for the same sort of 'dynamic alignment' to arise as an issue in the first place.
While I can understand that view it does have a problem. By the time we get that far it would be even more difficult for a country to leave than it currently is. Frankly I think this decade is the last that it will be possible to leave the eu. I would suggest it is already pretty much impossible to leave if you are in the eurozone
And yet the Scots are still keen on leaving the UK, a much longer-standing tie.
Good evening, everyone.
Good evening and I support scottish independence if the scots want it I also up thread said that the break away would be likely an order of magnitude harder to do. I didn't however say therefore it shouldn't be done. What was the point you thought you were making?
There is dynamic alignment baked into USMCA (regarding US minimum wage and intellectual property legislation), so it's also factually inaccurate.
Try using Canadian dollars even an inch over the border. Whereas, in Canada, the US Dollar is accepted virtually everywhere. Just the way it is.
I suspect thats like the southern irish used to take british pounds happily as long as it was on a 1 british pound is treated like an irish pound. Instant 10% mark up for them. 1 canadian dollar is 0.78 us dollars so on a 1 to 1 basis they are making 22% extra
Comments
Presumably the choice of tactics could also set off an almighty internal SNP battle
Bosnia n Herz joins the 1,000/million club today.
Could they have done that before....yes they could but easier I guess just to look around and see who is in early and leaving late
On the north/South Covid front.
Makes the review of the tiers very interesting indeed.
As far as I am aware the Scottish government has the power to hold plebiscites.
BoZo did it anyway.
That's where your cunning defence crashes to a halt...
1how the vaccine rollout is managed
2 how the post Christmas surge is financed and managed.
3 the government reaction to the debt mountain, if it’s seen to fall on average and below earners then the tories will fall through the floor.
4 the length and duration of the queues at ports
5 unemployment rates
Basically it will be about competence and management, what has happened in 2020 will be forgotten.
These idiots think that replacing Sturgeon would make Independence more popular.
Things may be going badly, but I think it just seems self pitying to project onto that there 'woe is us, all is over forevermore'.
It's like those people are get terribly upset that we are not a super power anymore - there seem more people who act like there are millions disappointed by that, than there are people actually disappointe by it (who exist, and are loud, but frankly I find people are generally ok with being a middle tier country).
All part and parcel of being a sovereign country. Which the UK is and Scotland is not.
Does Westminster want to rub Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country? Might postpone a referendum but it long term is a bloody stupid idea if you're a unionist.
Yesterday I had to go to Portsmouth, I expected England to be more subdued. However, the motorways were choc-a-bloc, supermarket car parks (and presumably) supermarkets are rammed full. Hardly anyone is socially distancing, although mask wearing is good. People are ignoring the Government...
Southern England is a couple of weeks behind us I fear. Johnson therefore timed his lockdown to perfection for Christmas, Welsh Government did not. We will lockdown for three weeks on the 28th. We should already be locked down.
Hard to believe the tossers on here who believe Scotland is like a pet dog that has to do exactly as it is told by some arseholes in Westminster.
Whether they can hold an unofficial plebiscite is legally a grey area. The courts might rule that since it's unofficial it's allowed, or they might rule that since it's related to the union then it's not.
But either way rubbing Scotland's nose in the fact they're not a sovereign country and insisting they can't become one even if they vote that way ... Toxic. Absolutely toxic.
Even if it wasn’t clear in the Scotland Act 1998 (which it was) the precedent of 2014 would be sufficient to see such a measure struck down.
But as I said, they could hold one as long as they didn’t use public funds for it.
And Sturgeon, who is not stupid, also knows this.
I respect the will of the Scottish voters personally. If they give the SNP a majority on a manifesto to hold a referendum then the SNP have morally won the mandate to hold one. No if's or buts. If the SNP don't win a majority then so be it, that was the Scottish voters choice too.
We are a democracy in this country not General Franco's dictatorship. Let the voters decide.
So I don’t think a court would accept an ‘unofficial, advisory’ referendum as an excuse for spending public money,
They just won't vote. The vote is advisory. Turnout will be way way down. The Nats will end up humiliated and their cause badly damaged.
Again, Sturgeon KNOWS all this. But her more extreme colleagues either don't know or don't care. That's the battle inside Nationalism.
Even if that is several years later.
Except that they would each need to have 175 people road for one quiet drink. Every single day. Because *feelings*.
Covid has been good for the Conservative Party and the Government.
I'll explain - what causes governing parties problems aren't the big things but the little things. In times of national crisis, there can and frequently is criticism but for many people there is a deeper desire to rally behind the government of the day, to support the country, to be patriotic.
In bad times, it's possible for governing parties to get away with bad Government because of that residue of support but in good times it's impossible to get away with bad Government because people don't feel that residual loyalty and see the option of looking elsewhere.
As the twin crises of Brexit and Covud dominate, the Government retains that residual loyalty. Once normality resumes and Brexit happens, it will be "business as usual" and we'll be able to see if this is a Government of quality and competence or otherwise. If it is otherwise, the ratings will soon fall away.
Every person vaccinated, every day we move further from Brexit brings that normality nearer and once the initial euphoria has died down this Government can be judged for how it deals with day-to-day governance, not crisis management.
That fairly important caveat explains results in, e.g. 1945 and 1979.
https://brianformayor.london/
I am relieved that he’s putting health first.
And also science.
And education.
And “green”
Oh, and also “digital”
Everything first!
Amused to see UKIP is Peter Gammons.
When Scotland calls a legal indyref2, and if that indyref is passed by YES, then with great sadness Scotland must be allowed to go. That's democracy.
I am merely pointing out the more practical legal elements of democracy, and there is no way Boris (or any Tory PM) is going to allow a vote if they look like losing. And Westminster has that power. And I do not believe there is anything much that the Nats can do about that. It is the law of the land.
2024 will be the Nats best chance, under a weak Starmer premiership, when he is forced to agree to a vote.
The problem for the Nats is that by then YES may be less popular, Sturgeon may have gone, and so on. Alternatively, the UK's refusal to allow an earlier vote may send YES to 65% in the polls and they win easily. In 2024.
We shall see. Dangerous times for the Union. But then it's dangerous times for bloody everything and everyone.
The irony of course that support for Indy will be at its highest during this Parliament so it’s frustrating for the SNP . If Labour get in I’d expect support for Indy to fall . Personally I think if the SNP get a majority next year then Westminster shouldn’t stand in the way but that’s not going to happen under Johnson.
A big issue with a UDI is it won’t get international recognition and on economic terms you won’t be able to raise money on the markets which all countries need to do .
Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is going to be very complex and you’d need huge co-operation to do that so as much as I can understand the frustration of Scots it’s impossible to see any other way than doing this on the same terms as in 2014.
It is not a colony and if a country wants to be independent then under International law it will be.
What the court will or will not accept is unclear until the court has decided. It depends essentially if the court decides if it is related to the union - they could decide that since that's the topic of the referendum it is. Or they could decide that since it is just an unofficial plebiscite and only a Parliamentary bill would change the union that it is not.
We honestly don't know how the court would rule until it does since it's not a matter that has gone before the court before. I see a lot of wishful thinking from people on both sides certain that they are right, but until the court rules I see no certainty.
The rest of us who value the union will make the case at the right time and I am confident it can be won
Furthermore, methodologically, how "Changes since 3-4 Dec" works (given that that was within the 27 Nov - 8 Dec period of this pol and thus basically a subset) I have no idea, but I am sure someone can enlighten me.
Either way, its a bit meaningless four years out from a GE.
Seems like everything is crap. So vote for me instead.
Impressive range of suits with hankies mind.
Two courts - the top one in Scotland, and the Supreme Court in London. But, as you say, we don't know.
Which international court do you believe has the authority to rule that Scotland can become independent? Through what mechanism?
Internationally neither courts nor countries will interfere. People regard secession as an internal affair not an international one. Spain, USA and more do not recognise secession in the way you wish they did.
Stick to the democratic process. That will be far more fruitful and rewarding.
Indy Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Why on earth would the Spanish welcome in this country which has just declared UDI, thereby encouraging all the secessionists in Catalunya to try exactly the same trick?
They would not. Spain would veto Scottish membership. Instantly. So Scotland would be stuck outside the UK and outside the EU.
Spain will only accept Scotland as a new member if it has secured independence via the established method of 2014, an indyref granted by and agreed with Westminster.
Again, I imagine Sturgeon knows all this too, and yet her wilder followers haven't worked it out.
From case data
From hospitalisation data
France , Spain especially aren’t going to give the green light and set a precedent. If it’s seen as legal within the constitutional framework of the UK then they won’t veto .
Because the argument they’ve always made is that Corsica and Catalonia would need to adhere to the constitutions of their countries to have a legally binding referendum .
It seems you can use the symbol in your own post but you can't quote someone who has used it. My guess is that the symbol buggers up the coding when inside the blockquote code.
If I'm right I should be able to post this but you shouldn't be able to quote me. I had this issue yesterday and I was able to fix it by replacing the < symbol in the person's post I was quoting with the words less than.
edit: nope that worked fine
Respecting democracy goes as far as acknowledging Johnson is PM. It does not extend to ignoring his manifest incompetence.
Will be interesting to see Tory backbenchers react.
Cos regions will be moving up, not down, at review time.
The very opposite to which they were led to expect.
Sturgeon the gradualist will absolutely hate that.
I expect them all to go to Tier 3, God help us. And (with the exception of the insane Xmas break) I reckon they could stay in Tier 3 deep into January.
Horrible. A cold hard joyless plague-ridden winter.
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1337806421820395535
Sorry pal, you own this now.
Good evening, everyone.