Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever it likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
That would be credible but for Brexit. About which the Unionist side lied repeatedly and loudly (whether deliberately or not is a good question).
Er, it must have escaped your attention that a Yes vote in 2014 would have automatically expelled a newly Indy Scotland from the EU. This was made very clear by the EU at the time. Indy Scotland would have had to reapply for membership, which would have taken years, and might even have been vetoed by Spain or others.
The SNP don’t like to talk about this, because their hypocrisy on the matter is utterly breathtaking.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
No, that's a bit west of Okehampton on the dismantled Tavistock line.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
So if Scottish MPs vote for a Scottish independence referendum, following Scottish MSPs doing then you will respect that?
Or should the views of the Scots be discarded for the views of the English?
The Westminster parliament should take their views into account when it makes a decision
So since an overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs were elected on a pledge for another referendum and if a Scottish government is elected next year on a clear and unambiguous pledge for another referendum then Westminster should respect that then shouldn't they?
Or should Scottish voters be told "we don't care what you vote for, your votes aren't relevant now get back in your box"
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
Mid Hants Line has a S&DJR 7F. Will be interesting to see and hear it deal with those hills.
Didn't they cope with that hill-cum-tunnel out of Green Park in Bath?
The Combe Down Tunnel was on the route out of Bath. In 1929 the crew of one of the 7F engines was overcome by fumes in the tunnel, the engine ran downhill out of control and crashed near the goods yard in Bath.
Very bad headline for Boris in the Daily Mail: "I'm sorry I haven't a clue - Boris blusters his way through pointless press conference without giving a single answer about when truckers will be allowed into France".
Very bad headline for Boris in the Daily Mail: "I'm sorry I haven't a clue - Boris blusters his way through pointless press conference without giving a single answer about when truckers will be allowed into France".
After yesterday’s After yet another screeching U-turn, the question on many lips is: does the prime minister have any idea what he’s doing or where he’s going? Is there a coherent Covid strategy? Or is he all at sea – the captain of a rudderless ship being controlled by the currents rather than steering a steady course?
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
The Scottish government can’t pledge a referendum* - it’s not in their power to grant one. They can pledge to advocate for one, certainly.
* well, of course they can, but politicians should try to stick to the possible when making promises
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever it likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
That would be credible but for Brexit. About which the Unionist side lied repeatedly and loudly (whether deliberately or not is a good question).
Er, it must have escaped your attention that a Yes vote in 2014 would have automatically expelled a newly Indy Scotland from the EU. This was made very clear by the EU at the time. Indy Scotland would have had to reapply for membership, which would have taken years, and might even have been vetoed by Spain or others.
The SNP don’t like to talk about this, because their hypocrisy on the matter is utterly breathtaking.
The Spanish made it clear at the time there was no problem with a legal referendum. Anjd they were the main sticking point.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
No, that's a bit west of Okehampton on the dismantled Tavistock line.
So it is! Wlll have to wait a bit longer to trundle over it (though there is a cycle way at present IIRC).
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever it likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
That would be credible but for Brexit. About which the Unionist side lied repeatedly and loudly (whether deliberately or not is a good question).
Er, it must have escaped your attention that a Yes vote in 2014 would have automatically expelled a newly Indy Scotland from the EU. This was made very clear by the EU at the time. Indy Scotland would have had to reapply for membership, which would have taken years, and might even have been vetoed by Spain or others.
The SNP don’t like to talk about this, because their hypocrisy on the matter is utterly breathtaking.
No need to give it further currency *innocent face*
Very bad headline for Boris in the Daily Mail: "I'm sorry I haven't a clue - Boris blusters his way through pointless press conference without giving a single answer about when truckers will be allowed into France".
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
The Ashington and Blyth is also scheduled to be reopened.
But Okehampton is more interesting. I wonder if this is the first stage of reopening the line to Plymouth through Tavistock. The track would need to be reinstated and I think in one place it might need diverting but it would make sense on a huge number of levels.
Oh, and Sunil must be in an agony of ecstasy tonight.
That's the holy grail but it is decades away; the line has been dismantled and all the stations sold off as houses. We'll have to wait until the coastal line is completely washed away at Dawlish. The Okie to Exeter line has always been there, just hardly used.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
So if Scottish MPs vote for a Scottish independence referendum, following Scottish MSPs doing then you will respect that?
Or should the views of the Scots be discarded for the views of the English?
The Westminster parliament should take their views into account when it makes a decision
So since an overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs were elected on a pledge for another referendum and if a Scottish government is elected next year on a clear and unambiguous pledge for another referendum then Westminster should respect that then shouldn't they?
Or should Scottish voters be told "we don't care what you vote for, your votes aren't relevant now get back in your box"
It’s a decision for the Westminster parliament as a whole. They had a vote in 2014 which was the right thing to happen. And then you have a pause before asking the question again.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever it likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
That would be credible but for Brexit. About which the Unionist side lied repeatedly and loudly (whether deliberately or not is a good question).
Er, it must have escaped your attention that a Yes vote in 2014 would have automatically expelled a newly Indy Scotland from the EU. This was made very clear by the EU at the time. Indy Scotland would have had to reapply for membership, which would have taken years, and might even have been vetoed by Spain or others.
The SNP don’t like to talk about this, because their hypocrisy on the matter is utterly breathtaking.
That is making his point, really. Voting No was portrayed as the remain option
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
No, that's a bit west of Okehampton on the dismantled Tavistock line.
The Dartmoor Railway runs as far as Meldon Viaduct. But that would not meet current safety standards so if the line on to Tavistock was reopened a new viaduct would have to be built next to it.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever it likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
That would be credible but for Brexit. About which the Unionist side lied repeatedly and loudly (whether deliberately or not is a good question).
Er, it must have escaped your attention that a Yes vote in 2014 would have automatically expelled a newly Indy Scotland from the EU. This was made very clear by the EU at the time. Indy Scotland would have had to reapply for membership, which would have taken years, and might even have been vetoed by Spain or others.
The SNP don’t like to talk about this, because their hypocrisy on the matter is utterly breathtaking.
The Spanish made it clear at the time there was no problem with a legal referendum. Anjd they were the main sticking point.
But you don’t deny that a Yes vote in 2014 would have expelled Scotland from the EU?
You can’t deny it. Because it is just the case and you are too intelligent to pretend otherwise.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
The Scottish government can’t pledge a referendum* - it’s not in their power to grant one. They can pledge to advocate for one, certainly.
* well, of course they can, but politicians should try to stick to the possible when making promises
Who do you want to determine it? Scottish MPs, Scottish MSPs or screw the Scots and let the English decide?
A majority of Scottish MPs want a referendum. If that is where you want it deciding.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever it likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
That would be credible but for Brexit. About which the Unionist side lied repeatedly and loudly (whether deliberately or not is a good question).
Er, it must have escaped your attention that a Yes vote in 2014 would have automatically expelled a newly Indy Scotland from the EU. This was made very clear by the EU at the time. Indy Scotland would have had to reapply for membership, which would have taken years, and might even have been vetoed by Spain or others.
The SNP don’t like to talk about this, because their hypocrisy on the matter is utterly breathtaking.
The Spanish made it clear at the time there was no problem with a legal referendum. Anjd they were the main sticking point.
But you don’t deny that a Yes vote in 2014 would have expelled Scotland from the EU?
You can’t deny it. Because it is just the case and you are too intelligent to pretend otherwise.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
No, that's a bit west of Okehampton on the dismantled Tavistock line.
The Dartmoor Railway runs as far as Meldon Viaduct. But that would not meet current safety standards so if the line on to Tavistock was reopened a new viaduct would have to be built next to it.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
The Ashington and Blyth is also scheduled to be reopened.
But Okehampton is more interesting. I wonder if this is the first stage of reopening the line to Plymouth through Tavistock. The track would need to be reinstated and I think in one place it might need diverting but it would make sense on a huge number of levels.
Oh, and Sunil must be in an agony of ecstasy tonight.
That's the holy grail but it is decades away; the line has been dismantled and all the stations sold off as houses. We'll have to wait until the coastal line is completely washed away at Dawlish. The Okie to Exeter line has always been there, just hardly used.
There are plans to put the spur in from Bere Alston to approach Tavistock from the south. But that would leave around 14 miles to reinstate to connect the two up, and I’m not certain the trackbed has been preserved north of Tavistock, although I don’t know the town well enough to be sure.
Estimates for putting it all back appear to be £850 million, which is a lot. But the tourist, freight and commuter potential is enormous if they would only do it.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
No, that's a bit west of Okehampton on the dismantled Tavistock line.
The Dartmoor Railway runs as far as Meldon Viaduct. But that would not meet current safety standards so if the line on to Tavistock was reopened a new viaduct would have to be built next to it.
The Dartmoor Railway goes up to Meldon quarry but stops short of the viaduct which doesn't have track on it, it's part of a cycle track called the Granite Way.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
So if Scottish MPs vote for a Scottish independence referendum, following Scottish MSPs doing then you will respect that?
Or should the views of the Scots be discarded for the views of the English?
The Westminster parliament should take their views into account when it makes a decision
So since an overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs were elected on a pledge for another referendum and if a Scottish government is elected next year on a clear and unambiguous pledge for another referendum then Westminster should respect that then shouldn't they?
Or should Scottish voters be told "we don't care what you vote for, your votes aren't relevant now get back in your box"
It’s a decision for the Westminster parliament as a whole. They had a vote in 2014 which was the right thing to happen. And then you have a pause before asking the question again.
It'll be at least 7 years, more like [edit] at least 8-9, with the pox in the way. So there will be a pause anyway.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
No, that's a bit west of Okehampton on the dismantled Tavistock line.
The Dartmoor Railway runs as far as Meldon Viaduct. But that would not meet current safety standards so if the line on to Tavistock was reopened a new viaduct would have to be built next to it.
The Dartmoor Railway goes up to Meldon quarry but stops short of the viaduct which doesn't have track on it, it's part of a cycle track called the Granite Way.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
The Ashington and Blyth is also scheduled to be reopened.
But Okehampton is more interesting. I wonder if this is the first stage of reopening the line to Plymouth through Tavistock. The track would need to be reinstated and I think in one place it might need diverting but it would make sense on a huge number of levels.
Oh, and Sunil must be in an agony of ecstasy tonight.
That's the holy grail but it is decades away; the line has been dismantled and all the stations sold off as houses. We'll have to wait until the coastal line is completely washed away at Dawlish. The Okie to Exeter line has always been there, just hardly used.
Let's see how long this actually takes to happen. It's a straightforward job to reopen (to Okehampton) but look at how long the Bicester-Bletchley reopening is taking, something I believe Osborne referenced in a Budget once.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
The Scottish government can’t pledge a referendum* - it’s not in their power to grant one. They can pledge to advocate for one, certainly.
* well, of course they can, but politicians should try to stick to the possible when making promises
Who do you want to determine it? Scottish MPs, Scottish MSPs or screw the Scots and let the English decide?
A majority of Scottish MPs want a referendum. If that is where you want it deciding.
Given that there is no realistic likelihood of independence becoming a niche interest again, the best option would be to skip any further referendums and proceed directly to the dissolution of the Union. Trying to keep it going serves no useful purpose.
(EDIT: forget I said anything - apart from anything else, relative to Covid armageddon, nothing much else matters at the moment.)
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
The Ashington and Blyth is also scheduled to be reopened.
But Okehampton is more interesting. I wonder if this is the first stage of reopening the line to Plymouth through Tavistock. The track would need to be reinstated and I think in one place it might need diverting but it would make sense on a huge number of levels.
Oh, and Sunil must be in an agony of ecstasy tonight.
That's the holy grail but it is decades away; the line has been dismantled and all the stations sold off as houses. We'll have to wait until the coastal line is completely washed away at Dawlish. The Okie to Exeter line has always been there, just hardly used.
There are plans to put the spur in from Bere Alston to approach Tavistock from the south. But that would leave around 14 miles to reinstate to connect the two up, and I’m not certain the trackbed has been preserved north of Tavistock, although I don’t know the town well enough to be sure.
Estimates for putting it all back appear to be £850 million, which is a lot. But the tourist, freight and commuter potential is enormous if they would only do it.
It's rather like completing the Waverley Line in Scxotland - linking up Hawick in both directions and providing a hugely useful strategic route. It's not just the South Devon line that is vulnerable to floods and storms.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
So if Scottish MPs vote for a Scottish independence referendum, following Scottish MSPs doing then you will respect that?
Or should the views of the Scots be discarded for the views of the English?
The Westminster parliament should take their views into account when it makes a decision
So since an overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs were elected on a pledge for another referendum and if a Scottish government is elected next year on a clear and unambiguous pledge for another referendum then Westminster should respect that then shouldn't they?
Or should Scottish voters be told "we don't care what you vote for, your votes aren't relevant now get back in your box"
It’s a decision for the Westminster parliament as a whole. They had a vote in 2014 which was the right thing to happen. And then you have a pause before asking the question again.
There's been a pause.
Since then there will have been an EU Referendum, two Holyrood elections, three General Elections and Brexit.
That's a substantial amount. And if the Scots vote for it that is their choice in a democracy.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
The Scottish government can’t pledge a referendum* - it’s not in their power to grant one. They can pledge to advocate for one, certainly.
* well, of course they can, but politicians should try to stick to the possible when making promises
Who do you want to determine it? Scottish MPs, Scottish MSPs or screw the Scots and let the English decide?
A majority of Scottish MPs want a referendum. If that is where you want it deciding.
Given that there is no realistic likelihood of independence becoming a niche interest again, the best option would be to skip any further referendums and proceed directly to the dissolution of the Union. Trying to keep it going serves no useful purpose.
(EDIT: forget I said anything - apart from anything else, relative to Covid armageddon, nothing much else matters at the moment.)
That's a reach. Anything can become a niche interest, given that interest is a sentiment, an opinion, a feeling, and those change daily, let alone over years.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
The Ashington and Blyth is also scheduled to be reopened.
But Okehampton is more interesting. I wonder if this is the first stage of reopening the line to Plymouth through Tavistock. The track would need to be reinstated and I think in one place it might need diverting but it would make sense on a huge number of levels.
Oh, and Sunil must be in an agony of ecstasy tonight.
That's the holy grail but it is decades away; the line has been dismantled and all the stations sold off as houses. We'll have to wait until the coastal line is completely washed away at Dawlish. The Okie to Exeter line has always been there, just hardly used.
There are plans to put the spur in from Bere Alston to approach Tavistock from the south. But that would leave around 14 miles to reinstate to connect the two up, and I’m not certain the trackbed has been preserved north of Tavistock, although I don’t know the town well enough to be sure.
Estimates for putting it all back appear to be £850 million, which is a lot. But the tourist, freight and commuter potential is enormous if they would only do it.
It's chicken feed when you can borrow at next to zero.
Key question is business case and getting a BCR >1.1 (with a bit of opportunity cost on top but not much). Think it would play well politically in Devon and Cornish marginals due to climate resilience over the Dawlish seawall - so I'd certainly do it.
Bigger issue (constraint) in getting it done is skills. UK rail sector has so many big projects going on right now.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
The Ashington and Blyth is also scheduled to be reopened.
But Okehampton is more interesting. I wonder if this is the first stage of reopening the line to Plymouth through Tavistock. The track would need to be reinstated and I think in one place it might need diverting but it would make sense on a huge number of levels.
Oh, and Sunil must be in an agony of ecstasy tonight.
That's the holy grail but it is decades away; the line has been dismantled and all the stations sold off as houses. We'll have to wait until the coastal line is completely washed away at Dawlish. The Okie to Exeter line has always been there, just hardly used.
There are plans to put the spur in from Bere Alston to approach Tavistock from the south. But that would leave around 14 miles to reinstate to connect the two up, and I’m not certain the trackbed has been preserved north of Tavistock, although I don’t know the town well enough to be sure.
Estimates for putting it all back appear to be £850 million, which is a lot. But the tourist, freight and commuter potential is enormous if they would only do it.
It's rather like completing the Waverley Line in Scxotland - linking up Hawick in both directions and providing a hugely useful strategic route. It's not just the South Devon line that is vulnerable to floods and storms.
I'm emotionally very pro - and Hawick definitely needs it to the north to Edinburgh - but there really is jack shit south of Hawick.
Newcastleton, I guess, but it's just a street of houses and not much else.
Sean was previously LadyG, he's joined about five million times under different accounts. He lives a very sad life, it seems.
CBH: you know the rules. Abide by them or be banned.
Is the stick being brandished for outing a poster for using an alias, or for mudslinging? Because the latter takes place with complete abandon on here.
Anyway, we seem to have got almost all the way through the day without any novel catastrophes occurring. I'm astonished.
Yes. It is being brandished for outing a poster for using an alias, or for mudslinging.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
It means five years normally.
We have a General Election every five years at a maximum.
The opinion that matters is the Scottish voters. Not anyone elses unless the Scots are prisoners within the union.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
The Ashington and Blyth is also scheduled to be reopened.
But Okehampton is more interesting. I wonder if this is the first stage of reopening the line to Plymouth through Tavistock. The track would need to be reinstated and I think in one place it might need diverting but it would make sense on a huge number of levels.
Oh, and Sunil must be in an agony of ecstasy tonight.
That's the holy grail but it is decades away; the line has been dismantled and all the stations sold off as houses. We'll have to wait until the coastal line is completely washed away at Dawlish. The Okie to Exeter line has always been there, just hardly used.
There are plans to put the spur in from Bere Alston to approach Tavistock from the south. But that would leave around 14 miles to reinstate to connect the two up, and I’m not certain the trackbed has been preserved north of Tavistock, although I don’t know the town well enough to be sure.
Estimates for putting it all back appear to be £850 million, which is a lot. But the tourist, freight and commuter potential is enormous if they would only do it.
It's rather like completing the Waverley Line in Scxotland - linking up Hawick in both directions and providing a hugely useful strategic route. It's not just the South Devon line that is vulnerable to floods and storms.
I'm emotionally very pro - and Hawick definitely needs it to the north to Edinburgh - but there really is jack shit south of Hawick.
Newcastleton, I guess, but it's just a street of houses and not much else.
Not quite so. Longtown for one isd on the way, and there are Melrose and St Boswells etc before you get to Hawick anyway. The odd request stop in betweenwould take care of hikers and tourism. Probably needed anyway if they are silly enough to single the line again.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
No, that's a bit west of Okehampton on the dismantled Tavistock line.
The Dartmoor Railway runs as far as Meldon Viaduct. But that would not meet current safety standards so if the line on to Tavistock was reopened a new viaduct would have to be built next to it.
The Dartmoor Railway goes up to Meldon quarry but stops short of the viaduct which doesn't have track on it, it's part of a cycle track called the Granite Way.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
The Scottish government can’t pledge a referendum* - it’s not in their power to grant one. They can pledge to advocate for one, certainly.
* well, of course they can, but politicians should try to stick to the possible when making promises
Who do you want to determine it? Scottish MPs, Scottish MSPs or screw the Scots and let the English decide?
A majority of Scottish MPs want a referendum. If that is where you want it deciding.
Given that there is no realistic likelihood of independence becoming a niche interest again, the best option would be to skip any further referendums and proceed directly to the dissolution of the Union. Trying to keep it going serves no useful purpose.
(EDIT: forget I said anything - apart from anything else, relative to Covid armageddon, nothing much else matters at the moment.)
That's a reach. Anything can become a niche interest, given that interest is a sentiment, an opinion, a feeling, and those change daily, let alone over years.
I remember when Brexit was a niche interest. Which provides an interesting counter example.
The British had to wait 40 years between their first EU vote and their second. To my mind this was far too long, and it allowed so much anger to build we ended up quitting entirely, whereas an earlier vote (on Maastricht or the Constitution) would have vented eurosceptic anger, and kept us semi-detached, while avoiding the total, destructive rupture of outright departure.
That is the argument FOR having referendums every so often. But should the Brits have been allowed a vote to leave whenever we liked? Every three or five or seven years or whatever? Clearly not. The EU would not have tolerated the volatility, our fellow members would have declared war in exasperation.
Great constitutional matters need referendums, but these votes need to be fairly rare. Again, Salmond was right: once in a generation. And that means 15 years or so
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
The Scottish government can’t pledge a referendum* - it’s not in their power to grant one. They can pledge to advocate for one, certainly.
* well, of course they can, but politicians should try to stick to the possible when making promises
Who do you want to determine it? Scottish MPs, Scottish MSPs or screw the Scots and let the English decide?
A majority of Scottish MPs want a referendum. If that is where you want it deciding.
Given that there is no realistic likelihood of independence becoming a niche interest again, the best option would be to skip any further referendums and proceed directly to the dissolution of the Union. Trying to keep it going serves no useful purpose.
(EDIT: forget I said anything - apart from anything else, relative to Covid armageddon, nothing much else matters at the moment.)
That's a reach. Anything can become a niche interest, given that interest is a sentiment, an opinion, a feeling, and those change daily, let alone over years.
There is actually a change of senriment [edit] since 2014 on PB. Now there are enough non-Scots to argue the pro-indy and pro-indyrtef sides (not the same thing, remember) that the actual Scots often can sit back and watch with interest. That's not a niche interest but a whole atrium interest, to extend BlackRook's metaphor.
I just saw a post on social media that has now been deleted - It relates to what a womans daughter at a large Essex hospital was (allegedly) seeing over the last week.
If its true (and I have no idea either way) then I change my mind again and say we need full lockdown now - feck xmas.
I actually hope its a sick attention seeking muppet rather than the truth
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
The Scottish government can’t pledge a referendum* - it’s not in their power to grant one. They can pledge to advocate for one, certainly.
* well, of course they can, but politicians should try to stick to the possible when making promises
Who do you want to determine it? Scottish MPs, Scottish MSPs or screw the Scots and let the English decide?
A majority of Scottish MPs want a referendum. If that is where you want it deciding.
Given that there is no realistic likelihood of independence becoming a niche interest again, the best option would be to skip any further referendums and proceed directly to the dissolution of the Union. Trying to keep it going serves no useful purpose.
(EDIT: forget I said anything - apart from anything else, relative to Covid armageddon, nothing much else matters at the moment.)
That's a reach. Anything can become a niche interest, given that interest is a sentiment, an opinion, a feeling, and those change daily, let alone over years.
I remember when Brexit was a niche interest. Which provides an interesting counter example.
The British had to wait 40 years between their first EU vote and their second. To my mind this was far too long, and it allowed so much anger to build we ended up quitting entirely, whereas an earlier vote (on Maastricht or the Constitution) would have vented eurosceptic anger, and kept us semi-detached, while avoiding the total, destructive rupture of outright departure.
That is the argument FOR having referendums every so often. But should the Brits have been allowed a vote to leave whenever we liked? Every three or five or seven years or whatever? Clearly not. The EU would not have tolerated the volatility, our fellow members would have declared war in exasperation.
Great constitutional matters need referendums, but these votes need to be fairly rare. Again, Salmond was right: once in a generation. And that means 15 years or so
Yes. The British were a sovereign democracy. So we could have a referendum whenever we chose.
That we waited forty years was our choice not theirs.
If the Scottish do not want another referendum that is their choice. If they do that is also their choice. Democracy is how to determine it.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
Somehow I can't imagine that view holding much water in this country if it had been from the perspective of the UK leaving the EU.
"It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MEPs of the EU, including the UK's. For they must take into account the interest of all Europeans (who would all be severely affected by a Leave vote). "
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
CNN - With just 10 days until the end of a tumultuous year, Johnson is mired in colliding crises, some of which are entirely of his own creation.
Johnson was already facing a torrid 10 days. Critics had accused the Prime Minister of trying to blag his way to the end of the year by choosing to take Brexit talks down to the wire. And many were furious with him for promising that Brits would be able to get together and celebrate Christmas. Now, the UK is getting a preview of exactly how bad things could be in two weeks' time, if Brexit really does cause severe disruption to imports.
Had he extended the lockdown until December 23, meaning Brits were self-isolating before traveling to other parts of the country, he might have been able to keep his Christmas promise.
And had the Prime Minister extended the Brexit transition period on the grounds of living through a global pandemic before the June deadline, or recognized that taking Brexit down to the wire left him at the mercy of events beyond his control, perhaps Brits wouldn't be watching aghast as several of the country's worst nightmares have collided at the end of an awful year.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
Somehow I can't imagine that view holding much water in this country if it had been from the perspective of the UK leaving the EU.
"It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MEPs of the EU, including the UK's. For they must take into account the interest of all Europeans (who would all be severely affected by a Leave vote). "
But this comparison is bogus. The right to call an EU referendum resided at Westminster, not Strasbourg. And always did. It was idiot British europhile MPs in london who kept denying us a vote. Very foolishly, as it turned out.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
A bit more than the 5 years another poster claimed .....
A generation means nothing in election terms.
General elections are every five years at the max. It is at elections we decide the priorities for the next Parliament and no Parliament can be bound by its predecessor. It doesn't matter whether Salmond said a generation - there have been six elections (two Holyrood, three General and the EU referendum) since then.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
There's a bit of wishful thinking on the Scottish side here - someone's already mentioned it, but 2014 would have meant outside the EU with no currency of its own and a deficit in spending
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
A bit more than the 5 years another poster claimed .....
A generation means nothing in election terms.
General elections are every five years at the max. It is at elections we decide the priorities for the next Parliament and no Parliament can be bound by its predecessor. It doesn't matter whether Salmond said a generation - there have been six elections (two Holyrood, three General and the EU referendum) since then.
Seriously, don't you think the "generation" enthusiasts are showing a shocking disregard for the law and constitution? Making up wholly imaginary rules that have no being in law.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
There's a bit of wishful thinking on the Scottish side here - someone's already mentioned it, but 2014 would have meant outside the EU with no currency of its own and a deficit in spending
I doubt it. But in any case it's the winning side that has to justify its own promises. And you can't screw up much more than this lot have done as regards Scotland and Brexit.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
Maybe do a whole thread on the merits of steam and diesel in the UK
In all seriousness, it would be interesting to have an informed one on the current and previous Conservative government's desperate hope that hybrid (and therefore presumably excessively heavy and inefficient) diesel and pure electric trains/locos as an excuse for messing up line electrification notably on the Brunel lines out of Paddington.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
There's a bit of wishful thinking on the Scottish side here - someone's already mentioned it, but 2014 would have meant outside the EU with no currency of its own and a deficit in spending
Yes, the currency issue alone might have seen Scotland outside the EU for a decade or more. Add in border problems with rUK, migration, debt, even fishing (as we see) and scotland might never have rejoined. Presumably President-for-life Alex Salmond would have been obliged to ask the Scots - in another vote - if they even wanted to rejoin.
That the Nats gloss over this, with Sturgeon’s simpering ‘love you’ videos aimed at Brussels, is one of the great hypocrisies of our time. Luckily for them the Scots media are too cowed, and the British media too uninterested - so it goes unexamined.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
There's a bit of wishful thinking on the Scottish side here - someone's already mentioned it, but 2014 would have meant outside the EU with no currency of its own and a deficit in spending
Yes, the currency issue alone might have seen Scotland outside the EU for a decade or more. Add in border problems with rUK, migration, debt, even fishing (as we see) and scotland might never have rejoined. Presumably President-for-life Alex Salmond would have been obliged to ask the Scots - in another vote - if they even wanted to rejoin.
That the Nats gloss over this, with Sturgeon’s simpering ‘love you’ videos aimed at Brussels, is one of the great hypocrisies of our time. Luckily for them the Scots media are too cowed, and the British media too uninterested - so it goes unexamined.
How interesting. You are talking about Brexit UK. And telling the Scots to be grateful they are not in that situation.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
There's a bit of wishful thinking on the Scottish side here - someone's already mentioned it, but 2014 would have meant outside the EU with no currency of its own and a deficit in spending
I doubt it. But in any case it's the winning side that has to justify its own promises. And you can't screw up much more than this lot have done as regards Scotland and Brexit.
I can't see a situation where uncoupling from the UK would be any easier. Even if Sturgeon is a far more capable operator (the rest of the SNP leave a lot to be desired...)
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
There's a bit of wishful thinking on the Scottish side here - someone's already mentioned it, but 2014 would have meant outside the EU with no currency of its own and a deficit in spending
I doubt it. But in any case it's the winning side that has to justify its own promises. And you can't screw up much more than this lot have done as regards Scotland and Brexit.
I can't see a situation where uncoupling from the UK would be any easier. Even if Sturgeon is a far more capable operator (the rest of the SNP leave a lot to be desired...)
Clear end result, for a start. Which was an dis 99% of the problem with Brexit.
Anyway good night everyone, and don't crash the train sets.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
There's a bit of wishful thinking on the Scottish side here - someone's already mentioned it, but 2014 would have meant outside the EU with no currency of its own and a deficit in spending
What do you mean, ‘a bit?’ Look at all those claims about referendums, or the court systems, or currencies, or the EU. They’re becoming Farage on speed.
The bottom line is, Scotland could become independent. But it would be a nasty, complicated process that would take years to achieve and hugely disruptive and traumatic to go through. It would have every downside of Brexit, plus the currency problem, plus the lack of government infrastructure, plus a much larger trading relationship to sort out. And at every stage, Scotland would be the supplicant to a government in London that has already proven treacherous and nasty. And there would certainly be no guarantee of EU membership.
If the Scottish people feel that’s worth it, good luck to them. But nobody should lie to them that it will be easy.
But there would have been a period before dissolution. And the political dynamic would have been utterly different then - with onluy the rUK trying to veto any rejoining of the Scots.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
And would it really have taken 6 years for an oven ready, potential member of the EU to be welcomed back? Perhaps that realignment would have produced the necessary period of contemplation & self analysis in the rUK/England that's so lacking at the moment.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
Scotland wouldn’t have been ‘oven ready’ as it had no plans to have its own currency.
There's a bit of wishful thinking on the Scottish side here - someone's already mentioned it, but 2014 would have meant outside the EU with no currency of its own and a deficit in spending
Yes, the currency issue alone might have seen Scotland outside the EU for a decade or more. Add in border problems with rUK, migration, debt, even fishing (as we see) and scotland might never have rejoined. Presumably President-for-life Alex Salmond would have been obliged to ask the Scots - in another vote - if they even wanted to rejoin.
That the Nats gloss over this, with Sturgeon’s simpering ‘love you’ videos aimed at Brussels, is one of the great hypocrisies of our time. Luckily for them the Scots media are too cowed, and the British media too uninterested - so it goes unexamined.
How interesting. You are talking about Brexit UK. And telling the Scots to be grateful they are not in that situation.
Agreed. Clear parallels. We have surely all learned from the shit-show that is Brexit.
The answer in both cases is devomax. To my mind. The UK should have had an earlier EU vote and remained a peripheral, semi-detached member of the EU, still in the single market but with a veto on further integration.
Scotland, likewise, should be an autonomous nation within a Federal UK, with a reformed House of Lords representing all four nations, and perhaps sited in Edinburgh?
Frustrating. I was excited to hear about the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn this morning but I can't see a damn thing.
Never mind. According to the astronomer they were talking to on the radio this evening we only have to wait until 2080 for the next one (and we might even be out of Tier 4 by then!)
Frustrating. I was excited to hear about the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn this morning but I can't see a damn thing.
It’s been live streamed from various sunnier places and there are videos about on the internet. I caught a glimpse of the two planets quite close ast night, and there’ll be another chance tomorrow. Or in 2040.
The next full transit is, I believe, in the 71st century.
Frustrating. I was excited to hear about the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn this morning but I can't see a damn thing.
Never mind. According to the astronomer they were talking to on the radio this evening we only have to wait until 2080 for the next one (and we might even be out of Tier 4 by then!)
And I would be about 120. Not fancying my chances for that one.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Given that England cannot unilaterally leave the UK, and has no parliament to request a referendum, I'd say any inequality in this area is in Scotland's favour.
Cazort of Wisdom - How to Save the Union in Seven Simple Steps
1. England secedes from United Kingdom, which instantly becomes much more attractive to the Scots, Welsh and Irish of all persuasions.
2. Wales secedes from England, in order to remain IN the (Celtic) Union with Scotland and Northern Ireland
3. Scotland reaffirms it's commitment to a reformed, reconstituted Union, with HRH EIIR reigning in Edinburgh as Queen of the UK, and presiding in London as Head of the Commonwealth.
4. New United Kingdom enters into association with European Union, which enables the next step, namely . . .
5. Republic of Ireland rejoins the Union, as separate unit from Northern Ireland, with the two co-operating via mutual compacts, device also open to other UK units.
6. New Union (consisting of Kingdom of Scotland, Principality of Wales, Republic of Ireland and Principality of Ulster) enters economic AND political negotiations with European Union AND Independent England.
7. England joins the New United Kingdom of the Isles, as 6 separate Dukedoms: Northumbria, Mercia, Anglia, Wussex, Thames (London) and - last but not least - Greater Cornwall. Note that, as with other UK basic units, the English Dukedoms will be free to enter into All-England compacts.
Frustrating. I was excited to hear about the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn this morning but I can't see a damn thing.
It’s been live streamed from various sunnier places and there are videos about on the internet. I caught a glimpse of the two planets quite close ast night, and there’ll be another chance tomorrow. Or in 2040.
The next full transit is, I believe, in the 71st century.
Is that when we have the referendum about joining or leaving the United Federation of Planets?
PBers will be reassured to know that over on the rail forum they aren't sharing videos of Nigel Farage speeches.
The equivalent of sharing Deltic videos would be showing speeches of Home.
Everyone knew it was the second best option,* but gets a kind of guilty nostalgic pleasure from looking at it.
*The Deltics were designed and built in the late 1950s and early 1960s after a plan to electrify the entire mainline network using overhead lines a la the Woodhead route were abandoned.
Anecdote, not sure if @NickPalmer can corroborate this, but my dad had a phone call from a friend in Godalming (Waverley borough - Tier 2). He said it was absolutely heaving today. Assume people are travelling there from neighbouring Guildford (Tier 4).
Family says hello from just over near Farnham!
My grandparents lived in Farnham, it's a nice town, we used to visit them for our summer holidays when I was a kid (Frencham ponds, Birdworld, the Watercress Line were the highlights).
I'm in Alton. I can hear (and even smell, at times) the trains from my house.
Very jealous. Spent some of the happiest times of my life on the Watercress Line as a child. I still drag the kids along occasionally (my aunt still lives in Farnham and we can combine visiting her with a trip on the train).
I am just old enough to remember seeing that through Woking working the Salisbury/Exeter services. I was hoping that the new franchise contract would be won by someone wanting to replace the 159s with loco hauled services like they have on TPE. Alas, First got it and they don't care about the West of England line as it competes with their GWR franchise.
Big rail news of the day is, the Exeter to Okehampton line is being reinstated.
The one over the wrought iron Meldon viaduct? I made a pilgrimage to see it a few years back.
The Ashington and Blyth is also scheduled to be reopened.
But Okehampton is more interesting. I wonder if this is the first stage of reopening the line to Plymouth through Tavistock. The track would need to be reinstated and I think in one place it might need diverting but it would make sense on a huge number of levels.
Oh, and Sunil must be in an agony of ecstasy tonight.
That's the holy grail but it is decades away; the line has been dismantled and all the stations sold off as houses. We'll have to wait until the coastal line is completely washed away at Dawlish. The Okie to Exeter line has always been there, just hardly used.
There are plans to put the spur in from Bere Alston to approach Tavistock from the south. But that would leave around 14 miles to reinstate to connect the two up, and I’m not certain the trackbed has been preserved north of Tavistock, although I don’t know the town well enough to be sure.
Estimates for putting it all back appear to be £850 million, which is a lot. But the tourist, freight and commuter potential is enormous if they would only do it.
It's rather like completing the Waverley Line in Scxotland - linking up Hawick in both directions and providing a hugely useful strategic route. It's not just the South Devon line that is vulnerable to floods and storms.
I'm emotionally very pro - and Hawick definitely needs it to the north to Edinburgh - but there really is jack shit south of Hawick.
Newcastleton, I guess, but it's just a street of houses and not much else.
Langholm! Which desperately needs a rail link to both Carlisle and Edinburgh.
And then you hit Canonbie and Longtown on the way to Carlisle.
Seriously, don't you think the "generation" enthusiasts are showing a shocking disregard for the law and constitution? Making up wholly imaginary rules that have no being in law.
Be gentle, it's all the wee souls have at the moment.
Edit: apols, I forgot Starmer Fed, overseen by the father of the nation Goggsy Broon.
Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC
You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.
Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.
Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.
If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.
Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
Under British Parliamentary Democracy there is an overriding principle quite rightly that No Parliament can bind it's successors.
Whatever the Scottish voters elect in 2021 is their choice. Not yours. If that contradicts promises in 2014 so be it. That is why no Parliament can bind it's successors.
Either you respect democracy or you do not. Democracy is not a once in a generation event.
The Scottish referendum is in the sole purview of Westminster. It’s up to the Westminster parliament if they wish to grant it or not. They can take into account the composition of the Scottish Parliament if they do choose but it’s not the only factor
Har Har, imagine you supporting colonial rule in a supposedly equal union , who would have believed it.
Westminster is the combined parliaments of England & Scotland.
It would be “colonial rule” as you put it if it was an English Parliament telling Scotland what to do
Quite. The Commons is full of Scottish MPs. Not only that, these MPs get to vote on English laws, in areas where English MPs sometimes have no say in the same Scottish affairs (eg hunting). And England must sometimes endure Scottish prime ministers - Gordon Brown - whereas no English MP could ever be First Minister in Holyrood.
The Scots get a fantastic deal in the Union.
That's up to Scottish voters to determine if we are to remain a democracy.
If Scottish MPs vote for an independence referendum then that should be honoured on the principle no Parliament can bind its successors should it not? With English MPs respecting how the Scottish voters vote?
Or are Scots nothing but serfs to bow down in servitude to their English betters in your eyes?
This is hyperbole. Scots were rightly given a referendum in 2014. The UK is a union of equals and the question had to be posed once the SNP got a majority in Holyrood. So the question was asked.
But the Scots said No. By a significant margin (more than Brexit).
No country made up of constituent nations can allow its member nations the right to call a referendum on secession whenever any one nation likes, otherwise there would be perpetual constitutional turbulence - and consequent economic damage to all parties - and the SNP could call a vote every week until they finally win.
The right to call a referendum is correctly reserved for the combined UK government at Westminster, where Scots are properly represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the UK parliament decides it is too soon for the question to be posed again (and I think it is) then that is that.
There will be another indyref. As there was a 2nd Quebec referendum. But something like a generation should elapse between the votes, as happened in Quebec also.
2030 feels about right, to me. You are free to differ but I find your moral outrage a bit overblown.
People aren't "given" the right to vote in a democracy. It is theirs by right. Every few years. And no one Parliament can bind it's successors.
If the Scottish elect a majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
If at the following the Scottish elect another majority who want a referendum that is democracy.
Democracy doesn't end just because it is inconvenient. If the Scots don't want a referendum they shouldn't elect a government pledging one.
What does your “every few years” mean? Every two years? Three? Seventeen? Every month?
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
Comments
The SNP don’t like to talk about this, because their hypocrisy on the matter is utterly breathtaking.
Or should Scottish voters be told "we don't care what you vote for, your votes aren't relevant now get back in your box"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe_Down_Tunnel
* well, of course they can, but politicians should try to stick to the possible when making promises
That is up to Macron not Boris. If the shoe was on the other foot and we closed it then the French couldn't dictate when we reopened it either.
You can’t deny it. Because it is just the case and you are too intelligent to pretend otherwise.
A majority of Scottish MPs want a referendum. If that is where you want it deciding.
Only most of them.
EEA or EFTA would have been pergectly possible, however.
Estimates for putting it all back appear to be £850 million, which is a lot. But the tourist, freight and commuter potential is enormous if they would only do it.
Don't expect either before 2025, if at all.
(EDIT: forget I said anything - apart from anything else, relative to Covid armageddon, nothing much else matters at the moment.)
Exactly. It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MPs of the UK, including Scotland, at Westminster. For they must take into account the interest of all Britons (who would all be severely affected by a Yes vote).
Salmond was right. Once a generation feels morally correct. What is a generation? 15-20 years.
Since then there will have been an EU Referendum, two Holyrood elections, three General Elections and Brexit.
That's a substantial amount. And if the Scots vote for it that is their choice in a democracy.
Would anyone be interested in a PB game of AMONG US?
Key question is business case and getting a BCR >1.1 (with a bit of opportunity cost on top but not much). Think it would play well politically in Devon and Cornish marginals due to climate resilience over the Dawlish seawall - so I'd certainly do it.
Bigger issue (constraint) in getting it done is skills. UK rail sector has so many big projects going on right now.
Newcastleton, I guess, but it's just a street of houses and not much else.
One of the two, for sure.
Great design.
We have a General Election every five years at a maximum.
The opinion that matters is the Scottish voters. Not anyone elses unless the Scots are prisoners within the union.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avy6KKRFhl4
If only it was at full power...
The British had to wait 40 years between their first EU vote and their second. To my mind this was far too long, and it allowed so much anger to build we ended up quitting entirely, whereas an earlier vote (on Maastricht or the Constitution) would have vented eurosceptic anger, and kept us semi-detached, while avoiding the total, destructive rupture of outright departure.
That is the argument FOR having referendums every so often. But should the Brits have been allowed a vote to leave whenever we liked? Every three or five or seven years or whatever? Clearly not. The EU would not have tolerated the volatility, our fellow members would have declared war in exasperation.
Great constitutional matters need referendums, but these votes need to be fairly rare. Again, Salmond was right: once in a generation. And that means 15 years or so
If its true (and I have no idea either way) then I change my mind again and say we need full lockdown now - feck xmas.
I actually hope its a sick attention seeking muppet rather than the truth
That we waited forty years was our choice not theirs.
If the Scottish do not want another referendum that is their choice. If they do that is also their choice. Democracy is how to determine it.
Traitors! Gunboats! Enemies of the People!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr5EztEPJS8&feature=emb_logo
"It’s a matter of opinion. And the opinion that really matters is that of the combined MEPs of the EU, including the UK's. For they must take into account the interest of all Europeans (who would all be severely affected by a Leave vote). "
A bit more than the 5 years another poster claimed .....
But 'generation' does not appear anywhere in thje constitutional legislation.
Johnson was already facing a torrid 10 days. Critics had accused the Prime Minister of trying to blag his way to the end of the year by choosing to take Brexit talks down to the wire. And many were furious with him for promising that Brits would be able to get together and celebrate Christmas. Now, the UK is getting a preview of exactly how bad things could be in two weeks' time, if Brexit really does cause severe disruption to imports.
Had he extended the lockdown until December 23, meaning Brits were self-isolating before traveling to other parts of the country, he might have been able to keep his Christmas promise.
And had the Prime Minister extended the Brexit transition period on the grounds of living through a global pandemic before the June deadline, or recognized that taking Brexit down to the wire left him at the mercy of events beyond his control, perhaps Brits wouldn't be watching aghast as several of the country's worst nightmares have collided at the end of an awful year.
General elections are every five years at the max. It is at elections we decide the priorities for the next Parliament and no Parliament can be bound by its predecessor. It doesn't matter whether Salmond said a generation - there have been six elections (two Holyrood, three General and the EU referendum) since then.
Maybe do a whole thread on the merits of steam and diesel in the UK
That the Nats gloss over this, with Sturgeon’s simpering ‘love you’ videos aimed at Brussels, is one of the great hypocrisies of our time. Luckily for them the Scots media are too cowed, and the British media too uninterested - so it goes unexamined.
Anyway good night everyone, and don't crash the train sets.
The bottom line is, Scotland could become independent. But it would be a nasty, complicated process that would take years to achieve and hugely disruptive and traumatic to go through. It would have every downside of Brexit, plus the currency problem, plus the lack of government infrastructure, plus a much larger trading relationship to sort out. And at every stage, Scotland would be the supplicant to a government in London that has already proven treacherous and nasty. And there would certainly be no guarantee of EU membership.
If the Scottish people feel that’s worth it, good luck to them. But nobody should lie to them that it will be easy.
Again.
At least we wont have a drought in the Spring.
The answer in both cases is devomax. To my mind. The UK should have had an earlier EU vote and remained a peripheral, semi-detached member of the EU, still in the single market but with a veto on further integration.
Scotland, likewise, should be an autonomous nation within a Federal UK, with a reformed House of Lords representing all four nations, and perhaps sited in Edinburgh?
The next full transit is, I believe, in the 71st century.
1. England secedes from United Kingdom, which instantly becomes much more attractive to the Scots, Welsh and Irish of all persuasions.
2. Wales secedes from England, in order to remain IN the (Celtic) Union with Scotland and Northern Ireland
3. Scotland reaffirms it's commitment to a reformed, reconstituted Union, with HRH EIIR reigning in Edinburgh as Queen of the UK, and presiding in London as Head of the Commonwealth.
4. New United Kingdom enters into association with European Union, which enables the next step, namely . . .
5. Republic of Ireland rejoins the Union, as separate unit from Northern Ireland, with the two co-operating via mutual compacts, device also open to other UK units.
6. New Union (consisting of Kingdom of Scotland, Principality of Wales, Republic of Ireland and Principality of Ulster) enters economic AND political negotiations with European Union AND Independent England.
7. England joins the New United Kingdom of the Isles, as 6 separate Dukedoms: Northumbria, Mercia, Anglia, Wussex, Thames (London) and - last but not least - Greater Cornwall. Note that, as with other UK basic units, the English Dukedoms will be free to enter into All-England compacts.
Everyone knew it was the second best option,* but gets a kind of guilty nostalgic pleasure from looking at it.
*The Deltics were designed and built in the late 1950s and early 1960s after a plan to electrify the entire mainline network using overhead lines a la the Woodhead route were abandoned.
And then you hit Canonbie and Longtown on the way to Carlisle.
Edit: apols, I forgot Starmer Fed, overseen by the father of the nation Goggsy Broon.