The only stat worth comparing is excess deaths, assuming you can even get good data about that.
With COVID-19 Mexico is nearly at 1 death per 1,000, but their excess deaths for 2020 are over double that, and it can't all be down to the Mexican drug war. Likewise Russia had 47,000 excess deaths in October, and 165,000 from March to October, but COVID-19 deaths are a third of that latter figure. So there are potentially several countries doing worse than the ones in that table, and likely many more will join them in 2021.
That was the caveat. But doing better than Mexico/Russia isn’t exactly a cause for celebration.
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
Given Merz is relatively sceptical about climate change policies compared to Merkel and concerned about their impact on business if he is CDU leader the idea there could be any CDU and Green deal is not very likely at all and quite possibly not a CDU/CSU and SPD deal either.
In which case if the CDU refuse also to do a deal with the AfD and there is no majority for the CDU/CSU and FDP either then the only alternative would be a Green, SPD and Linke no matter how patronising and rude you wish to be
I'm just stating facts. You repeatedly make claims about German politics which are just totally unrealistic, I have pointed this out to you politely several times in the past but you just keep on insisting that you are right. I have no expertise in German politics or UK politics, but I know enough to know that what you are suggesting just isn't realistic, just as I know that suggesting the libdems might win a majority at the next election is a possibility not worth wasting time considering. If the only problem is the Greens not liking Merz as chancellor, there will simply be someone else as chancellor.
There will not be a 3-party minority coalition after the next election in Germany. It will not even be attempted.
I'm sorry for being rude, but you can be quite frustrating.
Much though I'd like a centre-left government in Germany, I think Kamski is correct, if less than entirely tactful.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
It’s the unanimous decision of @theSNP MPs to vote against Johnson’s #BrexitDeal. Scotland’s Govt & representatives were cut out of the negotiations that led to it. Our country’s interests are not served by it. We won’t own it. Our focus is #independence
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
And as we all know every member of the Strathclyde Council was jailed and/or fined eye watering sums.
Some of them are under house arrest to this day I believe. They're taking on lockdown like a BOSS.
And lots of the voters were badly injured when the TSG of the Metropolitan Police stormed the polling stations in Kelvingrove and Govan. [I do know it was postal ...!]
It’s the unanimous decision of @theSNP MPs to vote against Johnson’s #BrexitDeal. Scotland’s Govt & representatives were cut out of the negotiations that led to it. Our country’s interests are not served by it. We won’t own it. Our focus is #independence
You support a No Deal Brexit, so please tell me how that is good for Scotland.
That article looks quite damaging. If the situation wasn't so critical I'd expect the authorities to tell them to go away and do it again, properly this time.
I think we have to wait for the regulators’ decision. It’s fairly likely that (the measuring blunder apart) the science was a great deal better than Oxford/AZN’s communication, which has been piss poor (not unusual for big pharma).
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
Lots of bollocks. Totnes Tory vote was 53.2% in 2019, yet that is down as "Alliance".
I think it's assuming swings according to current polls.
Starmer is I suspect more of a pragmatist about such alliances than the average Labour member. But formally announcing it might produce so many schisms on all sides that it wouldn't work as well as quietly dropping the rule of all major parties that they have to stand everywhere. Minority parties who were offered a free run to half a dozen council seats in exchange for not fighting a hopeless GE battle might be up for it, if the national parties didn't suspend them as a result.
The votes are not fully transferable, though. In the local elections in Waverley, where none of the centre-left parties put up full slates for multi-member wards, the impression is that around half of the LibDem voters also gave a vote to the Labour candidate, and about two-thirds of the Labour voters gave one to the LibDem. Most of the others simply voted for the sole candidate of their party and didn't use their second vote. It was nonetheless enough for a massive turnover of former Tory seats and the apparently safe Tory majority evaporated.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
And as we all know every member of the Strathclyde Council was jailed and/or fined eye watering sums.
Some of them are under house arrest to this day I believe. They're taking on lockdown like a BOSS.
And lots of the voters were badly injured when the TSG of the Metropolitan Police stormed the polling stations in Kelvingrove and Govan. [I do know it was postal ...!]
Those Met lads misunderstood when they were told that this referendum, sorry opinion poll, was going postal.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
And as we all know every member of the Strathclyde Council was jailed and/or fined eye watering sums.
They cried a river?
On a serious point, I don’t think if Sturgeon were crazy enough to call an unsanctioned referendum there would be prosecutions. It would just be ignored.
From that point of view the Strathclyde question, which was about stopping something not starting it, as at best an inexact parallel.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
It was not a small utility company - it owned a very large amount of landscape* as well as the water supplies to a very large chunk of the Central Belt population.
But it stood in for the rest, and it had its impact.
The relevance to todfay is the assertion by some that advisory referenda are both illegal and meaningless.
Edit: think not only a very large English Midlands city but the big reservoirs in the Welsh hills linked to it (sorry, I forget which were which).
You’re thinking of Birmingham and the Elan Valley, at least, I think you are.
Yes, that's it - very impressive engineering.
The Glaswegians were and remain very proud of their equivalents - Loch Katrine in particular - in Trossachs (Rob Roy country, named after what was under his kilt if you believe Scott). Steamboat trips were very much the thing and still are. The southern equivalent would perhaps be closing RAF Biggin Hill and selling it off for housing.
I see people are struggling with the notion of what a non-binding advisory referendums (like Brexit, Sindy and Devo refs all were).
Lets go through the flow chart.
1) Does Holyrood have the power to hold referendums in general? If Yes goto 2) In No goto END-Bad)
2) Does a non-binding referendum mean that any actual change is guaranteed to take place If Yes goto 3) In No goto 4)
3) Really? Actually no you are right, it doesn't goto 4)
4)Is there any law that limits the topics a non-binding referendum the Scottish government calls can be on (Bearing in mind the result of the referendum doesn't actually change anything)? If Yes goto 5) If No got END-Good)
5) Are you able to actually point at in the law book? if Yes goto 6) No got END-Good)
6) Go on then, give us a link? If able to give link then goto END-Bad Otherwise got END-Good
END-Bad) Holyrood does not have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on Sindy END-Good) Holyrood can call a non binding advisory referendum on any topic it likes.
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
Given Merz is relatively sceptical about climate change policies compared to Merkel and concerned about their impact on business if he is CDU leader the idea there could be any CDU and Green deal is not very likely at all and quite possibly not a CDU/CSU and SPD deal either.
In which case if the CDU refuse also to do a deal with the AfD and there is no majority for the CDU/CSU and FDP either then the only alternative would be a Green, SPD and Linke no matter how patronising and rude you wish to be
I moved back to the UK from Germany in 2008, and I don't really follow German politics any more, but I remember Merkel being quite hostile to Green policies before she became Chancellor. So it wouldn't surprise me if Merz's antipathy to greenery were also to soften considerably if/when he no longer needs to wear his right-wing credentials on his sleeve. Politicians are often more pragmatic than you'd think.
Frankly I think the idea we can ever measure the impact of Brexit economically with COVID is basically impossible.
The war is over, it's time to find new battles now
I think the battles will choose us, whether we choose them or not from either side of the debate, Horse.
I would say the first battle of many is over, and many will be fighting the rest of the war for a very long time.
I don't think Brexit is a platform on which Labour can win elections, I just don't.
Not Brexit itself in any near future, but what kind of Brexit. With the kind of Brexit most of the younger Tory party ultimately want, and the baked-in instability both of possible tariffs and an arrangement that we'll keep having to review every four years, I think the battles related to Brexit will keep recurring.
The only stat worth comparing is excess deaths, assuming you can even get good data about that.
With COVID-19 Mexico is nearly at 1 death per 1,000, but their excess deaths for 2020 are over double that, and it can't all be down to the Mexican drug war. Likewise Russia had 47,000 excess deaths in October, and 165,000 from March to October, but COVID-19 deaths are a third of that latter figure. So there are potentially several countries doing worse than the ones in that table, and likely many more will join them in 2021.
That was the caveat. But doing better than Mexico/Russia isn’t exactly a cause for celebration.
Of course, but given the variation in the way the cause of death is recorded by different authorities, as well as differing testing regimes, then comparing the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 is bound to be error prone. On the other hand we all agree on what constitutes death, and assuming there are reasonable records about deaths in most countries, then that at least gives us something more comparable to work with.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
It was not a small utility company - it owned a very large amount of landscape* as well as the water supplies to a very large chunk of the Central Belt population.
But it stood in for the rest, and it had its impact.
The relevance to todfay is the assertion by some that advisory referenda are both illegal and meaningless.
Edit: think not only a very large English Midlands city but the big reservoirs in the Welsh hills linked to it (sorry, I forget which were which).
You’re thinking of Birmingham and the Elan Valley, at least, I think you are.
Yes, that's it - very impressive engineering.
But not ‘large’. In fact, the whole Elan valley project is less than four miles by one mile. That’s the size of at best a medium sized estate in the Higlands.
(Obviously that doesn’t include the enormous pipe taking water to Brum, which you can actually see in flashes running along the A44 between Rhayader and Llandeglau, but my understanding is that the land for that is leased, not purchased.)
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Apart from the part which allows politicians to decide what you voted for AFTER you have voted for them. No thanks its bad enough politicians failing to keep their commitments without them being able to make it up after they have your mandate
You mean like Johnson, Cameron & Co and the way they decided what the EU Referendum meant after it had taken place? When I voted, it was just advisory.....
They made clear the result would be implemented prior to the vote. As to not knowing what form of leave you can blame that on Cameron and Osborne who didn't make a leave option be set before the referendum. We also didn't know what remain meant as the EU in 10 years time will look a lot different than it does now.
Europhiles like yourself hardly have the moral high ground when it comes to being dishonest about the EU thats why we ended up where we did.
I see people are struggling with the notion of what a non-binding advisory referendums (like Brexit, Sindy and Devo refs all were).
Lets go through the flow chart.
1) Does Holyrood have the power to hold referendums in general? If Yes goto 2) In No goto END-Bad)
2) Does a non-binding referendum mean that any actual change is guaranteed to take place If Yes goto 3) In No goto 4)
3) Really? Actually no you are right, it doesn't goto 4)
4)Is there any law that limits the topics a non-binding referendum the Scottish government calls can be on (Bearing in mind the result of the referendum doesn't actually change anything)? If Yes goto 5) If No got END-Good)
5) Are you able to actually point at in the law book? if Yes goto 6) No got END-Good)
6) Go on then, give us a link? If able to give link then goto END-Bad Otherwise got END-Good
END-Bad) Holyrood does not have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on Sindy END-Good) Holyrood can call a non binding advisory referendum on any topic it likes.
Unfortunately it isn’t quite that simple, because holding even an advisory referendum on an ultra virus matter May be held to be ultra vires even if the power to hold referendums in general is not.
For example, it may be possible for Nicola Sturgeon to hold a referendum on defunding Police Scotland, but not on leaving the UK.
When Scottish Labour loses again, who will replace Leonard?
That’s their problem. Most of the alternatives are either even more useless, e.g. James Kelly, or prefer to carp from the sidelines, e.g. Jackie Baillie. They could do worse than bring back Johann Lamont.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
It was not a small utility company - it owned a very large amount of landscape* as well as the water supplies to a very large chunk of the Central Belt population.
But it stood in for the rest, and it had its impact.
The relevance to todfay is the assertion by some that advisory referenda are both illegal and meaningless.
Edit: think not only a very large English Midlands city but the big reservoirs in the Welsh hills linked to it (sorry, I forget which were which).
You’re thinking of Birmingham and the Elan Valley, at least, I think you are.
Yes, that's it - very impressive engineering.
But not ‘large’. In fact, the whole Elan valley project is less than four miles by one mile. That’s the size of at best a medium sized estate in the Higlands.
(Obviously that doesn’t include the enormous pipe taking water to Brum, which you can actually see in flashes running along the A44 between Rhayader and Llandeglau, but my understanding is that the land for that is leased, not purchased.)
I'm surprised it's that small actually. Loch Katrine is IIRC about 8 miles long and that is just the wet bit, not counting the land within the watersheds. And there are other reservoirs around Glasgow.
When Scottish Labour loses again, who will replace Leonard?
That’s their problem. Most of the alternatives are either even more useless, e.g. James Kelly, or prefer to carp from the sidelines, e.g. Jackie Baillie. They could do worse than bring back Johann Lamont.
The woman who believed in genetic determination of political ability according to ethnicity? Edit: or said somethijng very like it.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
The capital has the highest coronavirus infection rate of any UK region, with 794.6 cases per 100,000 people over the last seven days. On Sunday, it reported another 9,719 infections.
It's amusing, but this is where the big teams involved really should avoid such things, since you can get multiple people whose job is to screen for out of date references and the like.
It’s the unanimous decision of @theSNP MPs to vote against Johnson’s #BrexitDeal. Scotland’s Govt & representatives were cut out of the negotiations that led to it. Our country’s interests are not served by it. We won’t own it. Our focus is #independence
By becoming ever more integrated in the EU........
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
I see people are struggling with the notion of what a non-binding advisory referendums (like Brexit, Sindy and Devo refs all were).
Lets go through the flow chart.
1) Does Holyrood have the power to hold referendums in general? If Yes goto 2) In No goto END-Bad)
2) Does a non-binding referendum mean that any actual change is guaranteed to take place If Yes goto 3) In No goto 4)
3) Really? Actually no you are right, it doesn't goto 4)
4)Is there any law that limits the topics a non-binding referendum the Scottish government calls can be on (Bearing in mind the result of the referendum doesn't actually change anything)? If Yes goto 5) If No got END-Good)
5) Are you able to actually point at in the law book? if Yes goto 6) No got END-Good)
6) Go on then, give us a link? If able to give link then goto END-Bad Otherwise got END-Good
END-Bad) Holyrood does not have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on Sindy END-Good) Holyrood can call a non binding advisory referendum on any topic it likes.
Unfortunately it isn’t quite that simple, because holding even an advisory referendum on an ultra virus matter May be held to be ultra vires even if the power to hold referendums in general is not.
For example, it may be possible for Nicola Sturgeon to hold a referendum on defunding Police Scotland, but not on leaving the UK.
Ah, you got to step 6 then flipped the table I see.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
Is Big G going for the mod position again? Perhaps they'll not ignore him like the previous 100 times they did
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
It’s the unanimous decision of @theSNP MPs to vote against Johnson’s #BrexitDeal. Scotland’s Govt & representatives were cut out of the negotiations that led to it. Our country’s interests are not served by it. We won’t own it. Our focus is #independence
By becoming ever more integrated in the EU........
Freedom indeed .................
Yep, who would want to be part of an freedom-hating organisation that let's you decide if you want to remain a member of it.
I see people are struggling with the notion of what a non-binding advisory referendums (like Brexit, Sindy and Devo refs all were).
Lets go through the flow chart.
1) Does Holyrood have the power to hold referendums in general? If Yes goto 2) In No goto END-Bad)
2) Does a non-binding referendum mean that any actual change is guaranteed to take place If Yes goto 3) In No goto 4)
3) Really? Actually no you are right, it doesn't goto 4)
4)Is there any law that limits the topics a non-binding referendum the Scottish government calls can be on (Bearing in mind the result of the referendum doesn't actually change anything)? If Yes goto 5) If No got END-Good)
5) Are you able to actually point at in the law book? if Yes goto 6) No got END-Good)
6) Go on then, give us a link? If able to give link then goto END-Bad Otherwise got END-Good
END-Bad) Holyrood does not have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on Sindy END-Good) Holyrood can call a non binding advisory referendum on any topic it likes.
Unfortunately it isn’t quite that simple, because holding even an advisory referendum on an ultra virus matter May be held to be ultra vires even if the power to hold referendums in general is not.
For example, it may be possible for Nicola Sturgeon to hold a referendum on defunding Police Scotland, but not on leaving the UK.
Ah, you got to step 6 then flipped the table I see.
Maybe the only winning move is not to play.
I was quoting the House of Lords constitutional committee, and Donald Dewar.
But, in a sense you are right. The only way to make sure a referendum has legal and moral force is to get a section 30 order. And Boris Johnson has indeed decided his winning move there is not to play.
Sturgeon, not being foolish and realising a referendum that was ignored, or worse, led to prosecutions for misuse of public funds would be disastrous, has made the same decision.
So the winning move in deciding whether the Scottish Parliament has competency in this area is, indeed, not to play.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
Is Big G going for the mod position again? Perhaps they'll not ignore him like the previous 100 times they did
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Something Boris Johnson negotiated may not be understandable, of course.
I mean, it took his backbenchers nine months of hard thinking to realise he’d plonked a border in the Irish Sea despite swearing he never would.
And this one’s a lot harder than that. It’s got big words like competencies and arbitration in it.
It took Boris 6 months to realise May's WA was indeed still Brexit and to vote for it. It only took others saying it a thousand times before he realised it.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
It argues the same points as Tierney, but comes to the opposite conclusions.
Do you know for sure that Richard III didn't meet his nephews?
I am perfectly certain he met them. Did autocorrect do what it does best there?
Edit - seen the correction, but I’m even more confused. Do you mean, ‘Do you know for sure that Richard III *did* murder his nephews?’
Horrible histories told me in song he didn't do it, so that's that for me.
(In truth, as a layman it looks pretty likely it was him behind it, but historians need to be kept busy after all).
No actual historian argues otherwise. Most state it as a fact, e.g. Horrox, Hicks, Counsell, Pollard (to name the leading experts in the field). Even Baldwin, who tries to argue the other side, reminds me of the closing speech by Rolf Harris’ defence counsel where he basically said, ‘the evidence is too fucking good to overturn, you should probably convict.’
It’s amateurs posing as historians - Gregory, Langley, Carson - who keep these things busy.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
Is Big G going for the mod position again? Perhaps they'll not ignore him like the previous 100 times they did
You seem to be obsessed by me
I'm just bored of your shite, acting all high and mighty and pretending you're a moderator and telling people what they can and can't post. It's boring and you make this site worse than it needs to be.
I thought it was a no no to publish photos of children's faces?
Aren't these officially from Number 10? I do agree though
I meant the tweet has one, that isn't an official one. Its a "papped" one. That's a definite no no. Only the parents get to decide if they want official photos show their kids face.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
Is Big G going for the mod position again? Perhaps they'll not ignore him like the previous 100 times they did
You seem to be obsessed by me
I'm just bored of your shite, acting all high and mighty and pretending you're a moderator and telling people what they can and can't post. It's boring and you make this site worse than it needs to be.
Aren't you doing the same here? It's likely better if you just simply ignore each other and don't provoke each other with any comments whatsoever. It'll save a lot of tedium for the rest of us.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
Is Big G going for the mod position again? Perhaps they'll not ignore him like the previous 100 times they did
You seem to be obsessed by me
I'm just bored of your shite, acting all high and mighty and pretending you're a moderator and telling people what they can and can't post. It's boring and you make this site worse than it needs to be.
There do seem to be major problems in the system, and a focus on the wrong things instead of fixing them.
Goodness me have I converted you into a leftie? Or have I gone to the right, I find myself agreeing with you a lot these days.
I would consider myself centrist to centre right, generally (to the extent left-right labels means anything), which means there are plenty of matters on the left that are good ideas (not that properly funding and resolving issues in the criminal justice system is left or right). I'm not even opposed to nationalising things like water or power as a principle, though it's not an issue of dogma either but would depend.
There's a reason I even read all the manifestoes at GE time, and it isn't just for kicks.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
Is Big G going for the mod position again? Perhaps they'll not ignore him like the previous 100 times they did
You seem to be obsessed by me
I'm just bored of your shite, acting all high and mighty and pretending you're a moderator and telling people what they can and can't post. It's boring and you make this site worse than it needs to be.
Aren't you doing the same here? It's likely better if you just simply ignore each other and don't provoke each other with any comments whatsoever. It'll save a lot of tedium for the rest of us.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
Is Big G going for the mod position again? Perhaps they'll not ignore him like the previous 100 times they did
You seem to be obsessed by me
I'm just bored of your shite, acting all high and mighty and pretending you're a moderator and telling people what they can and can't post. It's boring and you make this site worse than it needs to be.
Aren't you doing the same here? It's likely better if you just simply ignore each other and don't provoke each other with any comments whatsoever. It'll save a lot of tedium for the rest of us.
Predicting that there will be another indyref, based on Boris's cowardy-custardness - or to put it more neutrally, his fondness for ease, is hard to argue with. But I wonder on what basis you think he'll propose to have one in 2022. I suspect for a number of reasons he'd want to push the date back, and he'd have a very good case for doing so (whether or not a delay is desirable).
Starmer's speech last week also suggests Labour opposition to an early Referendum.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
Absolutely but obsessive anti postings is not being objective
I'll criticise people for a lot, and I did Scott yesterday for pretending he hadn't been making a point when he had, but not being objective is not really one of them. There isn't a person here who is that.
Is Big G going for the mod position again? Perhaps they'll not ignore him like the previous 100 times they did
You seem to be obsessed by me
I'm just bored of your shite, acting all high and mighty and pretending you're a moderator and telling people what they can and can't post. It's boring and you make this site worse than it needs to be.
That takes the biscuit on judgmental comments
Big G the whole point of this site is judgemental comments.
What is super fucking irritating is posters playing the meta-comment card.
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Probably journalists desperate for a scoop speculating wildly based on tiny morsels of information.
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Probably journalists desperate for a scoop speculating wildly based on tiny morsels of information.
Given AZ is a publicly traded company I would have thought large implications for somebody leaking. And why previous announcements have come prior to market openings on a Monday.
That article looks quite damaging. If the situation wasn't so critical I'd expect the authorities to tell them to go away and do it again, properly this time.
I think we have to wait for the regulators’ decision. It’s fairly likely that (the measuring blunder apart) the science was a great deal better than Oxford/AZN’s communication, which has been piss poor (not unusual for big pharma).
The measuring blunder was only one of several odd bits to the Cov002 trial. The age range changed, and it is odd that the period to 2nd injection was median 84 days. It's almost as if it was intended as a single dose trial, and then they changed their mind. Changing the placebo to saline from meningococcal vaccine part way too. If one were to base a decision on dosage regime on the HD/FD regime, then the gap should be nearly 3 months too.
If the situation weren't so desperate we would never approve based on this paper.
That article looks quite damaging. If the situation wasn't so critical I'd expect the authorities to tell them to go away and do it again, properly this time.
I think we have to wait for the regulators’ decision. It’s fairly likely that (the measuring blunder apart) the science was a great deal better than Oxford/AZN’s communication, which has been piss poor (not unusual for big pharma).
The measuring blunder was only one of several odd bits to the Cov002 trial. The age range changed, and it is odd that the period to 2nd injection was median 84 days. It's almost as if it was intended as a single dose trial, and then they changed their mind. If one were to base a decision on dosage regime on the HD/FD regime, then the gap should be nearly 3 months too.
If the situation weren't so desperate we would never approve based on this paper.
Also the use of different placebos in different countries.
So many weird things about the Oxford / AZ trial. You wouldn't believe it was being run by a world leading university and a massive long established pharmaceutical company.
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Probably journalists desperate for a scoop speculating wildly based on tiny morsels of information.
Given AZ is a publicly traded company I would have thought large implications for somebody leaking. And why previous announcements have come prior to market openings on a Monday.
It does awfully look like people trying to bounce the regulator into approving the vaccine before their work is complete. Whether that pressure is from the hacks themselves, the company, or government sources is left up to the reader.
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
If you use Windows 10s (which is sometimes the simplest thing to do), so you can't use Chrome, then Edge drops you across to IE for ancient websites. One of the exam board marker portals does it. In case we ever have exams again.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I am very much opposed to PR - and would withold my support from Labour were the party to support it. In reality, many Labour MPs would refuse to support it.
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Probably journalists desperate for a scoop speculating wildly based on tiny morsels of information.
Given AZ is a publicly traded company I would have thought large implications for somebody leaking. And why previous announcements have come prior to market openings on a Monday.
It does awfully look like people trying to bounce the regulator into approving the vaccine before their work is complete. Whether that pressure is from the hacks themselves, the company, or government sources is left up to the reader.
I cannot see how that would be very effective. On a matter such as this it would not be worth their reputation or integrity to do anything other than a proper, thorough job. I'm not a strong defender of human nature as a positive, but it just seems unlikely such a tactic would work even if it is being attempted.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
It argues the same points as Tierney, but comes to the opposite conclusions.
Do you know for sure that Richard III didn't meet his nephews?
I am perfectly certain he met them. Did autocorrect do what it does best there?
Edit - seen the correction, but I’m even more confused. Do you mean, ‘Do you know for sure that Richard III *did* murder his nephews?’
Do you know for sure that Richard III murdered his nephews?
If you are asking for hard proof, then you’re asking the wrong doctor. I don’t have a Tardis.
However, there is a more realistic question, which is, ‘does any other explanation fit the very extensive circumstantial evidence that we have?’
To which the answer is, no.
People have indeed been convicted of murder on flimsier evidence than there is against Richard - Adrian Prout springs to mind. But I am content saying that it is the most likely explanation, rather than that it is ‘proven.’
What really does get up my nostrils are Ricardians claiming ‘he can’t have murdered them because he was too nice.’ Bullshit. He was not nice. He committed four very public murders including two peers of the realm to usurp the throne in the first place, and he had a long history of violence and extortion, including kidnapping the 63 year old dowager countess of Oxford to seize her lands, kidnapping and forcibly marrying the younger daughter of the Earl of Warwick to seize her lands, and dragging a number of Lancastrian refugees out of Tewkesbury Abbey and brutally despatching them without trial.
And unfortunately those delusional twits are the ones who edit his Wikipedia article, which is why it is essentially a tissue of lies.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
On the report upto 60 Labour mps will defy the whip and vote against the deal it does affirm the point that Starmer in an effort to appease the red wall leave areas is risking losing votes to the lib dems in the remain voting areas and in particular in London
Will Europe fracture Labour when it was always said it would fracture the conservatives who to a large part are now united following the deal
Comments
Stay safe, everyone.
But doing better than Mexico/Russia isn’t exactly a cause for celebration.
We've only suffered a particularly long and tedious introduction.
The war is over, it's time to find new battles now
It’s the unanimous decision of @theSNP
MPs to vote against Johnson’s #BrexitDeal. Scotland’s Govt & representatives were cut out of the negotiations that led to it. Our country’s interests are not served by it. We won’t own it. Our focus is #independence
It’s fairly likely that (the measuring blunder apart) the science was a great deal better than Oxford/AZN’s communication, which has been piss poor (not unusual for big pharma).
I would say the first battle of many is over, and many on both sides will be fighting the rest of the war for a very long time.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldconst/263/263.pdf
It argues the same points as Tierney, but comes to the opposite conclusions.
Starmer is I suspect more of a pragmatist about such alliances than the average Labour member. But formally announcing it might produce so many schisms on all sides that it wouldn't work as well as quietly dropping the rule of all major parties that they have to stand everywhere. Minority parties who were offered a free run to half a dozen council seats in exchange for not fighting a hopeless GE battle might be up for it, if the national parties didn't suspend them as a result.
The votes are not fully transferable, though. In the local elections in Waverley, where none of the centre-left parties put up full slates for multi-member wards, the impression is that around half of the LibDem voters also gave a vote to the Labour candidate, and about two-thirds of the Labour voters gave one to the LibDem. Most of the others simply voted for the sole candidate of their party and didn't use their second vote. It was nonetheless enough for a massive turnover of former Tory seats and the apparently safe Tory majority evaporated.
On a serious point, I don’t think if Sturgeon were crazy enough to call an unsanctioned referendum there would be prosecutions. It would just be ignored.
From that point of view the Strathclyde question, which was about stopping something not starting it, as at best an inexact parallel.
The Glaswegians were and remain very proud of their equivalents - Loch Katrine in particular - in Trossachs (Rob Roy country, named after what was under his kilt if you believe Scott). Steamboat trips were very much the thing and still are. The southern equivalent would perhaps be closing RAF Biggin Hill and selling it off for housing.
Lets go through the flow chart.
1) Does Holyrood have the power to hold referendums in general?
If Yes goto 2)
In No goto END-Bad)
2) Does a non-binding referendum mean that any actual change is guaranteed to take place
If Yes goto 3)
In No goto 4)
3) Really?
Actually no you are right, it doesn't goto 4)
4)Is there any law that limits the topics a non-binding referendum the Scottish government calls can be on (Bearing in mind the result of the referendum doesn't actually change anything)?
If Yes goto 5)
If No got END-Good)
5) Are you able to actually point at in the law book?
if Yes goto 6)
No got END-Good)
6) Go on then, give us a link?
If able to give link then goto END-Bad
Otherwise got END-Good
END-Bad) Holyrood does not have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on Sindy
END-Good) Holyrood can call a non binding advisory referendum on any topic it likes.
(Obviously that doesn’t include the enormous pipe taking water to Brum, which you can actually see in flashes running along the A44 between Rhayader and Llandeglau, but my understanding is that the land for that is leased, not purchased.)
Europhiles like yourself hardly have the moral high ground when it comes to being dishonest about the EU thats why we ended up where we did.
For example, it may be possible for Nicola Sturgeon to hold a referendum on defunding Police Scotland, but not on leaving the UK.
But so what? Does that mean that we are not allowed to read it, understand it and comment on it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBH55ZeZU4w
But I rather suspect she wouldn't want to come back - she was pretty fed up when she jacked it in the first time round.
BBC News - Covid-19: UK records 30,000 new cases and 316 deaths
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55461140
I mean, it took his backbenchers nine months of hard thinking to realise he’d plonked a border in the Irish Sea despite swearing he never would.
And this one’s a lot harder than that. It’s got big words like competencies and arbitration in it.
Freedom indeed .................
Edit - seen the correction, but I’m even more confused. Do you mean, ‘Do you know for sure that Richard III *did* murder his nephews?’
Maybe the only winning move is not to play.
Yes, good angle
(In truth, as a layman it looks pretty likely it was him behind it, but historians need to be kept busy after all).
I just think this is a bit...odd? Is it just me
But, in a sense you are right. The only way to make sure a referendum has legal and moral force is to get a section 30 order. And Boris Johnson has indeed decided his winning move there is not to play.
Sturgeon, not being foolish and realising a referendum that was ignored, or worse, led to prosecutions for misuse of public funds would be disastrous, has made the same decision.
So the winning move in deciding whether the Scottish Parliament has competency in this area is, indeed, not to play.
It’s amateurs posing as historians - Gregory, Langley, Carson - who keep these things busy.
Was the Community Charge done in April 1990?
Oh ffs!
There's a reason I even read all the manifestoes at GE time, and it isn't just for kicks.
Great news
Lord Allerdyce of the Nearest Pie Shop.
What is super fucking irritating is posters playing the meta-comment card.
If the situation weren't so desperate we would never approve based on this paper.
So many weird things about the Oxford / AZ trial. You wouldn't believe it was being run by a world leading university and a massive long established pharmaceutical company.
However, there is a more realistic question, which is, ‘does any other explanation fit the very extensive circumstantial evidence that we have?’
To which the answer is, no.
People have indeed been convicted of murder on flimsier evidence than there is against Richard - Adrian Prout springs to mind. But I am content saying that it is the most likely explanation, rather than that it is ‘proven.’
What really does get up my nostrils are Ricardians claiming ‘he can’t have murdered them because he was too nice.’ Bullshit. He was not nice. He committed four very public murders including two peers of the realm to usurp the throne in the first place, and he had a long history of violence and extortion, including kidnapping the 63 year old dowager countess of Oxford to seize her lands, kidnapping and forcibly marrying the younger daughter of the Earl of Warwick to seize her lands, and dragging a number of Lancastrian refugees out of Tewkesbury Abbey and brutally despatching them without trial.
And unfortunately those delusional twits are the ones who edit his Wikipedia article, which is why it is essentially a tissue of lies.
That reminds me, must get to Duolingo - 160 day streak and still can't get my head round conjunctions
Will Europe fracture Labour when it was always said it would fracture the conservatives who to a large part are now united following the deal