HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Nationalists should count themselves lucky that the British government no longer shoots Nationalists?
Wow. Just wow. Time to go to bed for sure.
Unless they want to be martyrs surely that’s a statement of fact?
•Doctors say they are seeing members of the same family being hospitalised and dying, signalling that gatherings to mark the festive season have fuelled the pandemic.
•Doctors say they are seeing members of the same family being hospitalised and dying, signalling that gatherings to mark the festive season have fuelled the pandemic.
From the BBC report today. A 20 something old man in ICU, other members of his wider family also in the same hospital.
Re: timing & circumstances of future Scottish independence referendum, think the precise sequence of events, actions and reactions could prove critical to the commencement and outcome of the campaign.
In a similar way to how the precise sequence of events at the beginning of the US Civil War proved absolutely critical.
The election of 1860 resulted in unquestioned victory for Abraham Lincoln in the Electoral College, who won every non-slave state. But it was achieved with just 39% of the popular vote; and virtually zero votes from south of the Mason-Dixon line.
By the time Lincoln was inaugurated in early March, 1861 seven Deep South from South Carolina to Texas had seceded from the Union. And a considerable minority of Northerners (mostly but not all Democrats) favored allowing then to go. Thus Lincoln's first priority was to unite the North while keeping the remaining Southern states within the Union. In particular, the strategically critical Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, which were vital to the defense of Washington DC as well as communications and transport between the Northeast and Midwest via the Baltimore & Ohio railroad and the Ohio River.
Lincoln quickly realized that they key to uniting the North and holding the Border, if not the rest of the Upper South (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas) was to allow the newly formed Confederacy to open hostilities. Which happened when the Rebels at Charleston opened fire on Fort Sumter, and also in the "West" when Confederate forces invaded western Kentucky.
The attack on Fort Sumter galvanized the North behind Lincoln's call for troops to resist the rebellion; this was especially important in areas such as New York City and the southern sections of Indiana & Illinois that Lincoln lost in 1860. On the other hand, same appeal for troops to fight against the Southern rebels resulted in loss of the Upper States, as VA, NC, TN and AK promptly seceded and joined the Confederacy.
In contrast, Fort Sumter allowed Lincoln to take forceful measures to hold Maryland (Delaware was pro-Union anyway) to defend DC, while further west the Kentucky invasion swung the balance in the deeply-divided Bluegrass State (mostly) behind the Union. Situation in Missouri took some time to settle, but here too Lincoln was able to hold (most) the line here as well.
These opening moves were merely prelude to four long years of war. However, they proved critical to the course AND outcome of the conflict. In particular, IF Lincoln has screwed up the beginning, the North could well have lost the war right then and there.
But he did not. And the rest as they say is history.
Ministers are increasingly concerned about the pace of the coronavirus vaccine rollout after a reduction in the supply of Pfizer-Biontech jabs.
The number of people receiving their first dose on Monday fell for the third day in a row to 204,076 from a high of 324,000 on Friday.
Pfizer said supplies of vaccine would be lower this month and next as it was upgrading its factory in Belgium before increasing production in March.
A government source said that the supply had become “very constrained” with ministers concerned about meeting the target to vaccinate 15 million people in the four most vulnerable groups by mid-February. “It’s going to be very, very tight,” the source said.
Having had the pleasure of sitting at a table with Liv in Aruba I can vouch she knows what she is talking about, a lovely girl if you aren't facing her across some green baize
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
We don’t know that they do
It’s also a reserved power
We’ll find out very soon
No. Voters may vote for the SNP because they are the only credible regional government. They don’t a priori have to believe in a referendum now
Having had the pleasure of sitting at a table with Liv in Aruba I can vouch she knows what she is talking about, a lovely girl if you aren't facing her across some green baize
She is retired from the pokers these days. Her boyfriend though is still very much top notch.
For decades, Roger Daltrey reminded the nation in 2019, Europe had been prime touring territory for Britain’s cultural behemoths. “As if we didn’t tour Europe before the f***ing EU,” the Brexiteer said in an interview.
Now the Who singer has joined more than 100 musicians including the violinist Nicola Benedetti to condemn a trade deal they claim will ruin many performers.
The letter, published in The Times today and also signed by Judith Weir, master of the Queen’s music, and Michael Eavis, founder of Glastonbury, says that the government’s “negotiating failure” threatens the future of cultural exchange with the Continent. It calls on ministers to “urgently do what it said it would do and negotiate paperwork-free travel in Europe for British artists and their equipment”.
The presence of Daltrey, a prominent Brexiteer, on the list indicates the scale of fears about the costs of performing in Europe, a previously lucrative domain.
Having had the pleasure of sitting at a table with Liv in Aruba I can vouch she knows what she is talking about, a lovely girl if you aren't facing her across some green baize
She is retired from the pokers these days. Her boyfriend though is still very much top notch.
Yes I believe so. It is a career that does tend to burn you out fairly quickly however unless it is totally suited to you
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
We don’t know that they do
It’s also a reserved power
We’ll find out very soon
No. Voters may vote for the SNP because they are the only credible regional government. They don’t a priori have to believe in a referendum now
Having had the pleasure of sitting at a table with Liv in Aruba I can vouch she knows what she is talking about, a lovely girl if you aren't facing her across some green baize
She is retired from the pokers these days. Her boyfriend though is still very much top notch.
Yes I believe so. It is a career that does tend to burn you out fairly quickly however unless it is totally suited to you
I managed 5 years full time before it burned me out. It wasn't just the total hours, it was the anti-social nature of it. Fri-Sun were days you had to play otherwise you were just setting money on fire, and if games were good you just carry for many hours at a time. Not great for the social life.
Then I stupidly set up my own business and ended up working even longer hours!
Having had the pleasure of sitting at a table with Liv in Aruba I can vouch she knows what she is talking about, a lovely girl if you aren't facing her across some green baize
She is retired from the pokers these days. Her boyfriend though is still very much top notch.
Yes I believe so. It is a career that does tend to burn you out fairly quickly however unless it is totally suited to you
I managed 5 years full time before it burned me out. Then I stupidly set up my own business and ended up working even longer hours!
About the same for me. It was fun at times but mostly a lot of grinding
Having had the pleasure of sitting at a table with Liv in Aruba I can vouch she knows what she is talking about, a lovely girl if you aren't facing her across some green baize
She is retired from the pokers these days. Her boyfriend though is still very much top notch.
Yes I believe so. It is a career that does tend to burn you out fairly quickly however unless it is totally suited to you
I managed 5 years full time before it burned me out. Then I stupidly set up my own business and ended up working even longer hours!
About the same for me. It was fun at times but mostly a lot of grinding
Have you been taking any notice of the Doug Polk vs Negreanu match?
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
We don’t know that they do
It’s also a reserved power
We’ll find out very soon
No. Voters may vote for the SNP because they are the only credible regional government. They don’t a priori have to believe in a referendum now
If it is unambiguously in the SNP manifesto then they've voted for it.
You vote for the entire manifesto, not a portion of it. Even if you dislike a portion of the manifesto, even if you're "only voting because" . . . it doesn't matter. Parties put up a slate of policies and people make a choice, you don't get to second-guess why they voted as they did.
Having had the pleasure of sitting at a table with Liv in Aruba I can vouch she knows what she is talking about, a lovely girl if you aren't facing her across some green baize
She is retired from the pokers these days. Her boyfriend though is still very much top notch.
Yes I believe so. It is a career that does tend to burn you out fairly quickly however unless it is totally suited to you
I managed 5 years full time before it burned me out. Then I stupidly set up my own business and ended up working even longer hours!
About the same for me. It was fun at times but mostly a lot of grinding
Have you been taking any notice of the Doug Polk vs Negreanu match?
I rarely see poker anymore now I dont get broadcast tv so no espn etc
For decades, Roger Daltrey reminded the nation in 2019, Europe had been prime touring territory for Britain’s cultural behemoths. “As if we didn’t tour Europe before the f***ing EU,” the Brexiteer said in an interview.
Now the Who singer has joined more than 100 musicians including the violinist Nicola Benedetti to condemn a trade deal they claim will ruin many performers.
The letter, published in The Times today and also signed by Judith Weir, master of the Queen’s music, and Michael Eavis, founder of Glastonbury, says that the government’s “negotiating failure” threatens the future of cultural exchange with the Continent. It calls on ministers to “urgently do what it said it would do and negotiate paperwork-free travel in Europe for British artists and their equipment”.
The presence of Daltrey, a prominent Brexiteer, on the list indicates the scale of fears about the costs of performing in Europe, a previously lucrative domain.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
If the voters decide that indy is a bunch of bollocks after all....
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
If the voters decide that indy is a bunch of bollocks after all....
And if the voters decide brexit is a bunch of bollocks the difference is?
note I voted out and no regrets but same applies surely
Ministers are increasingly concerned about the pace of the coronavirus vaccine rollout after a reduction in the supply of Pfizer-Biontech jabs.
The number of people receiving their first dose on Monday fell for the third day in a row to 204,076 from a high of 324,000 on Friday.
Pfizer said supplies of vaccine would be lower this month and next as it was upgrading its factory in Belgium before increasing production in March.
A government source said that the supply had become “very constrained” with ministers concerned about meeting the target to vaccinate 15 million people in the four most vulnerable groups by mid-February. “It’s going to be very, very tight,” the source said.
I thought 3.8 million doses of AZN were being delivered this week?
There are also concerns about the rollout of the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine. Ministers had expected to receive two million doses a week this month, but Astrazeneca suggested that it may not hit that target until mid-February.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Ministers are increasingly concerned about the pace of the coronavirus vaccine rollout after a reduction in the supply of Pfizer-Biontech jabs.
The number of people receiving their first dose on Monday fell for the third day in a row to 204,076 from a high of 324,000 on Friday.
Pfizer said supplies of vaccine would be lower this month and next as it was upgrading its factory in Belgium before increasing production in March.
A government source said that the supply had become “very constrained” with ministers concerned about meeting the target to vaccinate 15 million people in the four most vulnerable groups by mid-February. “It’s going to be very, very tight,” the source said.
I thought 3.8 million doses of AZN were being delivered this week?
There are also concerns about the rollout of the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine. Ministers had expected to receive two million doses a week this month, but Astrazeneca suggested that it may not hit that target until mid-February.
Oh dear. If there isn't much supply, I hope they'll concentrate on the difficult to reach so that we're clear to be super-speedy later on.
Bit dangerous doing lots of house visits with the virus at he current prevalence though.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
•Doctors say they are seeing members of the same family being hospitalised and dying, signalling that gatherings to mark the festive season have fuelled the pandemic.
From the BBC report today. A 20 something old man in ICU, other members of his wider family also in the same hospital.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
Yeah, ok. I've made a good faith effort to find a source, and I can't. So unless you can actually provide one I'm going to assume that everyone agreed upfront on "once in a generation" without qualification and then the SNP started throwing the "unless" in once they lost.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
Yeah, ok. I've made a good faith effort to find a source, and I can't. So unless you can actually provide one I'm going to assume that everyone agreed upfront on "once in a generation" without qualification and then the SNP started throwing the "unless" in once they lost.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
Yeah, ok. I've made a good faith effort to find a source, and I can't. So unless you can actually provide one I'm going to assume that everyone agreed upfront on "once in a generation" without qualification and then the SNP started throwing the "unless" in once they lost.
Yes, that was my conclusion - first uttered during the 2015 election campaign, with a potential EU referendum in mind. I remember wondering if Sturgeon secretly wanted Cameron to win a majority (and then lose the referendum) just so she could engineer a second IndyRef.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
Yeah, ok. I've made a good faith effort to find a source, and I can't. So unless you can actually provide one I'm going to assume that everyone agreed upfront on "once in a generation" without qualification and then the SNP started throwing the "unless" in once they lost.
Yes, that was my conclusion - first uttered during the 2015 election campaign, with a potential EU referendum in mind. I remember wondering if Sturgeon secretly wanted Cameron to win a majority (and then lose the referendum) just so she could engineer a second IndyRef.
The point though is that its not relevant. What politicians want is irrelevant it should be down to what the scottish people want, If they vote greater than 50% for parties promising a referendum then I don't really care if some loud mouth politician declared the first referendum was a one and only deal. The scottish people are saying they want one so a democracy gives them one.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
Yeah, ok. I've made a good faith effort to find a source, and I can't. So unless you can actually provide one I'm going to assume that everyone agreed upfront on "once in a generation" without qualification and then the SNP started throwing the "unless" in once they lost.
Yes, that was my conclusion - first uttered during the 2015 election campaign, with a potential EU referendum in mind. I remember wondering if Sturgeon secretly wanted Cameron to win a majority (and then lose the referendum) just so she could engineer a second IndyRef.
"Once in a generation" was always just a piece of rhetoric to focus minds and drive turnout, not a pledge for advocates of independence to stop pushing their case for x number of years. The message was that it may be the last chance people get for a long time to vote for it.
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
Yeah, ok. I've made a good faith effort to find a source, and I can't. So unless you can actually provide one I'm going to assume that everyone agreed upfront on "once in a generation" without qualification and then the SNP started throwing the "unless" in once they lost.
Yes, that was my conclusion - first uttered during the 2015 election campaign, with a potential EU referendum in mind. I remember wondering if Sturgeon secretly wanted Cameron to win a majority (and then lose the referendum) just so she could engineer a second IndyRef.
"Once in a generation" was always just a piece of rhetoric to focus minds and drive turnout, not a pledge for advocates of independence to stop pushing their case for x number of years. The message was that it may be the last chance people get for a long time to vote for it.
Indeed instead of attacking once in a generation unionists should be using it to win votes. "Vote snp get another divisive referendum" sort of thing
At a personal level one feels sorry for them, deprived of even peripheral involvement in what might have been the most significant event of their lives and something to tell the grandchildren, but after the invasion a fortnight ago, one understands the FBI cannot take any chances.
At a personal level one feels sorry for them, deprived of even peripheral involvement in what might have been the most significant event of their lives and something to tell the grandchildren, but after the invasion a fortnight ago, one understands the FBI cannot take any chances.
The worrying word in that report is potential...not they have ties to far right militia but they may have. The usa has form for this on no fly lists where people find themselves on them for extremely circumstantial links
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
Yeah, ok. I've made a good faith effort to find a source, and I can't. So unless you can actually provide one I'm going to assume that everyone agreed upfront on "once in a generation" without qualification and then the SNP started throwing the "unless" in once they lost.
Yes, that was my conclusion - first uttered during the 2015 election campaign, with a potential EU referendum in mind. I remember wondering if Sturgeon secretly wanted Cameron to win a majority (and then lose the referendum) just so she could engineer a second IndyRef.
"Once in a generation" was always just a piece of rhetoric to focus minds and drive turnout, not a pledge for advocates of independence to stop pushing their case for x number of years. The message was that it may be the last chance people get for a long time to vote for it.
And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events."
HYUFD is in front of a firing squad. There is a vote whether HYFUD should be shot. 6 people vote to save his life. 5 people vote to shoot him. Malc and I are don’t knows. HYUFD is shot.
Nationalists should count themselves lucky the British government no longer uses firing squads for those seeking to commit treachery against the British State and the Crown but merely refuses independence referendums being held more than once a generation
Quebec had referendums in 1980 and 1995, only 15 years apart.
2014 was only 7 years ago not 15
So we'll have another Indyref in 2029!
That is a pretty good guess. I can see the SNP gently declining as Sturgeon ages and indy doesn't happen. But there is now a solid 35-40% hard support for indy which isn't going anywhere. And it may grow.
At some point there will be a 2nd vote, just as there was in Quebec. 15 years after 2014 seems about right (the minimum definition of a "generation").
2030+, roughly. A new SNP govt under new leadership. Facing a UK Labour government under billionaire Euan Blair.
All this "generation" stuff is bollocks, though, you do know that? It's not written in law, it's not part of the constitution. If the people of Scotland want to have a vote, give them a fucking vote.
I thought we lived in a democracy.
And in that democracy, we had an election in December 2019 where the party that stood on a platform of no further Scottish referendum won an 80 seat majority.
Scotland had a chance in 2014 to avoid being bound by that 2019 election result. It chose not to dismantle the UK.
That is a lot democracy.
I'm sorry, but people are allowed to change their mind. If the Scots voted overwhelmingly for independence supporting parties, then I would have to conclude they had changed their minds.
Just as, if the UK had voted Remain in 2016, and then in 2020 UKIP had won power, I would also have concluded that the voters had changed their minds.
The voters of 2014 have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2021.
And the voters of 2021 will have no right to disenfranchise the voters of 2022? Aye, right.....
There is an election in 2022?
The thing is, if Yes wins in a second referendum, all the by now well-honed pro-Remain arguments for a second EU referendum will be instantly wheeled out (eg "if you love democracy so much, why not have more of it?"). Except, they'll all be that much more effective, because they'll be asking for a third referendum not a second, and the explanation as to why you only stop after you get a positive answer is not obvious.
if scotland votes independence the simple answer is they should go independent. Then once independent people are more than welcome to launch a rejoin the uk campaign
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Yes, exactly. The point here is that Scotland already voted, and voted No to independence. The question is how long we need to respect that decision before they get to vote again, and the "once in a generation" agreement seems pretty reasonable to me.
Apart from the words were once in a generation or in the event of substantial change. I would say even as a out voter that constitutes substantial change
Care to find some evidence of that? There are numerous places where senior SNP officials refer to "once in a generation" verbally, but the "substantial change" bit seems to have been tagged on afterwards to give them an out in the event of a Leave vote in the EU referendum.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
I don't care to dig but yes it was said that a substantial change in circumstances. Whether they did or not however is irrelevant.
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
Yeah, ok. I've made a good faith effort to find a source, and I can't. So unless you can actually provide one I'm going to assume that everyone agreed upfront on "once in a generation" without qualification and then the SNP started throwing the "unless" in once they lost.
Yes, that was my conclusion - first uttered during the 2015 election campaign, with a potential EU referendum in mind. I remember wondering if Sturgeon secretly wanted Cameron to win a majority (and then lose the referendum) just so she could engineer a second IndyRef.
"Once in a generation" was always just a piece of rhetoric to focus minds and drive turnout, not a pledge for advocates of independence to stop pushing their case for x number of years. The message was that it may be the last chance people get for a long time to vote for it.
And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events."
I think that's pretty unequivocal.
Except for fact there is no hard-and-fast rule for determining the duration of a generation.
Plus fact that further movement of goal posts may be achieved, by saying (hypothetically) that the 2014 vote took place near the END of one generation, for example one that concluded around 2016 or thereabouts. And that a future vote may take place at any time (but presumably just once over a span of 20-30 years) AFTER that turning point.
Thus 2014 vote was the moment of truth for the last generation - and a vote in say 2024 would be crunch time for the next.
Notwithstanding that whole argument is likely moot, on grounds that a) situation has changed substantially with Brexit re: Scotland & EU; and b) if "once in a generation" is really a true electoral pledge (which I tend to doubt) then surely the SNP, Sturgeon and her govern could relieve themselves of it at the upcoming 2021 Scottish general election, by making a sooner-instead-of-later independence vote part of their manifesto?
[Excellent article chock full of interesting and highly-plausible detail. Among other things, says that US Reps.
"His final batch of pardons, due later Tuesday, is expected to contain few of the controversial or outlandish criminals that have characterized his earlier use of his clemency powers.
Trump could still change his mind, and retains his sweeping clemency powers until noon on Wednesday. The President continues to bring up pardons that aides once thought were off the table, including for former strategist Steve Bannon, leading to general uncertainty about whether Trump will continue adhering to his lawyers' advice.
There is a frantic scramble happening behind the scenes on whether to grant Bannon a pardon. One concern is Bannon's possible connection to the January 6 riot of Trump supporters at the US Capitol, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
Trump has continued to go back and forth on Bannon's pardon into Tuesday night, sources told CNN. Earlier Tuesday, White House officials and others familiar with the matter describe a muted President, concerned about his pending impeachment trial and swirling legal problems, who was talked out of his long-discussed notions following the Capitol insurrection.
Several Republican lawmakers who are alleged to have been involved in the rally that preceded the deadly riot on the US Capitol have sought clemency from Trump before he leaves office, but after meeting with his legal advisers for several hours on Saturday, the President decided he would not grant them, according to two people familiar with his plans.
The fear of legal exposure is not limited to Republicans who promoted or spoke at the rally, including Reps. Andy Biggs, Mo Brooks and Paul Gosar. Those who participated, organized and fundraised for it are also concerned, sources told CNN, including his eldest son Donald Trump Jr. and his girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle, who both spoke at the rally.
Top figures associated with the groups that helped organize it -- including Women for America First and Turning Point Action, the political action committee arm of Turning Point USA -- have also voiced private concern about legal repercussions, a person familiar tells CNN.
Several of Trump's closest advisers have also urged him not to grant clemency to anyone who breached the US Capitol, despite Trump's initial stance that those involved had done nothing wrong."
Obviously increases Trumpsky's legal jeopardy, both of Senate conviction on article of impeachment AND in host of other criminal and civil cases, in federal and state courts.
So question is, WHY take the risk?
My guess is, to buy protection. From (or rather against) Steve Bannon. AND Valdimir Putin.
BBC London News - official data suggests 700,000 people may have left London since the virus pandemic begun.
That's shocking; so many Londoners breaking lockdown rules. I suspect most of them went to Brighton.
While many Londoners will have disappeared to second homes in Brighton, Cornwall and the Cotswolds, the majority of the 700k are likely to be young foreigners furloughed or redundant from service industries voluntarily deporting themselves.
Ministers are increasingly concerned about the pace of the coronavirus vaccine rollout after a reduction in the supply of Pfizer-Biontech jabs.
The number of people receiving their first dose on Monday fell for the third day in a row to 204,076 from a high of 324,000 on Friday.
Pfizer said supplies of vaccine would be lower this month and next as it was upgrading its factory in Belgium before increasing production in March.
A government source said that the supply had become “very constrained” with ministers concerned about meeting the target to vaccinate 15 million people in the four most vulnerable groups by mid-February. “It’s going to be very, very tight,” the source said.
I thought 3.8 million doses of AZN were being delivered this week?
There are also concerns about the rollout of the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine. Ministers had expected to receive two million doses a week this month, but Astrazeneca suggested that it may not hit that target until mid-February.
Even in Israel, they seem to be struggling for vaccine supply. Vaccination numbers fell sharply last week and are still below the peak from three weeks ago.
If I were the PM (don’t laugh at the back!), the way I’d deal with the Scottish referendum issue, if formally asked by the Scottish government, would be with a free vote in Parliament - on which I would personally abstain.
There's a new lawsuit filed by some Trumpers, and it's glorious
6.The 20th Amendment mandates that President Trump’s term must end at noon on January 20th, but since Congress’s act on January 6, 2021 in confirming Joseph Biden as President-Elect was clearly illegitimate,and there is effectively no lawfully existing Legislative Branch this means that the Presidential Inauguration cannot lawfully go forward on Wednesday. !!! Thankfully !!!, there is still time for the only lawfully and constitutionally remaining federal public official, President Donald Trump to take all reasonable and necessary action consistent with the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 1 and all the original intents and purposes of the Constitution of the United States to preserve the lawful and orderly continuity of government 7. Accordingly, this Court should rest assured that the relief requested in this lawsuit will not result in the destruction of democracy 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Catching up.
That does have a certain "Freeman of the Land" feel about it. Sovereign Donald of the Family Trump.
Ministers are increasingly concerned about the pace of the coronavirus vaccine rollout after a reduction in the supply of Pfizer-Biontech jabs.
The number of people receiving their first dose on Monday fell for the third day in a row to 204,076 from a high of 324,000 on Friday.
Pfizer said supplies of vaccine would be lower this month and next as it was upgrading its factory in Belgium before increasing production in March.
A government source said that the supply had become “very constrained” with ministers concerned about meeting the target to vaccinate 15 million people in the four most vulnerable groups by mid-February. “It’s going to be very, very tight,” the source said.
I thought 3.8 million doses of AZN were being delivered this week?
There are also concerns about the rollout of the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine. Ministers had expected to receive two million doses a week this month, but Astrazeneca suggested that it may not hit that target until mid-February.
Even in Israel, they seem to be struggling for vaccine supply. Vaccination numbers fell sharply last week and are still below the peak from three weeks ago.
What are the declared deliveries so far? I thought we had generous stock levels in place already.
Comments
•Doctors say they are seeing members of the same family being hospitalised and dying, signalling that gatherings to mark the festive season have fuelled the pandemic.
In a similar way to how the precise sequence of events at the beginning of the US Civil War proved absolutely critical.
The election of 1860 resulted in unquestioned victory for Abraham Lincoln in the Electoral College, who won every non-slave state. But it was achieved with just 39% of the popular vote; and virtually zero votes from south of the Mason-Dixon line.
By the time Lincoln was inaugurated in early March, 1861 seven Deep South from South Carolina to Texas had seceded from the Union. And a considerable minority of Northerners (mostly but not all Democrats) favored allowing then to go. Thus Lincoln's first priority was to unite the North while keeping the remaining Southern states within the Union. In particular, the strategically critical Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, which were vital to the defense of Washington DC as well as communications and transport between the Northeast and Midwest via the Baltimore & Ohio railroad and the Ohio River.
Lincoln quickly realized that they key to uniting the North and holding the Border, if not the rest of the Upper South (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas) was to allow the newly formed Confederacy to open hostilities. Which happened when the Rebels at Charleston opened fire on Fort Sumter, and also in the "West" when Confederate forces invaded western Kentucky.
The attack on Fort Sumter galvanized the North behind Lincoln's call for troops to resist the rebellion; this was especially important in areas such as New York City and the southern sections of Indiana & Illinois that Lincoln lost in 1860. On the other hand, same appeal for troops to fight against the Southern rebels resulted in loss of the Upper States, as VA, NC, TN and AK promptly seceded and joined the Confederacy.
In contrast, Fort Sumter allowed Lincoln to take forceful measures to hold Maryland (Delaware was pro-Union anyway) to defend DC, while further west the Kentucky invasion swung the balance in the deeply-divided Bluegrass State (mostly) behind the Union. Situation in Missouri took some time to settle, but here too Lincoln was able to hold (most) the line here as well.
These opening moves were merely prelude to four long years of war. However, they proved critical to the course AND outcome of the conflict. In particular, IF Lincoln has screwed up the beginning, the North could well have lost the war right then and there.
But he did not. And the rest as they say is history.
Well...
Then I stupidly set up my own business and ended up working even longer hours!
You vote for the entire manifesto, not a portion of it. Even if you dislike a portion of the manifesto, even if you're "only voting because" . . . it doesn't matter. Parties put up a slate of policies and people make a choice, you don't get to second-guess why they voted as they did.
Joe Exotic still in jail?
note I voted out and no regrets but same applies surely
Same as a general election if we vote in a party that vote is respected till we vote again on it. With brexit the issue is they wanted another vote on it without respecting the original first
Bit dangerous doing lots of house visits with the virus at he current prevalence though.
I voted Leave in 2016. I hope (although obviously I cannot guarantee) that, in the event of a Remain vote, I and most of my fellow Leavers would have accepted that as binding, and not spent the next few decades agitating for a second vote every time the EU did something dumb (obviously some senior people in the campaign were already planning this eventuality before the vote even took place, but I can't help that). There seems to be a problem with asymmetry here: why do Yes votes have to be enacted immediately even if they're almost impossible to reverse, while No votes are treated as staging posts along the way to a Yes vote that will become almost inevitable if you're allowed to keep asking the question?
Is anyone sampling DNA from people in hospital?
If in 2021 people vote for parties with a referendum in their manifesto and its over 50% that is a pretty clear mandate for a referendum. Nothing that comes out of a politicians mouth is worth holding as ultimate truth.
If people vote for it they should get it...it is a clear and consistent message.
closest I have found but pretty sure it was said as well before the vote
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/nicola-sturgeon-scotland-better-off
And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events."
I think that's pretty unequivocal.
Plus fact that further movement of goal posts may be achieved, by saying (hypothetically) that the 2014 vote took place near the END of one generation, for example one that concluded around 2016 or thereabouts. And that a future vote may take place at any time (but presumably just once over a span of 20-30 years) AFTER that turning point.
Thus 2014 vote was the moment of truth for the last generation - and a vote in say 2024 would be crunch time for the next.
Notwithstanding that whole argument is likely moot, on grounds that a) situation has changed substantially with Brexit re: Scotland & EU; and b) if "once in a generation" is really a true electoral pledge (which I tend to doubt) then surely the SNP, Sturgeon and her govern could relieve themselves of it at the upcoming 2021 Scottish general election, by making a sooner-instead-of-later independence vote part of their manifesto?
https://twitter.com/jenniferjjacobs/status/1351738416271151104?s=21
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/politics/trump-self-pardon-warning/index.html
[Excellent article chock full of interesting and highly-plausible detail. Among other things, says that US Reps.
"His final batch of pardons, due later Tuesday, is expected to contain few of the controversial or outlandish criminals that have characterized his earlier use of his clemency powers.
Trump could still change his mind, and retains his sweeping clemency powers until noon on Wednesday. The President continues to bring up pardons that aides once thought were off the table, including for former strategist Steve Bannon, leading to general uncertainty about whether Trump will continue adhering to his lawyers' advice.
There is a frantic scramble happening behind the scenes on whether to grant Bannon a pardon. One concern is Bannon's possible connection to the January 6 riot of Trump supporters at the US Capitol, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
Trump has continued to go back and forth on Bannon's pardon into Tuesday night, sources told CNN.
Earlier Tuesday, White House officials and others familiar with the matter describe a muted President, concerned about his pending impeachment trial and swirling legal problems, who was talked out of his long-discussed notions following the Capitol insurrection.
Several Republican lawmakers who are alleged to have been involved in the rally that preceded the deadly riot on the US Capitol have sought clemency from Trump before he leaves office, but after meeting with his legal advisers for several hours on Saturday, the President decided he would not grant them, according to two people familiar with his plans.
The fear of legal exposure is not limited to Republicans who promoted or spoke at the rally, including Reps. Andy Biggs, Mo Brooks and Paul Gosar. Those who participated, organized and fundraised for it are also concerned, sources told CNN, including his eldest son Donald Trump Jr. and his girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle, who both spoke at the rally.
Top figures associated with the groups that helped organize it -- including Women for America First and Turning Point Action, the political action committee arm of Turning Point USA -- have also voiced private concern about legal repercussions, a person familiar tells CNN.
Several of Trump's closest advisers have also urged him not to grant clemency to anyone who breached the US Capitol, despite Trump's initial stance that those involved had done nothing wrong."
Obviously increases Trumpsky's legal jeopardy, both of Senate conviction on article of impeachment AND in host of other criminal and civil cases, in federal and state courts.
So question is, WHY take the risk?
My guess is, to buy protection. From (or rather against) Steve Bannon. AND Valdimir Putin.
That does have a certain "Freeman of the Land" feel about it. Sovereign Donald of the Family Trump.
As WHO fumes at Western drugmakers, China fills void on vaccines
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/01/20/asia-pacific/china-fills-vaccine-void/