On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
Yep. Not since then has so much ill-informed prejudice being spouted by so many about so few of whom they have not a clue.
Root & Pope both gone now. Pitch apparently breaking up a bit. Declare with 30-45 mins to go, let Anderson and Archer at tired Indian openers?
And a very good morning to one and all.
Last time in Chennai England got 477 and lost by an innings. You get your runs in the first innings here, as many as you possibly can. No declarations, just wear that pitch.
Just been looking at the scorecard for that game; difference appears to have been Nair's performance, and a much better run rate; almost 4 per over against England just over 3.
It is a good article. Interesting times in North Britain.
The footnote shows that the ScotNat surge long pre-dated Brexit. Those that argue that Brexit killed the Union are confusing coincidence with causation.
Doesn’t matter though, does it, unless Sturgeon is actually arrested during the campaign? If policy were important the SNP would be fifth given their abject performance in government. The extraordinary story of vexatious prosecutions of their political opponents would be enough, even without the collapse of the education system, hospitals literally falling down, a joke of a police service, sinister attempts to force social services on every family and a ferry procurement system that would embarrass Venezuela.
In the circumstances, if they can get away with that nobody is going to bother about Sturgeon and Cherry arguing about whether those with balls can call themselves women or not.
This is going to be about independence. Not faction, not policy, not personality. Which in itself is a weak hand that the SNP have shown no sign of honesty on, but given how hated Boris Johnson and his party are becoming north of the border looks likely to be enough (especially bearing in mind those who are ambivalent about independence can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge there isn’t an immediate pathway to leave the UK but an SNP landslide heaps the pressure on Johnson).
It’s disturbing to reflect how pleased I was when the SNP ousted Labour. I thought that was a healthy result for democracy, removing the Mafia-like stranglehold of Labour north of the border, would lead to improved governance and might presage a similar result for Wales.
How tragically mistaken I was.
Many of us were the same.
Labour seemed invincible at the time, and we wanted chunks knocked off them and to know they were beatable.
Mistake.
Interesting comment. I fear some of my colleagues on the left of the Labour felt the same. The SNP were a way to sock it to both the Tories and new Labour. Clearly Labour in Scotland also made huge mistakes and should have fought harder. The key moment of failure was Cameron’s response to the referendum.
Collectively they created the tragedy we see unfolding before us.
I have to say that this is a very peculiar use of the word "tragedy".
There will be a winning side and a losing side in any referendum (which will have to happen in due course). There will be exhilaration among the winners and disappointment among the losers. Scottish independence may happen, or it may not. That is democracy.
But, if Scottish independence happens, why is it a "tragedy" ? It is the right of any people to chose their own future.
Do you even understand what a "tragedy" is ?
People are allowed to think that others have made or will make a tragic mistake. People don't stop seeing Labour/Tories winning as a tragedy in action even though it is democracy in action and people can chose their own futures.
It seems to me that this is the path that leads ... slowly & surely ... to an invasion of the Capitol with a horned Viking helmet, no shirt and raggedy pants. The loss of an election or a referendum is not a tragedy.
Democracy is to be celebrated.
I can understand that people who feel Scottish & British (like @DavidL) will be disappointed in the result, if Scotland votes for independence.
But, I simply can't understand people in Kent describing it as a huge "tragedy".
Scotland will still be there, if it votes for independence.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
Except the issue here isn't about the age of consent between two individuals who've reached sexual maturity; it's about the extent to which an individual can chose their gender identity and effectively opt-in to become a member of the opposite sex. And you forgot there are limits on the former too - there was an active debate on the age of consent in the 1970s and 1980s with the PIE, which was affiliated at the time with the more radical wing of the gay rights movement, arguing that the agent of consent should be lowered to ten. These things do need debating, however sensitive.
In the case of transrights regarding self-identification they do potentially come into conflict with women's rights in refuges, sports and changing rooms, and their identity as women with unique experiences down to their sex and biology as a result. I'd say it's less of an issue the other way (women > men) where there are fewer of them and the social issues less pronounced, but don't forget the young man (ex woman) who recently took Tavistock to court, and won, on the issue gender treatment for minors.
I don't think rights issues can be explained away by referencing back to past equality battles and dismissing any criticism as bigoted; in fact, I'd say that's disingenuous and makes it less likely to build a more accepting and tolerant society.
By concentrating on the detail in the objection above I think you’re missing the wider point: that the current campaign against trans people mirrors the campaign against gay people in the 70s/80s in fundamental ways: the claims that they are a threat to the vulnerable, that they are seeking to convert your children to their perverted ways, that they are, in a fundamental way, /wrong/.
It’s not a co-incidence that the GC movement in this country & US dominionist christian groups are using the same arguments (and it looks like the latter are funding the former behind the scenes, although this is difficult to prove directly) against trans people.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
Agreed. And there were quite similar comments about their unnecessarily aggressive campaigning for gay rights.
Doesn’t matter though, does it, unless Sturgeon is actually arrested during the campaign? If policy were important the SNP would be fifth given their abject performance in government. The extraordinary story of vexatious prosecutions of their political opponents would be enough, even without the collapse of the education system, hospitals literally falling down, a joke of a police service, sinister attempts to force social services on every family and a ferry procurement system that would embarrass Venezuela.
In the circumstances, if they can get away with that nobody is going to bother about Sturgeon and Cherry arguing about whether those with balls can call themselves women or not.
This is going to be about independence. Not faction, not policy, not personality. Which in itself is a weak hand that the SNP have shown no sign of honesty on, but given how hated Boris Johnson and his party are becoming north of the border looks likely to be enough (especially bearing in mind those who are ambivalent about independence can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge there isn’t an immediate pathway to leave the UK but an SNP landslide heaps the pressure on Johnson).
It’s disturbing to reflect how pleased I was when the SNP ousted Labour. I thought that was a healthy result for democracy, removing the Mafia-like stranglehold of Labour north of the border, would lead to improved governance and might presage a similar result for Wales.
How tragically mistaken I was.
Many of us were the same.
Labour seemed invincible at the time, and we wanted chunks knocked off them and to know they were beatable.
Mistake.
Interesting comment. I fear some of my colleagues on the left of the Labour felt the same. The SNP were a way to sock it to both the Tories and new Labour. Clearly Labour in Scotland also made huge mistakes and should have fought harder. The key moment of failure was Cameron’s response to the referendum.
Collectively they created the tragedy we see unfolding before us.
I have to say that this is a very peculiar use of the word "tragedy".
There will be a winning side and a losing side in any referendum (which will have to happen in due course). There will be exhilaration among the winners and disappointment among the losers. Scottish independence may happen, or it may not. That is democracy.
But, if Scottish independence happens, why is it a "tragedy" ? It is the right of any people to chose their own future.
Do you even understand what a "tragedy" is ?
People are allowed to think that others have made or will make a tragic mistake. People don't stop seeing Labour/Tories winning as a tragedy in action even though it is democracy in action and people can chose their own futures.
It seems to me that this is the path that leads ... slowly & surely ... to an invasion of the Capitol with a horned Viking helmet, no shirt and raggedy pants. The loss of an election or a referendum is not a tragedy.
Democracy is to be celebrated.
I can understand that people who feel Scottish & British (like @DavidL) will be disappointed in the result, if Scotland votes for independence.
But, I simply can't understand people in Kent describing it as a huge "tragedy".
Scotland will still be there, if it votes for independence.
Jonathan can still go and visit it, if he wants.
Yes, I agree. It's democracy. The worst system of government apart from all the others.
Doesn’t matter though, does it, unless Sturgeon is actually arrested during the campaign? If policy were important the SNP would be fifth given their abject performance in government. The extraordinary story of vexatious prosecutions of their political opponents would be enough, even without the collapse of the education system, hospitals literally falling down, a joke of a police service, sinister attempts to force social services on every family and a ferry procurement system that would embarrass Venezuela.
In the circumstances, if they can get away with that nobody is going to bother about Sturgeon and Cherry arguing about whether those with balls can call themselves women or not.
This is going to be about independence. Not faction, not policy, not personality. Which in itself is a weak hand that the SNP have shown no sign of honesty on, but given how hated Boris Johnson and his party are becoming north of the border looks likely to be enough (especially bearing in mind those who are ambivalent about independence can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge there isn’t an immediate pathway to leave the UK but an SNP landslide heaps the pressure on Johnson).
It’s disturbing to reflect how pleased I was when the SNP ousted Labour. I thought that was a healthy result for democracy, removing the Mafia-like stranglehold of Labour north of the border, would lead to improved governance and might presage a similar result for Wales.
How tragically mistaken I was.
Many of us were the same.
Labour seemed invincible at the time, and we wanted chunks knocked off them and to know they were beatable.
Mistake.
Interesting comment. I fear some of my colleagues on the left of the Labour felt the same. The SNP were a way to sock it to both the Tories and new Labour. Clearly Labour in Scotland also made huge mistakes and should have fought harder. The key moment of failure was Cameron’s response to the referendum.
Collectively they created the tragedy we see unfolding before us.
I have to say that this is a very peculiar use of the word "tragedy".
There will be a winning side and a losing side in any referendum (which will have to happen in due course). There will be exhilaration among the winners and disappointment among the losers. Scottish independence may happen, or it may not. That is democracy.
But, if Scottish independence happens, why is it a "tragedy" ? It is the right of any people to chose their own future.
Do you even understand what a "tragedy" is ?
People are allowed to think that others have made or will make a tragic mistake. People don't stop seeing Labour/Tories winning as a tragedy in action even though it is democracy in action and people can chose their own futures.
It seems to me that this is the path that leads ... slowly & surely ... to an invasion of the Capitol with a horned Viking helmet, no shirt and raggedy pants. The loss of an election or a referendum is not a tragedy.
Democracy is to be celebrated.
I can understand that people who feel Scottish & British (like @DavidL) will be disappointed in the result, if Scotland votes for independence.
But, I simply can't understand people in Kent describing it as a huge "tragedy".
Scotland will still be there, if it votes for independence.
Jonathan can still go and visit it, if he wants.
I don't think your analogy is true. It would be a tragedy for the UK, but people being sad, as they have every right to be as a part of their country will have separated itself, is not the same as people being angry, raging about it and getting ready to take action, it's not even a step on that path. People have long described the UK leaving the EU as tragic, and they've fought that legislatively and democratically as much as they can without it being a step on the path to violent stormings of things.
I think you're just over analysing the significance of the word tragedy, when it is used a lot more casually than you are acting like.
Three issues are getting confused here. (1) Who can make the rules and (2) Who can change the rules and (3) Has the government/Home Office messed up.
Brexit creates the opportunity for a level playing field in migration. An Australia, Lithuanian, French and Tanzanian person should all be in the same position, replacing the system whereby 400,000,000 people having absolute rights made life difficult/impossible for the rest who went to the back of the queue.
This is good.
Implementation may of course be rubbish - after all this is the old Home Office.
Because of Brexit it can be changed and your vote and voice counts.
Don't confuse the questions. Many Remainers don't seem to understand the matter, and are full of whataboutery over individual issues which the UK has control over. dealing with it is called politics. Ask a Belgian who he should vote for to get the vaccine programme sorted.
The main reason for not wanting to put more people's lives under the control of an immigration bureaucracy is that anyone who's ever experienced an immigration bureaucracy knows that it's going to be arbitrary, incompetent and destructive. It's not confusing things to connect the obvious, predictable outcome of the policy to the policy. You go to war with the army you have, you can't decide to go to war, lose the war predictably, then say, "the strategy was great, the only problem was the army, which was rubbish, and by the way we already knew that when we devised the strategy".
Root & Pope both gone now. Pitch apparently breaking up a bit. Declare with 30-45 mins to go, let Anderson and Archer at tired Indian openers?
And a very good morning to one and all.
Last time in Chennai England got 477 and lost by an innings. You get your runs in the first innings here, as many as you possibly can. No declarations, just wear that pitch.
Just been looking at the scorecard for that game; difference appears to have been Nair's performance, and a much better run rate; almost 4 per over against England just over 3.
Yes, it was why I was critical of Sibley's performance yesterday. A day one pitch is when you need to score and he wasted far too many deliveries for too little return. Today has been better but if England had batted like this yesterday they would be another 60-70 runs ahead and the pressure on the Indian batsmen would be greater.
In fairness, it really does seem the analogy of bird spotting is appropriate, as they do look awfully similar. I'd be a good journalist and call them 'tank-like' and claim it was to avoid confusing the readers.
Doesn’t matter though, does it, unless Sturgeon is actually arrested during the campaign? If policy were important the SNP would be fifth given their abject performance in government. The extraordinary story of vexatious prosecutions of their political opponents would be enough, even without the collapse of the education system, hospitals literally falling down, a joke of a police service, sinister attempts to force social services on every family and a ferry procurement system that would embarrass Venezuela.
In the circumstances, if they can get away with that nobody is going to bother about Sturgeon and Cherry arguing about whether those with balls can call themselves women or not.
This is going to be about independence. Not faction, not policy, not personality. Which in itself is a weak hand that the SNP have shown no sign of honesty on, but given how hated Boris Johnson and his party are becoming north of the border looks likely to be enough (especially bearing in mind those who are ambivalent about independence can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge there isn’t an immediate pathway to leave the UK but an SNP landslide heaps the pressure on Johnson).
It’s disturbing to reflect how pleased I was when the SNP ousted Labour. I thought that was a healthy result for democracy, removing the Mafia-like stranglehold of Labour north of the border, would lead to improved governance and might presage a similar result for Wales.
How tragically mistaken I was.
Many of us were the same.
Labour seemed invincible at the time, and we wanted chunks knocked off them and to know they were beatable.
Mistake.
Interesting comment. I fear some of my colleagues on the left of the Labour felt the same. The SNP were a way to sock it to both the Tories and new Labour. Clearly Labour in Scotland also made huge mistakes and should have fought harder. The key moment of failure was Cameron’s response to the referendum.
Collectively they created the tragedy we see unfolding before us.
I have to say that this is a very peculiar use of the word "tragedy".
There will be a winning side and a losing side in any referendum (which will have to happen in due course). There will be exhilaration among the winners and disappointment among the losers. Scottish independence may happen, or it may not. That is democracy.
But, if Scottish independence happens, why is it a "tragedy" ? It is the right of any people to chose their own future.
Do you even understand what a "tragedy" is ?
People are allowed to think that others have made or will make a tragic mistake. People don't stop seeing Labour/Tories winning as a tragedy in action even though it is democracy in action and people can chose their own futures.
It seems to me that this is the path that leads ... slowly & surely ... to an invasion of the Capitol with a horned Viking helmet, no shirt and raggedy pants. The loss of an election or a referendum is not a tragedy.
Democracy is to be celebrated.
I can understand that people who feel Scottish & British (like @DavidL) will be disappointed in the result, if Scotland votes for independence.
But, I simply can't understand people in Kent describing it as a huge "tragedy".
Scotland will still be there, if it votes for independence.
Jonathan can still go and visit it, if he wants.
Yes, I agree. It's democracy. The worst system of government apart from all the others.
I think jonathan is a bit stern about things sometimes, but I really think that it's going a bit hard on him to assume describing an outcome he thinks is bad and would not like as a tragedy presages some anti-democratic event or feeling on his part.
Root & Pope both gone now. Pitch apparently breaking up a bit. Declare with 30-45 mins to go, let Anderson and Archer at tired Indian openers?
And a very good morning to one and all.
Last time in Chennai England got 477 and lost by an innings. You get your runs in the first innings here, as many as you possibly can. No declarations, just wear that pitch.
Just been looking at the scorecard for that game; difference appears to have been Nair's performance, and a much better run rate; almost 4 per over against England just over 3.
Yes, it was why I was critical of Sibley's performance yesterday. A day one pitch is when you need to score and he wasted far too many deliveries for too little return. Today has been better but if England had batted like this yesterday they would be another 60-70 runs ahead and the pressure on the Indian batsmen would be greater.
Agreed; suspect Sibley is still playing himself into his Test place.
Doesn’t matter though, does it, unless Sturgeon is actually arrested during the campaign? If policy were important the SNP would be fifth given their abject performance in government. The extraordinary story of vexatious prosecutions of their political opponents would be enough, even without the collapse of the education system, hospitals literally falling down, a joke of a police service, sinister attempts to force social services on every family and a ferry procurement system that would embarrass Venezuela.
In the circumstances, if they can get away with that nobody is going to bother about Sturgeon and Cherry arguing about whether those with balls can call themselves women or not.
This is going to be about independence. Not faction, not policy, not personality. Which in itself is a weak hand that the SNP have shown no sign of honesty on, but given how hated Boris Johnson and his party are becoming north of the border looks likely to be enough (especially bearing in mind those who are ambivalent about independence can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge there isn’t an immediate pathway to leave the UK but an SNP landslide heaps the pressure on Johnson).
It’s disturbing to reflect how pleased I was when the SNP ousted Labour. I thought that was a healthy result for democracy, removing the Mafia-like stranglehold of Labour north of the border, would lead to improved governance and might presage a similar result for Wales.
How tragically mistaken I was.
Many of us were the same.
Labour seemed invincible at the time, and we wanted chunks knocked off them and to know they were beatable.
Mistake.
Interesting comment. I fear some of my colleagues on the left of the Labour felt the same. The SNP were a way to sock it to both the Tories and new Labour. Clearly Labour in Scotland also made huge mistakes and should have fought harder. The key moment of failure was Cameron’s response to the referendum.
Collectively they created the tragedy we see unfolding before us.
I have to say that this is a very peculiar use of the word "tragedy".
There will be a winning side and a losing side in any referendum (which will have to happen in due course). There will be exhilaration among the winners and disappointment among the losers. Scottish independence may happen, or it may not. That is democracy.
But, if Scottish independence happens, why is it a "tragedy" ? It is the right of any people to chose their own future.
Do you even understand what a "tragedy" is ?
People are allowed to think that others have made or will make a tragic mistake. People don't stop seeing Labour/Tories winning as a tragedy in action even though it is democracy in action and people can chose their own futures.
It seems to me that this is the path that leads ... slowly & surely ... to an invasion of the Capitol with a horned Viking helmet, no shirt and raggedy pants. The loss of an election or a referendum is not a tragedy.
Democracy is to be celebrated.
I can understand that people who feel Scottish & British (like @DavidL) will be disappointed in the result, if Scotland votes for independence.
But, I simply can't understand people in Kent describing it as a huge "tragedy".
Scotland will still be there, if it votes for independence.
Jonathan can still go and visit it, if he wants.
Would Scottish independence be a tragedy if it did delivered the reverse of whatever it was that motivated people to vote for it, be that economic prosperity or rejoining the EU or more Scottish programmes on television? (A bit like the way fisherfolk seem to be reevaluating their support for Brexit.)
A good article by David, and for the most part tends to be spot on.
There are too many variables 3/4 months out - new labour leader, the COVID effect and impact on campaigning, any campaign itself, the sturgeon/ Salmond stuff etc etc.
Root & Pope both gone now. Pitch apparently breaking up a bit. Declare with 30-45 mins to go, let Anderson and Archer at tired Indian openers?
And a very good morning to one and all.
Last time in Chennai England got 477 and lost by an innings. You get your runs in the first innings here, as many as you possibly can. No declarations, just wear that pitch.
Just been looking at the scorecard for that game; difference appears to have been Nair's performance, and a much better run rate; almost 4 per over against England just over 3.
Yes, it was why I was critical of Sibley's performance yesterday. A day one pitch is when you need to score and he wasted far too many deliveries for too little return. Today has been better but if England had batted like this yesterday they would be another 60-70 runs ahead and the pressure on the Indian batsmen would be greater.
Inexperienced test opener batting in India for the first time ? I think that’s hugely over critical of what was an enormously valuable innings.
How about this as an idea: the UK government passes a referendum act (with retrospective effect) to say that there can be no second referendum on a constitutional matter within 25 years.
Sell it as a brexit measure (but it catches Scotland as well)
Determination of whether it is a constitutional matter left to the government (acting quasi-judicially) with a right of appeal to Supreme Court
Provision that it can only be set aside by a specific resolution in Parliament voted on by both houses
I suspect no one really gets upset except the SNP and may be a few EU obsessives.
Who would have thought a toff lickspittle would have come up with such a colonial viewpoint. The views of more than 50% of Scottish people don't matter.
Charming as always. And a very good morning to you too.
In 2013 the Scots had a choice to decide whether they were part of the UK demos or a separate demos. They decided the former.
It is entirely reasonable that a demos can set its rules, and entirely right that they should be an occasional revalidation of whether a subgroup wish to belong to the demos.
You are demanding, in principle, the right to have a vote every week until you get the result you want (of course once you do that vote is set in stone and can’t be challenged). I think that the larger demos has the right to stability. So then it just becomes a question of how frequently you get to vote. In my view 20-25 years is reasonable - certainly 40 is too long and 10 too short.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
Agreed. And there were quite similar comments about their unnecessarily aggressive campaigning for gay rights.
It was a strange time, I still can't get my head around the fact that Mrs Thatcher and her government received criticism for their don't die of ignorance AIDS campaign.
Peregrine Worsthorne, Editor of The Sunday Telegraph, said it was only gay men dying, we should spend the money on more worthy people/defence, or words to that effect.
Root & Pope both gone now. Pitch apparently breaking up a bit. Declare with 30-45 mins to go, let Anderson and Archer at tired Indian openers?
And a very good morning to one and all.
Last time in Chennai England got 477 and lost by an innings. You get your runs in the first innings here, as many as you possibly can. No declarations, just wear that pitch.
Just been looking at the scorecard for that game; difference appears to have been Nair's performance, and a much better run rate; almost 4 per over against England just over 3.
Yes, it was why I was critical of Sibley's performance yesterday. A day one pitch is when you need to score and he wasted far too many deliveries for too little return. Today has been better but if England had batted like this yesterday they would be another 60-70 runs ahead and the pressure on the Indian batsmen would be greater.
Inexperienced test opener batting in India for the first time ? I think that’s hugely over critical of what was an enormously valuable innings.
Also remember one of the reasons the Indian bowlers were not doing too well until three balls ago was because they were knackered after Sibley and Root’s marathon yesterday and had an old ball.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that both scores and Root’s personal form have improved now he’s coming in much later, even if the scoreboard doesn’t have three figures on it after twelve overs.
They tried that approach before and kept imploding.
How about this as an idea: the UK government passes a referendum act (with retrospective effect) to say that there can be no second referendum on a constitutional matter within 25 years.
Sell it as a brexit measure (but it catches Scotland as well)
Determination of whether it is a constitutional matter left to the government (acting quasi-judicially) with a right of appeal to Supreme Court
Provision that it can only be set aside by a specific resolution in Parliament voted on by both houses
I suspect no one really gets upset except the SNP and may be a few EU obsessives.
Couldn't a future Lab/SNP coalition repeal it?
Of course - I meant the only way the legislation could be ignored in a specific case without being repealed. But the voting threshold is the same so it’s splitting hairs really.
On topic, trans rights are definitely a tricky issue for the left to navigate since it's a fissure running through the left and also generally between younger and older feminists, *and* it's related to identity on both sides, and identity issues make people go a bit mental. But Sturgeon is probably the most competent politician in the UK right now and she's blessed by some much bigger competing issues, some of which *also* involve identity, so I'm sure she'll be able to tiptoe her way through it.
Doesn’t matter though, does it, unless Sturgeon is actually arrested during the campaign? If policy were important the SNP would be fifth given their abject performance in government. The extraordinary story of vexatious prosecutions of their political opponents would be enough, even without the collapse of the education system, hospitals literally falling down, a joke of a police service, sinister attempts to force social services on every family and a ferry procurement system that would embarrass Venezuela.
In the circumstances, if they can get away with that nobody is going to bother about Sturgeon and Cherry arguing about whether those with balls can call themselves women or not.
This is going to be about independence. Not faction, not policy, not personality. Which in itself is a weak hand that the SNP have shown no sign of honesty on, but given how hated Boris Johnson and his party are becoming north of the border looks likely to be enough (especially bearing in mind those who are ambivalent about independence can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge there isn’t an immediate pathway to leave the UK but an SNP landslide heaps the pressure on Johnson).
It’s disturbing to reflect how pleased I was when the SNP ousted Labour. I thought that was a healthy result for democracy, removing the Mafia-like stranglehold of Labour north of the border, would lead to improved governance and might presage a similar result for Wales.
How tragically mistaken I was.
Many of us were the same.
Labour seemed invincible at the time, and we wanted chunks knocked off them and to know they were beatable.
Mistake.
Interesting comment. I fear some of my colleagues on the left of the Labour felt the same. The SNP were a way to sock it to both the Tories and new Labour. Clearly Labour in Scotland also made huge mistakes and should have fought harder. The key moment of failure was Cameron’s response to the referendum.
Collectively they created the tragedy we see unfolding before us.
I have to say that this is a very peculiar use of the word "tragedy".
There will be a winning side and a losing side in any referendum (which will have to happen in due course). There will be exhilaration among the winners and disappointment among the losers. Scottish independence may happen, or it may not. That is democracy.
But, if Scottish independence happens, why is it a "tragedy" ? It is the right of any people to chose their own future.
Do you even understand what a "tragedy" is ?
People are allowed to think that others have made or will make a tragic mistake. People don't stop seeing Labour/Tories winning as a tragedy in action even though it is democracy in action and people can chose their own futures.
It seems to me that this is the path that leads ... slowly & surely ... to an invasion of the Capitol with a horned Viking helmet, no shirt and raggedy pants. The loss of an election or a referendum is not a tragedy.
Democracy is to be celebrated.
I can understand that people who feel Scottish & British (like @DavidL) will be disappointed in the result, if Scotland votes for independence.
But, I simply can't understand people in Kent describing it as a huge "tragedy".
Scotland will still be there, if it votes for independence.
Jonathan can still go and visit it, if he wants.
I don't think your analogy is true. It would be a tragedy for the UK, but people being sad, as they have every right to be as a part of their country will have separated itself, is not the same as people being angry, raging about it and getting ready to take action, it's not even a step on that path. People have long described the UK leaving the EU as tragic, and they've fought that legislatively and democratically as much as they can without it being a step on the path to violent stormings of things.
I think you're just over analysing the significance of the word tragedy, when it is used a lot more casually than you are acting like.
I think what Jonathan meant is that it is a "tragedy" for the Labour Party.
At a stroke, their Westminster fortunes have really been transformed by the loss of ~40 seats, many of them really rock solid. They hardly had to campaign in many of them for years and years.
This is one of the main reasons why SKS's job is so feckin' hard.
Of course, Jonathan was using the @kle4 definition of tragedy as something to be fretful about.
"It's hard to bear, With no-one to love you, you're goin' nowhere, Tragedy"
How about this as an idea: the UK government passes a referendum act (with retrospective effect) to say that there can be no second referendum on a constitutional matter within 25 years.
Sell it as a brexit measure (but it catches Scotland as well)
Determination of whether it is a constitutional matter left to the government (acting quasi-judicially) with a right of appeal to Supreme Court
Provision that it can only be set aside by a specific resolution in Parliament voted on by both houses
I suspect no one really gets upset except the SNP and may be a few EU obsessives.
Retrospective legislation is the tool of the devil.
How about if the next Labour government passed legislation saying all previous plebiscites are revoked unless they got over >75% of the electorate's support.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
(And your example wouldn’t set aside the actions that had been taken to implement the 2016 vote)
Doesn’t matter though, does it, unless Sturgeon is actually arrested during the campaign? If policy were important the SNP would be fifth given their abject performance in government. The extraordinary story of vexatious prosecutions of their political opponents would be enough, even without the collapse of the education system, hospitals literally falling down, a joke of a police service, sinister attempts to force social services on every family and a ferry procurement system that would embarrass Venezuela.
In the circumstances, if they can get away with that nobody is going to bother about Sturgeon and Cherry arguing about whether those with balls can call themselves women or not.
This is going to be about independence. Not faction, not policy, not personality. Which in itself is a weak hand that the SNP have shown no sign of honesty on, but given how hated Boris Johnson and his party are becoming north of the border looks likely to be enough (especially bearing in mind those who are ambivalent about independence can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge there isn’t an immediate pathway to leave the UK but an SNP landslide heaps the pressure on Johnson).
It’s disturbing to reflect how pleased I was when the SNP ousted Labour. I thought that was a healthy result for democracy, removing the Mafia-like stranglehold of Labour north of the border, would lead to improved governance and might presage a similar result for Wales.
How tragically mistaken I was.
Many of us were the same.
Labour seemed invincible at the time, and we wanted chunks knocked off them and to know they were beatable.
Mistake.
Interesting comment. I fear some of my colleagues on the left of the Labour felt the same. The SNP were a way to sock it to both the Tories and new Labour. Clearly Labour in Scotland also made huge mistakes and should have fought harder. The key moment of failure was Cameron’s response to the referendum.
Collectively they created the tragedy we see unfolding before us.
I have to say that this is a very peculiar use of the word "tragedy".
There will be a winning side and a losing side in any referendum (which will have to happen in due course). There will be exhilaration among the winners and disappointment among the losers. Scottish independence may happen, or it may not. That is democracy.
But, if Scottish independence happens, why is it a "tragedy" ? It is the right of any people to chose their own future.
Do you even understand what a "tragedy" is ?
People are allowed to think that others have made or will make a tragic mistake. People don't stop seeing Labour/Tories winning as a tragedy in action even though it is democracy in action and people can chose their own futures.
It seems to me that this is the path that leads ... slowly & surely ... to an invasion of the Capitol with a horned Viking helmet, no shirt and raggedy pants. The loss of an election or a referendum is not a tragedy.
Democracy is to be celebrated.
I can understand that people who feel Scottish & British (like @DavidL) will be disappointed in the result, if Scotland votes for independence.
But, I simply can't understand people in Kent describing it as a huge "tragedy".
Scotland will still be there, if it votes for independence.
Jonathan can still go and visit it, if he wants.
I don't think your analogy is true. It would be a tragedy for the UK, but people being sad, as they have every right to be as a part of their country will have separated itself, is not the same as people being angry, raging about it and getting ready to take action, it's not even a step on that path. People have long described the UK leaving the EU as tragic, and they've fought that legislatively and democratically as much as they can without it being a step on the path to violent stormings of things.
I think you're just over analysing the significance of the word tragedy, when it is used a lot more casually than you are acting like.
I think what Jonathan meant is that it is a "tragedy" for the Labour Party.
At a stroke, their Westminster fortunes have really been transformed by the loss of ~40 seats, many of them really rock solid. They hardly had to campaign in many of them for years and years.
This is one of the main reasons why SKS's job is so feckin' hard.
Of course, Jonathan was using the @kle4 definition of tragedy as something to be fretful about.
"It's hard to bear, With no-one to love you, you're goin' nowhere, Tragedy"
Without Scotland my gut is it would very hard for a Labour majority, or indeed a Labour led coalition - given the current state of the LDs.
Haven't run the numbers, but I guess Labour would need to take Bmth West and East - currently around 10k majorities - to have any hope?
It is a good article. Interesting times in North Britain.
The footnote shows that the ScotNat surge long pre-dated Brexit. Those that argue that Brexit killed the Union are confusing coincidence with causation.
As a teenager in the 1950s, and living in Berwick, I am well versed with the desire for independence and in those days it was Wendy Wood who campaigned as vociferously as Nicola, regularly marking in white paint 'Scotland' at the half way point across the border bridge
Of course Berwick has switched between Scotland and England 13 times so far, but I am far from convinced it will be 14 anytime soon
I expect the SNP to win a majority in May and in short order submit a section 30 request
However, unlike HYUFD's nonsense, I hope Boris will put it to a free vote in the HOC, where I expect it would be heavily defeated.
The ball then goes back to the SNP but then they will have to find a way round the rejection, which I just cannot see.
Of course it is as much in labour's interest as anyone's to fight independence, as it could have a very serious consequence for them ever hoping to regain power
There was a poll just a couple of days ago and Nicola was something like +21 (net) and the SNP were +8. The trouble being caused by the battle with Salmond has threatened her position within the party but she remains dominant in Scottish politics and extremely popular. Her mother of the nation role throughout the pandemic has solidified that position and given her a profile so far ahead of her cabinet as to be out of sight.
For David's analysis and prediction to come true Sturgeon has to go. If she remains in charge of the SNP I really struggle to see the SNP not getting a majority (much though I would want to). Those that play close attention and are, in fairness, instinctively hostile look at what has been going on with really strange calls by Crown Office, by retrospective rule changes to catch Salmond, by Civil Servants behaving in a truly extraordinary fashion and conclude that there is something rotten in the State of Bute House, something deeply unhealthy and undemocratic, but it is delusional to think that this is having the sort of impact on Scottish opinion that it should have.
The only people capable of binging Sturgeon down are those in the SNP. I wish them luck.
Even when she is gone David , the SNP will still win comfortably. Question is whether she can last till after the election and plan an escape route or the whole house of cards falls in on her before that. May all come down to whether Andy Wightman has bollox as he will have the casting vote. The independent inquiry may also get her as it is very obvious she lied to parliament , having even admitted to the meeting she denied she had in parliament. There is also the £500K + ringfenced referendum fund that has been misplaced somewhere, suspected to have been used for the SNP bigwigs legal costs and defamation payouts. It will be an avalanche once the dam breaks.
The SNP will remain the largest party in Scotland for as long as independence remains a popular option but they need a popular leader to get close to an overall majority. Salmond fell short in the first referendum and he played his cards with considerable skill. Without Nicola I think that the SNP will remain dominant but will be well short.
David, issue will be which side wins. If her chosen one Roberston gets there then all the current sycophants , troughers and ne'er do wells at the top will stay. Given what we know of him that would be very bad for Scotland and there is a lot of dross that needs cleared out. However as you say who could be the one to take them forward. My choice would be Duncan Hamilton.
How about this as an idea: the UK government passes a referendum act (with retrospective effect) to say that there can be no second referendum on a constitutional matter within 25 years.
Sell it as a brexit measure (but it catches Scotland as well)
Determination of whether it is a constitutional matter left to the government (acting quasi-judicially) with a right of appeal to Supreme Court
Provision that it can only be set aside by a specific resolution in Parliament voted on by both houses
I suspect no one really gets upset except the SNP and may be a few EU obsessives.
Retrospective legislation is the tool of the devil.
How about if the next Labour government passed legislation saying all previous plebiscites are revoked unless they got over >75% of the electorate's support.
It wouldn't need to be retrospective as long as it only applied to future referendums.
But it's not a good idea anyway. All referendums need their own legislation so that could just amend the Referendums (25-Year Restriction) Act to make an exception or override, rather in the same way that the FTPA was ignored to enable the 2019GE.
In practical terms it’s meaningless. It just makes plain the current situation in Scotland
It is a good article. Interesting times in North Britain.
The footnote shows that the ScotNat surge long pre-dated Brexit. Those that argue that Brexit killed the Union are confusing coincidence with causation.
Indeed. And what Brexit has done is provide several compelling arguments for no.
Firstly, anyone who claims that a deal between rUK and Scotland is going to be easy is surely and to be laughed at. 4 years of angst and uncertainty is almost certainly an optimistic scenario.
Secondly, the Brexit experience means that there will be much more focus on the details of any alleged deal than there was in 2014.
Thirdly, the main reason for this was the argument in 2014 that Scotland was somehow going to get pretty much instant membership of the EU and the SM resolving many of the potential issues with rUK. That is no longer the case. Scotland has to choose (if it is allowed to choose) between a SM with rUK and rejoining the SM with the EU. The former is worth 4x the latter. Do we really want the problems at Dover at Carlisle and Berwick?
Fourthly, if we do opt for the SM with rUK (which we must) and Sterling what exactly is the point? Economic policy will be determined by London anyway and a Scottish government will have very little room for maneuver.
I always thought those that claimed that Brexit threatened the Union were delusional. I remain convinced that is the case. It may well make the difference.
Doesn’t matter though, does it, unless Sturgeon is actually arrested during the campaign? If policy were important the SNP would be fifth given their abject performance in government. The extraordinary story of vexatious prosecutions of their political opponents would be enough, even without the collapse of the education system, hospitals literally falling down, a joke of a police service, sinister attempts to force social services on every family and a ferry procurement system that would embarrass Venezuela.
In the circumstances, if they can get away with that nobody is going to bother about Sturgeon and Cherry arguing about whether those with balls can call themselves women or not.
This is going to be about independence. Not faction, not policy, not personality. Which in itself is a weak hand that the SNP have shown no sign of honesty on, but given how hated Boris Johnson and his party are becoming north of the border looks likely to be enough (especially bearing in mind those who are ambivalent about independence can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge there isn’t an immediate pathway to leave the UK but an SNP landslide heaps the pressure on Johnson).
It’s disturbing to reflect how pleased I was when the SNP ousted Labour. I thought that was a healthy result for democracy, removing the Mafia-like stranglehold of Labour north of the border, would lead to improved governance and might presage a similar result for Wales.
How tragically mistaken I was.
Many of us were the same.
Labour seemed invincible at the time, and we wanted chunks knocked off them and to know they were beatable.
Mistake.
Interesting comment. I fear some of my colleagues on the left of the Labour felt the same. The SNP were a way to sock it to both the Tories and new Labour. Clearly Labour in Scotland also made huge mistakes and should have fought harder. The key moment of failure was Cameron’s response to the referendum.
Collectively they created the tragedy we see unfolding before us.
I have to say that this is a very peculiar use of the word "tragedy".
There will be a winning side and a losing side in any referendum (which will have to happen in due course). There will be exhilaration among the winners and disappointment among the losers. Scottish independence may happen, or it may not. That is democracy.
But, if Scottish independence happens, why is it a "tragedy" ? It is the right of any people to chose their own future.
Do you even understand what a "tragedy" is ?
Obviously not , just an unthinking Labour drone who cannot see beyond his nose but thinks people should be compelled to do what he thinks is right , forget democracy and majorities.
The percentage rate at which the number of infected is falling is steadily increasing.
I suspect this is caused by the number of vaccinated increasing day by day.
And, I suppose, by the number of people who have now had Covid. With ONS suggesting infections have been running at a million a week for the past what, 6 weeks, there must be an awful lot of natural antibody immunity flying about at the moment too.
How about this as an idea: the UK government passes a referendum act (with retrospective effect) to say that there can be no second referendum on a constitutional matter within 25 years.
Sell it as a brexit measure (but it catches Scotland as well)
Determination of whether it is a constitutional matter left to the government (acting quasi-judicially) with a right of appeal to Supreme Court
Provision that it can only be set aside by a specific resolution in Parliament voted on by both houses
I suspect no one really gets upset except the SNP and may be a few EU obsessives.
Retrospective legislation is the tool of the devil.
How about if the next Labour government passed legislation saying all previous plebiscites are revoked unless they got over >75% of the electorate's support.
It wouldn't need to be retrospective as long as it only applied to future referendums.
But it's not a good idea anyway. All referendums need their own legislation so that could just amend the Referendums (25-Year Restriction) Act to make an exception or override, rather in the same way that the FTPA was ignored to enable the 2019GE.
In practical terms it’s meaningless. It just makes plain the current situation in Scotland
How about this as an idea: the UK government passes a referendum act (with retrospective effect) to say that there can be no second referendum on a constitutional matter within 25 years.
Sell it as a brexit measure (but it catches Scotland as well)
Determination of whether it is a constitutional matter left to the government (acting quasi-judicially) with a right of appeal to Supreme Court
Provision that it can only be set aside by a specific resolution in Parliament voted on by both houses
I suspect no one really gets upset except the SNP and may be a few EU obsessives.
Retrospective legislation is the tool of the devil.
How about if the next Labour government passed legislation saying all previous plebiscites are revoked unless they got over >75% of the electorate's support.
It wouldn't need to be retrospective as long as it only applied to future referendums.
But it's not a good idea anyway. All referendums need their own legislation so that could just amend the Referendums (25-Year Restriction) Act to make an exception or override, rather in the same way that the FTPA was ignored to enable the 2019GE.
In practical terms it’s meaningless. It just makes plain the current situation in Scotland
So why pass meaningless legislation ? Daft idea.
It would only be meaningful if it had been in the Section 30 Order at the time, that Scotland wouldn’t ask again for maybe 10 years.
Just as in the GFA a border poll can be held multiple times, but not at intervals more frequent than seven years.
That might be something to think of with a new Sec30 order, of course.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
I know single examples are certainly not 'typical' but it is certainly the case that some individuals have used trans-rights to commit crimes against women.
Think I'd have played Woakes over Archer here - it's a slow pitch and you add runs to the tail. Archer is a walking wicket which isn't ideal at No 9
Although Archer is quite a capable batsman at first class level - six half centuries and a high score of 81, average 24.
And those are on quite lively wickets at Hove.
One of those whose batting really falls off against world class bowlers I guess
I think it’s under appreciated, just how much short-form bowling differs from Test bowling. The differences in batting are more obvious and attract more attention.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
Except the issue here isn't about the age of consent between two individuals who've reached sexual maturity; it's about the extent to which an individual can chose their gender identity and effectively opt-in to become a member of the opposite sex. And you forgot there are limits on the former too - there was an active debate on the age of consent in the 1970s and 1980s with the PIE, which was affiliated at the time with the more radical wing of the gay rights movement, arguing that the agent of consent should be lowered to ten. These things do need debating, however sensitive.
In the case of transrights regarding self-identification they do potentially come into conflict with women's rights in refuges, sports and changing rooms, and their identity as women with unique experiences down to their sex and biology as a result. I'd say it's less of an issue the other way (women > men) where there are fewer of them and the social issues less pronounced, but don't forget the young man (ex woman) who recently took Tavistock to court, and won, on the issue gender treatment for minors.
I don't think rights issues can be explained away by referencing back to past equality battles and dismissing any criticism as bigoted; in fact, I'd say that's disingenuous and makes it less likely to build a more accepting and tolerant society.
Trans is a world where I have had only tangential experience and would not want to blithely offer opinions. I would just observe though that it is an issue with more practical issues than gay rights, where it was overwhelmingly a case of saying to the dubious "just accept it".
Two people deciding who they choose to take to bed does not impact which toilets you can use, which prisons you get sent to, who you compete against at sport. Trans does however involve these interactions - interactions that cause issues. Trans does seem to be an issue that attracts people who are not prepared to offer compromise on these issues; just demands that they be accepted wherever, however - and on their terms. It is not a way to win these complex arguments.
The percentage rate at which the number of infected is falling is steadily increasing.
I suspect this is caused by the number of vaccinated increasing day by day.
And, I suppose, by the number of people who have now had Covid. With ONS suggesting infections have been running at a million a week for the past what, 6 weeks, there must be an awful lot of natural antibody immunity flying about at the moment too.
There's no way new infections have been anywhere near a million per week with the amount of testing being done.
What is significant though is that the number of re-infections is still at miniscule level.
Given that its now eleven months since mass infections of last March it suggests covid is at most an annual event.
There was a poll just a couple of days ago and Nicola was something like +21 (net) and the SNP were +8. The trouble being caused by the battle with Salmond has threatened her position within the party but she remains dominant in Scottish politics and extremely popular. Her mother of the nation role throughout the pandemic has solidified that position and given her a profile so far ahead of her cabinet as to be out of sight.
For David's analysis and prediction to come true Sturgeon has to go. If she remains in charge of the SNP I really struggle to see the SNP not getting a majority (much though I would want to). Those that play close attention and are, in fairness, instinctively hostile look at what has been going on with really strange calls by Crown Office, by retrospective rule changes to catch Salmond, by Civil Servants behaving in a truly extraordinary fashion and conclude that there is something rotten in the State of Bute House, something deeply unhealthy and undemocratic, but it is delusional to think that this is having the sort of impact on Scottish opinion that it should have.
The only people capable of binging Sturgeon down are those in the SNP. I wish them luck.
Even when she is gone David , the SNP will still win comfortably. Question is whether she can last till after the election and plan an escape route or the whole house of cards falls in on her before that. May all come down to whether Andy Wightman has bollox as he will have the casting vote. The independent inquiry may also get her as it is very obvious she lied to parliament , having even admitted to the meeting she denied she had in parliament. There is also the £500K + ringfenced referendum fund that has been misplaced somewhere, suspected to have been used for the SNP bigwigs legal costs and defamation payouts. It will be an avalanche once the dam breaks.
The SNP will remain the largest party in Scotland for as long as independence remains a popular option but they need a popular leader to get close to an overall majority. Salmond fell short in the first referendum and he played his cards with considerable skill. Without Nicola I think that the SNP will remain dominant but will be well short.
David, issue will be which side wins. If her chosen one Roberston gets there then all the current sycophants , troughers and ne'er do wells at the top will stay. Given what we know of him that would be very bad for Scotland and there is a lot of dross that needs cleared out. However as you say who could be the one to take them forward. My choice would be Duncan Hamilton.
Interesting. Duncan Hamilton is barely on my radar anymore. You think he will come back and, if so, how?
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
Except the issue here isn't about the age of consent between two individuals who've reached sexual maturity; it's about the extent to which an individual can chose their gender identity and effectively opt-in to become a member of the opposite sex. And you forgot there are limits on the former too - there was an active debate on the age of consent in the 1970s and 1980s with the PIE, which was affiliated at the time with the more radical wing of the gay rights movement, arguing that the agent of consent should be lowered to ten. These things do need debating, however sensitive.
In the case of transrights regarding self-identification they do potentially come into conflict with women's rights in refuges, sports and changing rooms, and their identity as women with unique experiences down to their sex and biology as a result. I'd say it's less of an issue the other way (women > men) where there are fewer of them and the social issues less pronounced, but don't forget the young man (ex woman) who recently took Tavistock to court, and won, on the issue gender treatment for minors.
I don't think rights issues can be explained away by referencing back to past equality battles and dismissing any criticism as bigoted; in fact, I'd say that's disingenuous and makes it less likely to build a more accepting and tolerant society.
Trans is a world where I have had only tangential experience and would not want to blithely offer opinions. I would just observe though that it is an issue with more practical issues than gay rights, where it was overwhelmingly a case of saying to the dubious "just accept it".
Two people deciding who they choose to take to bed does not impact which toilets you can use, which prisons you get sent to, who you compete against at sport. Trans does however involve these interactions - interactions that cause issues. Trans does seem to be an issue that attracts people who are not prepared to offer compromise on these issues; just demands that they be accepted wherever, however - and on their terms. It is not a way to win these complex arguments.
Forgive me but these practical issues are only issues at all if you confuse sex and gender. Transgender people have decided that they want to identify as the other gender. That`s fine IMO.
Sport, loos, prisons etc have nothing to do with gender. They are to do with sex.
The percentage rate at which the number of infected is falling is steadily increasing.
I suspect this is caused by the number of vaccinated increasing day by day.
And, I suppose, by the number of people who have now had Covid. With ONS suggesting infections have been running at a million a week for the past what, 6 weeks, there must be an awful lot of natural antibody immunity flying about at the moment too.
There's no way new infections have been anywhere near a million per week with the amount of testing being done.
What is significant though is that the number of re-infections is still at miniscule level.
Given that its now eleven months since mass infections of last March it suggests covid is at most an annual event.
Anecdotal - friend had a close chat (Head in car window) with another friend who subsequently tested positive. She was worried for a few days but swerved it, very likely had it herself at the start of the pandemic (Last March)
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
Except the issue here isn't about the age of consent between two individuals who've reached sexual maturity; it's about the extent to which an individual can chose their gender identity and effectively opt-in to become a member of the opposite sex. And you forgot there are limits on the former too - there was an active debate on the age of consent in the 1970s and 1980s with the PIE, which was affiliated at the time with the more radical wing of the gay rights movement, arguing that the agent of consent should be lowered to ten. These things do need debating, however sensitive.
In the case of transrights regarding self-identification they do potentially come into conflict with women's rights in refuges, sports and changing rooms, and their identity as women with unique experiences down to their sex and biology as a result. I'd say it's less of an issue the other way (women > men) where there are fewer of them and the social issues less pronounced, but don't forget the young man (ex woman) who recently took Tavistock to court, and won, on the issue gender treatment for minors.
I don't think rights issues can be explained away by referencing back to past equality battles and dismissing any criticism as bigoted; in fact, I'd say that's disingenuous and makes it less likely to build a more accepting and tolerant society.
Trans is a world where I have had only tangential experience and would not want to blithely offer opinions. I would just observe though that it is an issue with more practical issues than gay rights, where it was overwhelmingly a case of saying to the dubious "just accept it".
Two people deciding who they choose to take to bed does not impact which toilets you can use, which prisons you get sent to, who you compete against at sport. Trans does however involve these interactions - interactions that cause issues. Trans does seem to be an issue that attracts people who are not prepared to offer compromise on these issues; just demands that they be accepted wherever, however - and on their terms. It is not a way to win these complex arguments.
Forgive me but these practical issues are only issues at all if you confuse sex and gender. Transgender people have decided that they want to identify as the other gender. That`s fine IMO.
Sport, loos, prisons etc have nothing to do with gender. They are to do with sex.
Okaaaay....
This sounds like a world of weird fetish that I’ve not been introduced to.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
I know single examples are certainly not 'typical' but it is certainly the case that some individuals have used trans-rights to commit crimes against women.
The question is how you prevent tis sort of exploitation.
Yes , you cannot just trash the rights of 50% of the population just to suit a miniscule group on one or two points like using women's communal changing rooms, toilets, etc.
There was a poll just a couple of days ago and Nicola was something like +21 (net) and the SNP were +8. The trouble being caused by the battle with Salmond has threatened her position within the party but she remains dominant in Scottish politics and extremely popular. Her mother of the nation role throughout the pandemic has solidified that position and given her a profile so far ahead of her cabinet as to be out of sight.
For David's analysis and prediction to come true Sturgeon has to go. If she remains in charge of the SNP I really struggle to see the SNP not getting a majority (much though I would want to). Those that play close attention and are, in fairness, instinctively hostile look at what has been going on with really strange calls by Crown Office, by retrospective rule changes to catch Salmond, by Civil Servants behaving in a truly extraordinary fashion and conclude that there is something rotten in the State of Bute House, something deeply unhealthy and undemocratic, but it is delusional to think that this is having the sort of impact on Scottish opinion that it should have.
The only people capable of binging Sturgeon down are those in the SNP. I wish them luck.
Even when she is gone David , the SNP will still win comfortably. Question is whether she can last till after the election and plan an escape route or the whole house of cards falls in on her before that. May all come down to whether Andy Wightman has bollox as he will have the casting vote. The independent inquiry may also get her as it is very obvious she lied to parliament , having even admitted to the meeting she denied she had in parliament. There is also the £500K + ringfenced referendum fund that has been misplaced somewhere, suspected to have been used for the SNP bigwigs legal costs and defamation payouts. It will be an avalanche once the dam breaks.
The SNP will remain the largest party in Scotland for as long as independence remains a popular option but they need a popular leader to get close to an overall majority. Salmond fell short in the first referendum and he played his cards with considerable skill. Without Nicola I think that the SNP will remain dominant but will be well short.
David, issue will be which side wins. If her chosen one Roberston gets there then all the current sycophants , troughers and ne'er do wells at the top will stay. Given what we know of him that would be very bad for Scotland and there is a lot of dross that needs cleared out. However as you say who could be the one to take them forward. My choice would be Duncan Hamilton.
Interesting. Duncan Hamilton is barely on my radar anymore. You think he will come back and, if so, how?
He does seem to have disappeared , and no idea whether he wants to come back but he would be great. I believe he has been assisting Alex Salmond with his troubles.
Three issues are getting confused here. (1) Who can make the rules and (2) Who can change the rules and (3) Has the government/Home Office messed up.
Brexit creates the opportunity for a level playing field in migration. An Australia, Lithuanian, French and Tanzanian person should all be in the same position, replacing the system whereby 400,000,000 people having absolute rights made life difficult/impossible for the rest who went to the back of the queue.
This is good.
Implementation may of course be rubbish - after all this is the old Home Office.
Because of Brexit it can be changed and your vote and voice counts.
Don't confuse the questions. Many Remainers don't seem to understand the matter, and are full of whataboutery over individual issues which the UK has control over. dealing with it is called politics. Ask a Belgian who he should vote for to get the vaccine programme sorted.
The main reason for not wanting to put more people's lives under the control of an immigration bureaucracy is that anyone who's ever experienced an immigration bureaucracy knows that it's going to be arbitrary, incompetent and destructive. It's not confusing things to connect the obvious, predictable outcome of the policy to the policy. You go to war with the army you have, you can't decide to go to war, lose the war predictably, then say, "the strategy was great, the only problem was the army, which was rubbish, and by the way we already knew that when we devised the strategy".
I prefer a level playing field. Your view prefers favouring 400,000,000 million people and squeezing out most of the others. There aren't any countries that don't have immigration policies, and for me if I were to favour FOM between countries I wouldn't choose the 27 of the EU, I would choose elsewhere.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
People who think they have been born into the wrong body should get, rather faster than they do now - the average wait just to be seen to get a diagnosis - is ca. 2 years - the medical care they need. Gender neutral toilets are the answer to the toilets question provided that there are also women only loos and by women I do not mean people with penises. Whether a man chooses to wear dresses or not is of no interest to me. People who are transitioning should be treated with care and respect and not be discriminated against.
But.
This does not mean that they can or should claim that the mere utterance of words changes biological reality. Saying "I am a woman" does not make it so. Alchemy is no more real now than it was in the Middle Ages. It is women who have ovaries, who menstruate, who become pregnant, give birth, breastfeed, endure the menopause, have cervixes etc. Their experience of sex is very different. And much of their experience of life is affected by this - from the moment a girl first realises that boys and men look at her differently the moment she develops breasts or the moment she wanders into a newsagent and wonders why there are so many magazines of half-naked women on the shelves but none of men (I may be showing my age here but the same point can be made about the digital world). No amount of words or feelings change this.
A man who feels that he has been born into the wrong body can transition and is then a woman and in the period when he is transitioning is living as if he were a woman. I would be happy to consider them women. But a man who does neither of those things remains a man whatever his feelings about his true "gender".
And there is another important But.
Stonewall which has been pushing the trans right arguments is now arguing that "sex" should no longer be a "protected characteristic" under the law. So it will no longer be illegal to discriminate against a woman or take other action prejudicial to a woman because she is a woman. 50 or more years of campaigning and legislation for women's rights thrown away just like that just so that some men want to be able to claim that women have penises and testicles.
The Army is dangerously short of soldiers, according to an MoD report seen by the Daily Mail.
32 out of 33 infantry battalions are under-strength and HMG's solution appears to be yet more cuts while blaming Capita (army recruitment having been privatised because, well, why not?).
There is very real concern amongst women at the idea that womanhood should be redefined in such a way as to be essentially meaningless and at the loss of rights which have been hard fought for and often grudgingly given. It feels as if this is another example of men telling women what being a woman means, something they have been doing for centuries. It feels like bullying. And it is no more acceptable now than it has been in the past.
Being a woman has real meaning. Sex is a biological reality. Discrimination against women is a reality.
There has been much progress on this. To throw this away, to redefine "womanhood" as merely a feeling ungrounded in any reality, is to set the cause of women's rights back very significantly. There is a reason why women are concerned. Rape is a reality. The fear of it is real. That is the difference from the old arguments that gay men would attack children. Men do rape women and to dismiss the concern of women on this, especially abused women is insulting and disgraceful. I have been raped. Virtually all the women I know have suffered sexual assaults of one kind or another. No man has the right to tell us that our fears are mere groundless prejudice.
It is possible to find a way to preserve women's rights while being fair to those with gender dysphoria. But it is not going to be achieved by dismissing the concerns of women, accusations of phobias, silly comparisons with past campaigns and listening to the extremists. There are plenty of transwomen (Debbie Hayton is one, for instance) who have expressed dismay at what some in the trans lobby are doing and saying.
Incidentally Liz Truss's response to the consultation paper on the GRA was pretty impressive, another reason why she is a politician to watch.
On topic, try as I might I find it very hard to get interested in SNP politics or, dare I say it, the question of Scottish independence. Naughty of me, I know, but there it is.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
Except the issue here isn't about the age of consent between two individuals who've reached sexual maturity; it's about the extent to which an individual can chose their gender identity and effectively opt-in to become a member of the opposite sex. And you forgot there are limits on the former too - there was an active debate on the age of consent in the 1970s and 1980s with the PIE, which was affiliated at the time with the more radical wing of the gay rights movement, arguing that the agent of consent should be lowered to ten. These things do need debating, however sensitive.
In the case of transrights regarding self-identification they do potentially come into conflict with women's rights in refuges, sports and changing rooms, and their identity as women with unique experiences down to their sex and biology as a result. I'd say it's less of an issue the other way (women > men) where there are fewer of them and the social issues less pronounced, but don't forget the young man (ex woman) who recently took Tavistock to court, and won, on the issue gender treatment for minors.
I don't think rights issues can be explained away by referencing back to past equality battles and dismissing any criticism as bigoted; in fact, I'd say that's disingenuous and makes it less likely to build a more accepting and tolerant society.
Trans is a world where I have had only tangential experience and would not want to blithely offer opinions. I would just observe though that it is an issue with more practical issues than gay rights, where it was overwhelmingly a case of saying to the dubious "just accept it".
Two people deciding who they choose to take to bed does not impact which toilets you can use, which prisons you get sent to, who you compete against at sport. Trans does however involve these interactions - interactions that cause issues. Trans does seem to be an issue that attracts people who are not prepared to offer compromise on these issues; just demands that they be accepted wherever, however - and on their terms. It is not a way to win these complex arguments.
Forgive me but these practical issues are only issues at all if you confuse sex and gender. Transgender people have decided that they want to identify as the other gender. That`s fine IMO.
Sport, loos, prisons etc have nothing to do with gender. They are to do with sex.
Yes it's the purposeful misdirection of putting the two together. Sex based rights and gender rights are absolutely different things, which is why such a thing as reassignment surgery exists. The whole self-ID argument of someone simply being able to declare themselves the other gender and be able access single sex services is completely ridiculous.
I think the government has done well to sidestep the whole argument and just ignore the screeching. One of the major reasons I'd feel worried about Labour getting into power is the reversal of the government's position on this and it's something that would absolutely swing my vote in 2024 into reluctantly voting Tory again despite the last year of completey dog shit governance.
The percentage rate at which the number of infected is falling is steadily increasing.
I suspect this is caused by the number of vaccinated increasing day by day.
And, I suppose, by the number of people who have now had Covid. With ONS suggesting infections have been running at a million a week for the past what, 6 weeks, there must be an awful lot of natural antibody immunity flying about at the moment too.
There's no way new infections have been anywhere near a million per week with the amount of testing being done.
What is significant though is that the number of re-infections is still at miniscule level.
Given that its now eleven months since mass infections of last March it suggests covid is at most an annual event.
What I think ONS said is that about 1 million people "had" covid at a given point in time. Each infection might last on average, what, 4 weeks ? So that would be 250k new infections a week, 35k a day. Seems more plausible,
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
I know single examples are certainly not 'typical' but it is certainly the case that some individuals have used trans-rights to commit crimes against women.
On the whole this seems like a sensible, risk led approach to me.
That the anti-trans crowd can point to so few failures of this system (and the Karen White case was a terrible, terrible failure) suggests that it’s generally working about as well as anything to do with the UK prison system can be expected to.
There is very real concern amongst women at the idea that womanhood should be redefined in such a way as to be essentially meaningless and at the loss of rights which have been hard fought for and often grudgingly given. It feels as if this is another example of men telling women what being a woman means, something they have been doing for centuries. It feels like bullying. And it is no more acceptable now than it has been in the past.
Being a woman has real meaning. Sex is a biological reality. Discrimination against women is a reality.
There has been much progress on this. To throw this away, to redefine "womanhood" as merely a feeling ungrounded in any reality, is to set the cause of women's rights back very significantly. There is a reason why women are concerned. Rape is a reality. The fear of it is real.
It is possible to find a way to preserve women's rights while being fair to those with gender dysphoria. But it is not going to be achieved by dismissing the concerns of women, accusations of phobias, silly comparisons with past campaigns and listening to the extremists. There are plenty of transwomen (Debbie Hayton is one, for instance) who have expressed dismay at what some in the trans lobby are doing and saying.
Incidentally Liz Truss's response to the consultation paper on the GRA was pretty impressive, another reason why she is a politician to watch.
On topic, try as I might I find it very hard to get interested in SNP politics or, dare I say it, the question of Scottish independence. Naughty of me, I know, but there it is.
Have a good day all.
Excellent post, Cyclefree. As I just said, this is the difference between staying home and going out and voting Tory for me, and I'm about to move into a marginal seat so it actually means something.
I think the next Labour government will actively dilute women's sex based rights and shout down women all over the country as bigots just as we've seen the left do to JK Rowling for opposing them on their drive to make definition of woman to include men who say they are women.
The BBC is reporting proposed NHS reforms that sound in the headlines as if Boris intends to sort of renationalise the NHS, taking it back from the market based reforms and to neutralise Labour on the issue.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
I know single examples are certainly not 'typical' but it is certainly the case that some individuals have used trans-rights to commit crimes against women.
The question is how you prevent tis sort of exploitation.
Yes , you cannot just trash the rights of 50% of the population just to suit a miniscule group on one or two points like using women's communal changing rooms, toilets, etc.
Should we have a special prison for transgender criminals?
The SNP is divided between pro trans rights Sturgeon supporters who refuse to push for a UDI if as is likely the UK government refuses a legal indyref2 after an SNP majority in May and former Salmond loyalists like Cherry who want less focus on woke matters and more push for a hardline towards independence
One thing about the trans debate, F-> M trans barely get a mention
Yes - I think that if a female decides to change gender to male that individual is perfectly entitled to continue to participate in women`s sport for instance.
The BBC is reporting proposed NHS reforms that sound in the headlines as if Boris intends to sort of renationalise the NHS, taking it back from the market based reforms and to neutralise Labour on the issue.
It does sound like an undermining of the The 2012 Health and Social Care Act brought in by the Cameron government. There would still be a role for the private sector but an end to contracts put out to tender and more direct control over NHS England by the Health Secretary
One thing about the trans debate, F-> M trans barely get a mention
That's because, as with most things, the trans debate is inseparable from issues of power. Men, to the extent that they devote any thought to the matter (i.e. almost never,) don't view F to M transsexuals as a threat to their rights, safety or identity. Compare and contrast with what @Cyclefree has just written about how so many women feel about this issue.
Comments
Surely every first innings run is twice as easy to score as one in the second ?
The footnote shows that the ScotNat surge long pre-dated Brexit. Those that argue that Brexit killed the Union are confusing coincidence with causation.
Democracy is to be celebrated.
I can understand that people who feel Scottish & British (like @DavidL) will be disappointed in the result, if Scotland votes for independence.
But, I simply can't understand people in Kent describing it as a huge "tragedy".
Scotland will still be there, if it votes for independence.
Jonathan can still go and visit it, if he wants.
It’s not a co-incidence that the GC movement in this country & US dominionist christian groups are using the same arguments (and it looks like the latter are funding the former behind the scenes, although this is difficult to prove directly) against trans people.
And there were quite similar comments about their unnecessarily aggressive campaigning for gay rights.
I think you're just over analysing the significance of the word tragedy, when it is used a lot more casually than you are acting like.
Edit - and then a truly shocking leave by Buttler!
There are too many variables 3/4 months out - new labour leader, the COVID effect and impact on campaigning, any campaign itself, the sturgeon/ Salmond stuff etc etc.
I think that’s hugely over critical of what was an enormously valuable innings.
Edit - bloody hell. What have I done with that comment?
In 2013 the Scots had a choice to decide whether they were part of the UK demos or a separate demos. They decided the former.
It is entirely reasonable that a demos can set its rules, and entirely right that they should be an occasional revalidation of whether a subgroup wish to belong to the demos.
You are demanding, in principle, the right to have a vote every week until you get the result you want (of course once you do that vote is set in stone and can’t be challenged). I think that the larger demos has the right to stability. So then it just becomes a question of how frequently you get to vote. In my view 20-25 years is reasonable - certainly 40 is too long and 10 too short.
Peregrine Worsthorne, Editor of The Sunday Telegraph, said it was only gay men dying, we should spend the money on more worthy people/defence, or words to that effect.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that both scores and Root’s personal form have improved now he’s coming in much later, even if the scoreboard doesn’t have three figures on it after twelve overs.
They tried that approach before and kept imploding.
At a stroke, their Westminster fortunes have really been transformed by the loss of ~40 seats, many of them really rock solid. They hardly had to campaign in many of them for years and years.
This is one of the main reasons why SKS's job is so feckin' hard.
Of course, Jonathan was using the @kle4 definition of tragedy as something to be fretful about.
"It's hard to bear, With no-one to love you, you're goin' nowhere, Tragedy"
(And your example wouldn’t set aside the actions that had been taken to implement the 2016 vote)
Haven't run the numbers, but I guess Labour would need to take Bmth West and East - currently around 10k majorities - to have any hope?
Of course Berwick has switched between Scotland and England 13 times so far, but I am far from convinced it will be 14 anytime soon
I expect the SNP to win a majority in May and in short order submit a section 30 request
However, unlike HYUFD's nonsense, I hope Boris will put it to a free vote in the HOC, where I expect it would be heavily defeated.
The ball then goes back to the SNP but then they will have to find a way round the rejection, which I just cannot see.
Of course it is as much in labour's interest as anyone's to fight independence, as it could have a very serious consequence for them ever hoping to regain power
Because if there was a normal employer/employee relationship, the employer (& employee) would be paying TAX.
I am glad you highlighted the tax avoidance aspects
Firstly, anyone who claims that a deal between rUK and Scotland is going to be easy is surely and to be laughed at. 4 years of angst and uncertainty is almost certainly an optimistic scenario.
Secondly, the Brexit experience means that there will be much more focus on the details of any alleged deal than there was in 2014.
Thirdly, the main reason for this was the argument in 2014 that Scotland was somehow going to get pretty much instant membership of the EU and the SM resolving many of the potential issues with rUK. That is no longer the case. Scotland has to choose (if it is allowed to choose) between a SM with rUK and rejoining the SM with the EU. The former is worth 4x the latter. Do we really want the problems at Dover at Carlisle and Berwick?
Fourthly, if we do opt for the SM with rUK (which we must) and Sterling what exactly is the point? Economic policy will be determined by London anyway and a Scottish government will have very little room for maneuver.
I always thought those that claimed that Brexit threatened the Union were delusional. I remain convinced that is the case. It may well make the difference.
The percentage rate at which the number of infected is falling is steadily increasing.
I suspect this is caused by the number of vaccinated increasing day by day.
And those are on quite lively wickets at Hove.
Daft idea.
Just as in the GFA a border poll can be held multiple times, but not at intervals more frequent than seven years.
That might be something to think of with a new Sec30 order, of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
The question is how you prevent tis sort of exploitation.
Two people deciding who they choose to take to bed does not impact which toilets you can use, which prisons you get sent to, who you compete against at sport. Trans does however involve these interactions - interactions that cause issues. Trans does seem to be an issue that attracts people who are not prepared to offer compromise on these issues; just demands that they be accepted wherever, however - and on their terms. It is not a way to win these complex arguments.
What is significant though is that the number of re-infections is still at miniscule level.
Given that its now eleven months since mass infections of last March it suggests covid is at most an annual event.
(Now I’ve said that Bess will be caught behind off a top edge.)
You've all done very Welles.
Joseph Cotten
Alida Valli
Bernard Lee
Orson Welles
Wilfred Hyde White
Anton Karas
It’s somewhat niche. In fact you may take it as Reed they will get crassker.
Sport, loos, prisons etc have nothing to do with gender. They are to do with sex.
Vienna.
Funny to see leach taking the bowlers on, it won’t last but it’s still funny.
This sounds like a world of weird fetish that I’ve not been introduced to.
I hope you're not losing your touch, sir. Check whether the feeling is gone.
But.
This does not mean that they can or should claim that the mere utterance of words changes biological reality. Saying "I am a woman" does not make it so. Alchemy is no more real now than it was in the Middle Ages. It is women who have ovaries, who menstruate, who become pregnant, give birth, breastfeed, endure the menopause, have cervixes etc. Their experience of sex is very different. And much of their experience of life is affected by this - from the moment a girl first realises that boys and men look at her differently the moment she develops breasts or the moment she wanders into a newsagent and wonders why there are so many magazines of half-naked women on the shelves but none of men (I may be showing my age here but the same point can be made about the digital world). No amount of words or feelings change this.
A man who feels that he has been born into the wrong body can transition and is then a woman and in the period when he is transitioning is living as if he were a woman. I would be happy to consider them women. But a man who does neither of those things remains a man whatever his feelings about his true "gender".
And there is another important But.
Stonewall which has been pushing the trans right arguments is now arguing that "sex" should no longer be a "protected characteristic" under the law. So it will no longer be illegal to discriminate against a woman or take other action prejudicial to a woman because she is a woman. 50 or more years of campaigning and legislation for women's rights thrown away just like that just so that some men want to be able to claim that women have penises and testicles.
To be continued ....
32 out of 33 infantry battalions are under-strength and HMG's solution appears to be yet more cuts while blaming Capita (army recruitment having been privatised because, well, why not?).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229483/Leaked-Ministry-Defence-report-reveals-32-infantry-battalions-dangerously-short-soldiers.html
Being a woman has real meaning.
Sex is a biological reality.
Discrimination against women is a reality.
There has been much progress on this. To throw this away, to redefine "womanhood" as merely a feeling ungrounded in any reality, is to set the cause of women's rights back very significantly. There is a reason why women are concerned. Rape is a reality. The fear of it is real. That is the difference from the old arguments that gay men would attack children. Men do rape women and to dismiss the concern of women on this, especially abused women is insulting and disgraceful. I have been raped. Virtually all the women I know have suffered sexual assaults of one kind or another. No man has the right to tell us that our fears are mere groundless prejudice.
It is possible to find a way to preserve women's rights while being fair to those with gender dysphoria. But it is not going to be achieved by dismissing the concerns of women, accusations of phobias, silly comparisons with past campaigns and listening to the extremists. There are plenty of transwomen (Debbie Hayton is one, for instance) who have expressed dismay at what some in the trans lobby are doing and saying.
Incidentally Liz Truss's response to the consultation paper on the GRA was pretty impressive, another reason why she is a politician to watch.
On topic, try as I might I find it very hard to get interested in SNP politics or, dare I say it, the question of Scottish independence. Naughty of me, I know, but there it is.
Have a good day all.
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1357695682619015169
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1357697015573078019
I think the government has done well to sidestep the whole argument and just ignore the screeching. One of the major reasons I'd feel worried about Labour getting into power is the reversal of the government's position on this and it's something that would absolutely swing my vote in 2024 into reluctantly voting Tory again despite the last year of completey dog shit governance.
Trans prisoners are (and were at the time I believe) routinely placed in the prison estate according to their chosen gender, unless they are regarded as a risk to others in that estate: The relevant current policy document is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf
On the whole this seems like a sensible, risk led approach to me.
That the anti-trans crowd can point to so few failures of this system (and the Karen White case was a terrible, terrible failure) suggests that it’s generally working about as well as anything to do with the UK prison system can be expected to.
I think the next Labour government will actively dilute women's sex based rights and shout down women all over the country as bigots just as we've seen the left do to JK Rowling for opposing them on their drive to make definition of woman to include men who say they are women.