I have to say the government does seem to be doing something right on industrial strategy lately. Hopefully this gets waved through and we get more of them.
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.
As I pointed out, that happened already, about April last year. I think after the present emergency has passed, that it won't be very popular though.
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,
They are using Oct so undoubtedly are detecting cases in their random study that are quite old, and would not considered to have active disease. No harm in that but the difference in the ons stats and the Zoe and actual cases reported has been stark for a few week, and of course the idiot media have latched on. I think the national testing cannot be missing that many cases now, as indicated by the convergence of the Zoe data and the reported cases.
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.
As I pointed out, that happened already, about April last year. I think after the present emergency has passed, that it won't be very popular though.
It is further evidence however that on economic matters and state spending and involvement of the private sector in public services, the Boris government is not only left of the Cameron government, the Thatcher government and the Major government but also arguably left of the Blair government too.
Only in terms of Brexit and not being woke is the current government rightwing
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
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.
This is why I made the comment about single cases being bad to use as a generalisation. I think it is necessary to have something sensible in place to protect against this but surely that must be possible without a wholescale condemnation and suppression of the Trans Movement.
One issue that does have to be faced is that there is a small and vocal Trans group that thinks there should be absolutely no limits on the ability of people to choose their own gender with absolute equality and that cases such as this should simply be ignored.
There are issues around the Trans debate which need to be properly resolved as the current situation is unsatisfactory. These include participation in women's sport. To try and claim these are not issues (I am not saying to are claiming that) will not make these things go away and will only make the division worse.
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
We are a parliamentary and representative democracy not a direct democracy.
You make your choice of government every 5 years and should leave them to it, we have had far too many referendums recently
Ok, but what if the party that wins a parliamentary majority has a "one referendum on brexit per week" policy in its manifesto? The people will have, stupidly, voted for one brexit referendum per week.
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.
On those criteria any legislation is meaningless because it can be overturned
What this does is make clear that Westminster can call a referendum on Sindy not the SNP. That is the current situation but mischevioua people are seeing doubt and threatening more legal intervention in political decisions which is unhelpful
Dressing it up as being more general blunts the “grievance” attack
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
And the safety valve is that, if the SNP annoys the people of Scotland by calling a premature indyref, the people of Scotland can vote the indyref down and the SNP out.
I can't think of a move more likely to wind up Scottish people enough to guarantee Sindy than telling them they can't vote on it until 2039. (Not strictly true, but it's a damn good slogan.)
How big would a vote in an unofficial referendum have to be to be to be impossible to ignore in practice? The Catalan result was 2.04 million yes votes, out of a total electorate of 5.31 million. That's 38%, with most of the others staying at home. Had it been over 50%, Madrid's case would have been a lot weaker.
We are a parliamentary and representative democracy not a direct democracy.
You make your choice of government every 5 years and should leave them to it, we have had far too many referendums recently
Do you seriously mean that one should not campaign between elections on such things as human rights, but should leave everything to the elected representatives? Because that's what you appear to the saying.
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
It seems psychologically interesting that the SNP are locked in mortal combat over these particular issues above all others. It's almost as if they're experiencing a constant existential crisis over the conviction that they were born in the wrong place, whether that be a state or a body or anything else, hence their lives are consumed by debates over liminality in an effort to achieve the assumed bliss of equilibrium. But however many boundaries you cross, can you ever escape your self? We could observe, with Horace, that caelum, non animum, mutant qui trans mare currunt: 'those who speed across the deep change their sky, not their soul'.
We are a parliamentary and representative democracy not a direct democracy.
You make your choice of government every 5 years and should leave them to it, we have had far too many referendums recently
Ok, but what if the party that wins a parliamentary majority has a "one referendum on brexit per week" policy in its manifesto? The people will have, stupidly, voted for one brexit referendum per week.
That would be an exception if a manifesto commitment which leads to a majority at Westminster but no party is going to derail its entire legislative programme by having referendums on the same topic every week, potentially reversing the result of the previous one each time
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I lived for many years in Switzerland, which does largely facilitate putting any controversial question to the public. There are exceptions, the main one being financial (you can't have a referendum to halve or double income tax, for example, to avoid the mess that California got into), but it's surprising how far it does go - for instance, over 40% voted to abolish the Armed Forces, on the grounds that it was hard to think of a scenario where they would be useful.
There are two important elements to the system which in my view make it work quite well. First, it is broadly accepted that the empowerment of voters comes with a responsibility to take the issue seriously. Every voter is sent a booklet for the referendums (held every 3 months), setting out the arguments for and against each proposal, plus the adfvice of the Government. It's commonplace for couples intending to vote (only around half generally bother) to set aside an evening to work through the booklet and weigh up the arguments. That cultural change seems very healthy, but probably only develops over time - it wasn't obvious in the Brexit referendum that many people spent a long time studying the detailed cases.
Secondly, the tradition is that "near misses" are respected by Government and some accommodation is sought. In the Armed Forces example, the Government cut the budget on military spendfing, acknowledging that while abolishing the army went too far, a lot of voters wanted it curbed.
A huge advantage of the system is that it gives even small groups a chance to influence developments with a popular idea (it's very un-Swiss to reject an idea because you don't support its proponents). For example, Basel Communist Party, which had 0.5% of the vote, successfully got a 51% vote to stop building inner-city multi-storey car parks, since they added to pollution.
Obvfiously nobody always likes the outcomes. But as a way of making democracy more real it really does work, and people talk about "our bridge that we voted for" etc. in a way that just doesn't happen in Britain.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
The SNP hardliners never accepted the 2014 result, they would demand indyref3 soon enough if the UK government allowed indyref2 before a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No narrowly won again
One of the things that most concerns me about this situation is that it's just possible that the nationalist movement in Scotland will continue to be, at once, both too strong to lose a parliamentary election and not quite strong enough to get what it wants. So we therefore end up in an endless cycle of referendums.
That's not only bad for Scotland, it's bad for the rest of us, because we can have no stability.
The Union doesn't exist solely to keep Scotland happy, and nor is it the fault of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that the Scots voted to stay put last time, but that a critical fraction of them want to keep replaying the same game over and over until they get the result that they want. The rest of us deserve some consideration in all of this too.
And the safety valve is that, if the SNP annoys the people of Scotland by calling a premature indyref, the people of Scotland can vote the indyref down and the SNP out.
I can't think of a move more likely to wind up Scottish people enough to guarantee Sindy than telling them they can't vote on it until 2039. (Not strictly true, but it's a damn good slogan.)
How big would a vote in an unofficial referendum have to be to be to be impossible to ignore in practice? The Catalan result was 2.04 million yes votes, out of a total electorate of 5.31 million. That's 38%, with most of the others staying at home. Had it been over 50%, Madrid's case would have been a lot weaker.
Yet 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain having not even had one legal independence referendum unlike Scotland
We are a parliamentary and representative democracy not a direct democracy.
You make your choice of government every 5 years and should leave them to it, we have had far too many referendums recently
Do you seriously mean that one should not campaign between elections on such things as human rights, but should leave everything to the elected representatives? Because that's what you appear to the saying.
You can campaign but the elected representatives have no reason to listen beyond implementing the proposals they were elected on under the manifesto they stood on until the next general election
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?).
This is the policy working as designed. Deliberately running just about every unit under strength has been a stealth tory defence cut since the 2010 SDSR.
My favourite example of direct democracy was one I've told here before. An elderly colleague at work would struggle up the stairs to his office every day. I asked him why he didn't take the lift. He said, "I voted against nuclear energy, which only makes sense if one tries to cut energy consumption, and one has to try to be consistent". I thought that degree of identity between voting and personal responsibility was rather awesome.
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
Let’s say you have a 52/48 vote on a topic. Why should the 52 be ignored so the 48 can have a record the next week
The scenario was if they wanted another vote, eg if 50+ voters or reps still wanted another one even if the outcome had been no. Realistically its be very unlikely that would happen, which is why its taken years this time already.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
My favourite example of direct democracy was one I've told here before. An elderly colleague at work would struggle up the stairs to his office every day. I asked him why he didn't take the lift. He said, "I voted against nuclear energy, which only makes sense if one tries to cut energy consumption, and one has to try to be consistent". I thought that degree of identity between voting and personal responsibility was rather awesome.
Whenever I argue that with what people should do with their own money on here, no one likes it .
One of the things that most concerns me about this situation is that it's just possible that the nationalist movement in Scotland will continue to be, at once, both too strong to lose a parliamentary election and not quite strong enough to get what it wants. So we therefore end up in an endless cycle of referendums.
That's not only bad for Scotland, it's bad for the rest of us, because we can have no stability.
The Union doesn't exist solely to keep Scotland happy, and nor is it the fault of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that the Scots voted to stay put last time, but that a critical fraction of them want to keep replaying the same game over and over until they get the result that they want. The rest of us deserve some consideration in all of this too.
Quite. The idea that literally a million or two SNP/Indy voters can force the remaining 64+ million into constant uncertainty about the continued existence of their state seems unjust, especially when they were given the democratic opportunity to leave said state so recently and declined to do so. This seems less the tyranny of the majority than the tyranny of the minority.
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
One of the things that most concerns me about this situation is that it's just possible that the nationalist movement in Scotland will continue to be, at once, both too strong to lose a parliamentary election and not quite strong enough to get what it wants. So we therefore end up in an endless cycle of referendums.
That's not only bad for Scotland, it's bad for the rest of us, because we can have no stability.
The Union doesn't exist solely to keep Scotland happy, and nor is it the fault of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that the Scots voted to stay put last time, but that a critical fraction of them want to keep replaying the same game over and over until they get the result that they want. The rest of us deserve some consideration in all of this too.
Nah, sod ‘em. If they keep voting SNP that’s their business. It’s a massive problem for Labour, but it’s hard to feel too much sympathy for them as they gave us this stupid set-up.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
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.
As I pointed out, that happened already, about April last year. I think after the present emergency has passed, that it won't be very popular though.
It is further evidence however that on economic matters and state spending and involvement of the private sector in public services, the Boris government is not only left of the Cameron government, the Thatcher government and the Major government but also arguably left of the Blair government too.
Only in terms of Brexit and not being woke is the current government rightwing
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
I don't believe there is a good analogy between the struggle for acceptance of homosexuality and the struggle for trans rights in that it was illegal to be gay - in Scotland up until the 1980's - and people went to jail for it. Whereas, as soon as some form of gender reassignment surgery was available, people could get it.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
It is reasonable to write such terms into a referendum bill, but it needs to be prospective, not retrospective.
Not that I think referendums should be part of our political system. Too often they are used to kick the government rather than consider the breadth of an issue. Indeed that is a large part of why an Indyref is likely to give Johnson a kicking.
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
No, I believe the Union is bigger than Scotland. In your scenario they would have 5m (?) votes out of a population of 60m
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
It is reasonable to write such terms into a referendum bill, but it needs to be prospective, not retrospective.
Not that I think referendums should be part of our political system. Too often they are used to kick the government rather than consider the breadth of an issue. Indeed that is a large part of why an Indyref is likely to give Johnson a kicking.
It would be better, yes, but they still work as arguments against having another Sindy vote
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
I am upgrading most of my cars to 26 counties (RHD) and Luxembourgois (LHD) plates. Track days in Europe are going to be too much of arse on otherwise once the pandemic is over.
Maybe the SNP are such fans of the trans rights debate, because (for them, anyway) Scottish independence just isn’t quite divisive or polarising enough?
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
No, I believe the Union is bigger than Scotland. In your scenario they would have 5m (?) votes out of a population of 60m
Sorry Charles, not with you on this one. Is a marriage bigger than the wishes of either spouse? Yes, people may choose to stay together for the sake of the children, the standard of living or whatever but it is their choice. If a spouse wants to leave they can leave. Of course, stretching the analogy a bit further, they have obligations as well as rights, the property needs to be divided up, the welfare of the kids needs to be addressed and there may be maintenance to pay but no one would dispute the right to leave.
So it is with countries. If Scotland persisted in being a nuisance by having repeated referendums causing uncertainty and diverting attention then there may come a point when rUK might say, sod it, its our turn to choose. But each country has the right to choose.
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
People don’t hang around if they have a hot meal in their bag
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
Correlation is of course not causation, but there’s definitely a link between alcohol consumption outside the home and a lack of social distancing between groups of people from different households.
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.
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
No, I believe the Union is bigger than Scotland. In your scenario they would have 5m (?) votes out of a population of 60m
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
Correlation is of course not causation, but there’s definitely a link between alcohol consumption outside the home and a lack of social distancing between groups of people from different households.
I can't imagine that's an issue with takeaways. And, if pubs are allowed to reopen, then just insist that people who drink must sit at tables.
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
No, I believe the Union is bigger than Scotland. In your scenario they would have 5m (?) votes out of a population of 60m
At the next holyrood election
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
Maybe the SNP are such fans of the trans rights debate, because (for them, anyway) Scottish independence just isn’t quite divisive or polarising enough?
I do feel a bit sorry for independence fans like malcolmg, who is quite resoundingly right-wing on a number of issues (sometimes more so than I am!). The way the SNP are going right now, an independent Scotland is going to be little more than a woke North Korea.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
I'd have both F -> M and M -> F trans in the male cat in sports. Changing rooms and toilets, penises go to the gents, no nob to the ladies maybe
These days individuals are allowed to mutilate healthy tissue. So knob or no knob is irrelevant.
I`d go:
M -> F + knob = M sport loos etc M -> F - knob = M sport loos etc F -> M + knob = F sport loos etc F -> M - knob = F sport loos etc
Folks, this really isn`t difficult.
You need to classify differently for sport - testosterone is a massive advantage. Some women have a naturally higher level, like Kipchoge's lactate threshold, Bjarn Dahlie's 94 VO2 max or Ian Thorpe's size 17 flippers it's just a natural advantage - but F -> M athletes were they to compete in female sport have had a de facto artificially enhanced level of testosterone - to allow them to still compete in female sports is akin to allowing doping. The female sports category needs protection. Note I don't think Semenya should have had to take T blockers, either categorise Semenya as male or female and allow to compete in the appropriate category. If it's decided Semenya can compete in the female category, elevated testosterone is simply a natural advantage like the above mentioned examples.
Maybe the SNP are such fans of the trans rights debate, because (for them, anyway) Scottish independence just isn’t quite divisive or polarising enough?
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
No, I believe the Union is bigger than Scotland. In your scenario they would have 5m (?) votes out of a population of 60m
At the next holyrood election
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
Maybe the SNP are such fans of the trans rights debate, because (for them, anyway) Scottish independence just isn’t quite divisive or polarising enough?
I do feel a bit sorry for independence fans like malcolmg, who is quite resoundingly right-wing on a number of issues (sometimes more so than I am!). The way the SNP are going right now, an independent Scotland is going to be little more than a woke North Korea.
Rather below your usual standard of analogy I have to say.
‘We’re going to execute you with an anti aircraft gun because you refused to use gender neutral pronouns.’
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No, the British electorate. Although in GE2017, Scottish voters famously returned 13 Conservative MPs, without whom May's Conservative government could never have survived, Boris could never have come to power, and Brexit could never have been enacted.
And you say you don't have a major influence on the course of UK politics!
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
No, I believe the Union is bigger than Scotland. In your scenario they would have 5m (?) votes out of a population of 60m
At the next holyrood election
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
Quite astonishing.
Chuck has a Scotch ancestor you know, supremely qualified to pronounce on this matter.
On @Charles logic the entire EU should have partaken in the Brexit referendum. It's one of those accepted natural principles that the smaller entity in any sort of union (Gibraltar, Falkland islands, Scotland, the UK in the EU) gets to decide whether it remains part of said union - not the entire larger entity.
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
Maybe the SNP are such fans of the trans rights debate, because (for them, anyway) Scottish independence just isn’t quite divisive or polarising enough?
I do feel a bit sorry for independence fans like malcolmg, who is quite resoundingly right-wing on a number of issues (sometimes more so than I am!). The way the SNP are going right now, an independent Scotland is going to be little more than a woke North Korea.
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
It's an utterly cretinous idea. The ban on takeaway alcohol (which was allowed during the first lockdown) is costing my Daughter £400 per week - the difference between losing money and - just about - break even. If she is allowed to reopen, support is withdrawn but a pub is not allowed to sell alcohol, there is no point reopening at all. If the government - whether deliberately or through ignorance - wants to close down the entire hospitality sector, why not tell us now so that she and many others like her can hand the keys back and try to get on with the rest of their shattered lives.
What next: cinemas to reopen without films? Theatres without actors? Restaurants with no meals? Hairdressers mustn't cut hair?
This may be stupid kite-flying but try and imagine the distress and worry this is causing my Daughter and her employees and many many people like her. It is quite wicked to behave like this.
Provide proper support while venues are closed (something that is not being done now) so that Covid can be beaten and then when pubs reopen let them do so fully. This is not hard to understand, though it appears to be so for the bunch of numpties in government.
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
No, I believe the Union is bigger than Scotland. In your scenario they would have 5m (?) votes out of a population of 60m
At the next holyrood election
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
Quite astonishing.
Chuck has a Scotch ancestor you know, supremely qualified to pronounce on this matter.
Don't worry. Downing St has a foolproof plan to have the Scots tugging their forelocks again:
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
Only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 too
This is a ludicrous argument considering only 43.6% of the UK population voted Conservative and yet you're happy to consider that a wholesale endorsement of their entire manifesto.
Looks like they're doing the 70 year olds not far from me as my dad and wife no. 4 got the jab today.
Only a few decades to get to the truly vital - bored people in their 30s.
Drove past a vaccination centre in Newcastle earlier, the brand new Newcastle Eagles basketball arena in fact, and it was absolutely heaving. Was great to see.
Looks like they're doing the 70 year olds not far from me as my dad and wife no. 4 got the jab today.
Only a few decades to get to the truly vital - bored people in their 30s.
Drove past a vaccination centre in Newcastle earlier, the brand new Newcastle Eagles basketball arena in fact, and it was absolutely heaving. Was great to see.
Hopefully a socially-distanced version of absolutely heaving?
Looks like they're doing the 70 year olds not far from me as my dad and wife no. 4 got the jab today.
Only a few decades to get to the truly vital - bored people in their 30s.
Drove past a vaccination centre in Newcastle earlier, the brand new Newcastle Eagles basketball arena in fact, and it was absolutely heaving. Was great to see.
Hopefully a socially-distanced version of absolutely heaving?
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
Only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 too
This is a ludicrous argument considering only 43.6% of the UK population voted Conservative and yet you're happy to consider that a wholesale endorsement of their entire manifesto.
The hypocrisy is off the scale.
(On a point of pedantry, can I point out that both figures are the % of those who voted, not a % of the population (or the eligible voters).)
Looks like they're doing the 70 year olds not far from me as my dad and wife no. 4 got the jab today.
Only a few decades to get to the truly vital - bored people in their 30s.
It's not going to be decades, of course, but for all of us marooned at the back of the queue it's going to bloody well feel like it.
As for the first point, an active effort appears to be underway to mop up as many of the unaccounted for people in the top 4 priority groups as possible. Husband (a shielder,) who had first jab this Wednesday, nonetheless received a generic letter in the post this morning dated 29 January, inviting him to book an appointment at a mass vaccination centre - if he'd not had one already, and didn't want to have to wait for the local GP to get to him.
That, plus various anecdata posted here recently, suggests that the most vulnerable are no longer required to wait for appointments and are now being invited to demand them if they want.
Looks like they're doing the 70 year olds not far from me as my dad and wife no. 4 got the jab today.
Only a few decades to get to the truly vital - bored people in their 30s.
It's not going to be decades, of course, but for all of us marooned at the back of the queue it's going to bloody well feel like it.
As for the first point, an active effort appears to be underway to mop up as many of the unaccounted for people in the top 4 priority groups as possible. Husband (a shielder,) who had first jab this Wednesday, nonetheless received a generic letter in the post this morning dated 29 January, inviting him to book an appointment at a mass vaccination centre - if he'd not had one already, and didn't want to have to wait for the local GP to get to him.
That, plus various anecdata posted here recently, suggests that the most vulnerable are no longer required to wait for appointments and are now being invited to demand them if they want.
I actually just meant the important groups, ie me, are a few decades younger, not that it would take a long time. Given early predictions were I'd be jabbed in September, they have actually under promised and over delivered for once.
Good that there is an effort to mop up those missed.
Comments
Only in terms of Brexit and not being woke is the current government rightwing
One issue that does have to be faced is that there is a small and vocal Trans group that thinks there should be absolutely no limits on the ability of people to choose their own gender with absolute equality and that cases such as this should simply be ignored.
There are issues around the Trans debate which need to be properly resolved as the current situation is unsatisfactory. These include participation in women's sport. To try and claim these are not issues (I am not saying to are claiming that) will not make these things go away and will only make the division worse.
You make your choice of government every 5 years and should leave them to it, we have had far too many referendums recently
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
I`d go:
M -> F + knob = M sport loos etc
M -> F - knob = M sport loos etc
F -> M + knob = F sport loos etc
F -> M - knob = F sport loos etc
Folks, this really isn`t difficult.
What this does is make clear that Westminster can call a referendum on Sindy not the SNP. That is the current situation but mischevioua people are seeing doubt and threatening more legal intervention in political decisions which is unhelpful
Dressing it up as being more general blunts the “grievance” attack
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
I can't think of a move more likely to wind up Scottish people enough to guarantee Sindy than telling them they can't vote on it until 2039. (Not strictly true, but it's a damn good slogan.)
How big would a vote in an unofficial referendum have to be to be to be impossible to ignore in practice?
The Catalan result was 2.04 million yes votes, out of a total electorate of 5.31 million. That's 38%, with most of the others staying at home. Had it been over 50%, Madrid's case would have been a lot weaker.
There are two important elements to the system which in my view make it work quite well. First, it is broadly accepted that the empowerment of voters comes with a responsibility to take the issue seriously. Every voter is sent a booklet for the referendums (held every 3 months), setting out the arguments for and against each proposal, plus the adfvice of the Government. It's commonplace for couples intending to vote (only around half generally bother) to set aside an evening to work through the booklet and weigh up the arguments. That cultural change seems very healthy, but probably only develops over time - it wasn't obvious in the Brexit referendum that many people spent a long time studying the detailed cases.
Secondly, the tradition is that "near misses" are respected by Government and some accommodation is sought. In the Armed Forces example, the Government cut the budget on military spendfing, acknowledging that while abolishing the army went too far, a lot of voters wanted it curbed.
A huge advantage of the system is that it gives even small groups a chance to influence developments with a popular idea (it's very un-Swiss to reject an idea because you don't support its proponents). For example, Basel Communist Party, which had 0.5% of the vote, successfully got a 51% vote to stop building inner-city multi-storey car parks, since they added to pollution.
Obvfiously nobody always likes the outcomes. But as a way of making democracy more real it really does work, and people talk about "our bridge that we voted for" etc. in a way that just doesn't happen in Britain.
One of the things that most concerns me about this situation is that it's just possible that the nationalist movement in Scotland will continue to be, at once, both too strong to lose a parliamentary election and not quite strong enough to get what it wants. So we therefore end up in an endless cycle of referendums.
That's not only bad for Scotland, it's bad for the rest of us, because we can have no stability.
The Union doesn't exist solely to keep Scotland happy, and nor is it the fault of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that the Scots voted to stay put last time, but that a critical fraction of them want to keep replaying the same game over and over until they get the result that they want. The rest of us deserve some consideration in all of this too.
Let’s say you have a 52/48 vote on a topic. Why should the 52 be ignored so the 48 can have a record the next week
After a period of time there can be another vote
https://twitter.com/timothycrisps/status/1357754260415541248?s=21
https://twitter.com/johnstillremain/status/1357860296359043074?s=21
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Not that I think referendums should be part of our political system. Too often they are used to kick the government rather than consider the breadth of an issue. Indeed that is a large part of why an Indyref is likely to give Johnson a kicking.
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1355823094657675265?s=21
So it is with countries. If Scotland persisted in being a nuisance by having repeated referendums causing uncertainty and diverting attention then there may come a point when rUK might say, sod it, its our turn to choose. But each country has the right to choose.
https://twitter.com/demarionunn/status/1357827551096414209?s=21
The female sports category needs protection. Note I don't think Semenya should have had to take T blockers, either categorise Semenya as male or female and allow to compete in the appropriate category. If it's decided Semenya can compete in the female category, elevated testosterone is simply a natural advantage like the above mentioned examples.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
https://twitter.com/agcolehamilton/status/1357647747629928449?s=20
https://twitter.com/agcolehamilton/status/1357647751710986240?s=20
‘We’re going to execute you with an anti aircraft gun because you refused to use gender neutral pronouns.’
And you say you don't have a major influence on the course of UK politics!
Goes to the opera?
It's one of those accepted natural principles that the smaller entity in any sort of union (Gibraltar, Falkland islands, Scotland, the UK in the EU) gets to decide whether it remains part of said union - not the entire larger entity.
What next: cinemas to reopen without films? Theatres without actors? Restaurants with no meals? Hairdressers mustn't cut hair?
This may be stupid kite-flying but try and imagine the distress and worry this is causing my Daughter and her employees and many many people like her. It is quite wicked to behave like this.
Provide proper support while venues are closed (something that is not being done now) so that Covid can be beaten and then when pubs reopen let them do so fully. This is not hard to understand, though it appears to be so for the bunch of numpties in government.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229625/Secret-No-10-plan-send-Prince-Edward-live-Edinburgh-save-Union.html
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
Only a few decades to get to the truly vital - bored people in their 30s.
The hypocrisy is off the scale.
There’s a concealed machine gun nest in that hedge.
https://twitter.com/acolinmackenzie/status/1358032604809867267?s=21
As for the first point, an active effort appears to be underway to mop up as many of the unaccounted for people in the top 4 priority groups as possible. Husband (a shielder,) who had first jab this Wednesday, nonetheless received a generic letter in the post this morning dated 29 January, inviting him to book an appointment at a mass vaccination centre - if he'd not had one already, and didn't want to have to wait for the local GP to get to him.
That, plus various anecdata posted here recently, suggests that the most vulnerable are no longer required to wait for appointments and are now being invited to demand them if they want.
Good that there is an effort to mop up those missed.