This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
I am not a Labour fan, but don't think that is true. Not everything is opposites.
No political party has ever proposed a change - or defended a status quo - to the voting system which was not in their interests electorally.
Er, only up to a point. The SNP have urged it for Westminster.
Interesting point. That would clearly rest in fewer SNP MPs. But it would make majority government pretty unlikely, therefore significantly increasing the influence of that reduced number of SNP MPs.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I'm more and more convinced that the Unionists on PB and more generally are like whiny toddlers trying to think up successive excuses why they should not Go To Bed.
How do you get more and more convinced than the 100% convinced you already were?
When I think of Sir Keir, almost instantly the words to Beat Surrender by The Jam come to mind
"All the things that I shout about (but never act upon) All the courage and the dreams that I have (but seem to wait so long) My doubt is cast aside, watch phonies run to hide The dignified don't even enter in the game And if you feel there's no passion No quality sensation Seize the young determination Show the fakers you ain't foolin You'll see me come runnin To the sound of your strummin Fill my heart with joy and gladness I've lived too long in shadows of sadness"
All the things he is not.
Labour should be a revolutionary party campaigning for the rights of the workers and those left behind by capitalism. Corbyn may have been a nutter, but he had passion, and conviction. Labour voters should be young, enthusiastic and full of passion, not middle of the road and middle aged. I actually think Labour can be successful without being in government as relentless insurgents keeping the Tories on their toes. Sir Keir's corporate middle management style is the worst of all worlds - he isn't going to win, and he doesn't have any gusto. Labour should get rid and go left field
At least one of
Female Not white Not straight
Should be essentials for their next leader. Walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk
More identity politics in selecting the leader to match the identity politics they can't stop talking about?
I presume you're trying to throw them off the scent here.
I wasn't but it does look like that I guess... "non graduate" could be added to that list to make it less "woke".
But they should be left field. Maybe my examples were lazy stereotypes of left field thinking, seems so old fashioned now, but there still hasnt been any of those boxes ticked as Lab leader.
Labour should be a revolutionary movement for change, not a corporate party concerned about power.. I think I am becoming a Corbynite! Always late to the party
In a new gritty crime drama, a grizzled detective and his erstwhile side-kick hunt out who killed the Labour Party
Spoiler. In episode eight it transpires it was an inside job all along.
But who on the inside ?
The deranged bloke from Sedgefield ?
The gruff fellow from Kirkcaldy ?
The nerdy chap from Doncaster ?
Sedgefield Man is charged at the end of episode eight, but by episode ten it becomes apparent that he was a fool whose strings were being pulled by a shadowy Glaswegian syndicate (which was subsequently mown down in a hail of bullets by a more ruthless rival family.)
A beautiful, soft, elegantly warm evening, the first of the year. Camden is alive with happy drinkers, mellow and giggly. My daughters are growing and healthy and in their eager early teens. They laugh at me, as is only right
Life is OK. We have survived
Praise be
Eager you say? Don't let a certain member of the royal family know.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
In that case, why did we have a Brexit?
That was 30+ years since the first one.
That wasn't the reason, the reason was that the electorate elected a government who wanted a referendum. Just like they have in Scotland...
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
I mean objectively the Scots don't have the power to change that law through democracy. The SNP already hold pretty much every Scottish Westminster seat.
I'm afraid you're being very hypocritical here Charles.
No. The Union doesn’t just involve Scotland. Other parts of the Uk have a say as well.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I'm more and more convinced that the Unionists on PB and more generally are like whiny toddlers trying to think up successive excuses why they should not Go To Bed. Mrs Thatcher after all accepted up fromt that a simple majority of SNP MPs was sufficient to trigger independence (implicitly, but there being no other criterion of political success that she would accept). Bot today has been an absolute masterclass in toddlerism.
In fairness, (and though I am most definitely a unionist) many have been pretty open that under no circumstances was there going to be a referendum (permitted anyway) as far as they were concerned - so it's not actually hidden that its about whether there are defendable reasons that can be found from what occurred.
A beautiful, soft, elegantly warm evening, the first of the year. Camden is alive with happy drinkers, mellow and giggly. My daughters are growing and healthy and in their eager early teens. They laugh at me, as is only right
Life is OK. We have survived
Praise be
Look out! Here comes the killer asteroid!! (Just kidding!!!)
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
I mean objectively the Scots don't have the power to change that law through democracy. The SNP already hold pretty much every Scottish Westminster seat.
I'm afraid you're being very hypocritical here Charles.
No. The Union doesn’t just involve Scotland. Other parts of the Uk have a say as well.
Yes, but they shouldn't. That's the entire point of self-determination.
A beautiful, soft, elegantly warm evening, the first of the year. Camden is alive with happy drinkers, mellow and giggly. My daughters are growing and healthy and in their eager early teens. They laugh at me, as is only right
Life is OK. We have survived
Praise be
Look out! Here comes the killer asteroid!! (Just kidding!!!)
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I'm more and more convinced that the Unionists on PB and more generally are like whiny toddlers trying to think up successive excuses why they should not Go To Bed.
How do you get more and more convinced than the 100% convinced you already were?
I think ID cards, of some description, to vote while ok in theory seems disproportionate to the problems they are trying to address, but it's just lazy to label it as Republican tactics by Boris when some have been pushing this idea for bloody ages. I'd expect better from Iannuci than 'The bad man does something like the other people you don't like, so they are exactly the same' stuff.
If you believe they want ID cards to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are slipping. Their rationale is the same as the Republicans on this issue, bend democracy to the Tories/Republicans at the cost of fairness.
But that works both ways. If you believe Labour oppose ID cards for voting in order to make elections fairer rather than more favourable to them you are also slipping. I don't see why a modicum of curiosity that voters are indeed who they say they are is treated with such horror. Don't they do it that way in NI?
I am not a Labour fan, but don't think that is true. Not everything is opposites.
No political party has ever proposed a change - or defended a status quo - to the voting system which was not in their interests electorally.
Er, only up to a point. The SNP have urged it for Westminster.
Interesting point. That would clearly rest in fewer SNP MPs. But it would make majority government pretty unlikely, therefore significantly increasing the influence of that reduced number of SNP MPs.
Don't know about that. The same could be said of everyone else, right down to UKIP, Count Binface, and the LDs. Oh, and the assorted Greens.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
In that case, why did we have a Brexit?
That was 30+ years since the first one.
That wasn't the reason, the reason was that the electorate elected a government who wanted a referendum. Just like they have in Scotland...
The main difference being they elected one that could actually implement it.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
In that case, why did we have a Brexit?
Because Westminster sought instruction from the voters and, correctly, implemented the results of that referendum
When I think of Sir Keir, almost instantly the words to Beat Surrender by The Jam come to mind
"All the things that I shout about (but never act upon) All the courage and the dreams that I have (but seem to wait so long) My doubt is cast aside, watch phonies run to hide The dignified don't even enter in the game And if you feel there's no passion No quality sensation Seize the young determination Show the fakers you ain't foolin You'll see me come runnin To the sound of your strummin Fill my heart with joy and gladness I've lived too long in shadows of sadness"
All the things he is not.
Labour should be a revolutionary party campaigning for the rights of the workers and those left behind by capitalism. Corbyn may have been a nutter, but he had passion, and conviction. Labour voters should be young, enthusiastic and full of passion, not middle of the road and middle aged. I actually think Labour can be successful without being in government as relentless insurgents keeping the Tories on their toes. Sir Keir's corporate middle management style is the worst of all worlds - he isn't going to win, and he doesn't have any gusto. Labour should get rid and go left field
At least one of
Female Not white Not straight
Should be essentials for their next leader. Walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk
If I passionately didn't want Labour to be in power over the next 20 years I would certainly run with this agenda. A dose of this (grand daughter of Corbyn + yoof+ idealism+ gender and race politics) actually might see them off altogether.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
I think it is much more important for SKS to retain it than the Tories to take it. The pressure is all on Labour.
It is like a relegation battle on the last day for SKS, any mistake can't be recovered from. And ... err ... won't there be some in his party who want him to fail ?
The constituency seems to be 60 per cent leave. It is certainly more ethnically mixed than Hartlepool, but that also has potential pitfalls for Labour as well.
I'd probably make Labour very slight favourites -- but then I made Labour favourites to hold Hartlepool.
Overall, a knife-edge by-election in the midst of party disarray is not really what SKS needs right now.
Kirklees local authority though, which contains Batley and Spen, was only 54.7% Leave which is significantly less than Hartlepool which was 69.6% Leave and there will be less BXP vote for the Tories to squeeze, though the blue vote should still be up and the Batley and Spen council results on Thursday saw the Tories and Labour tied.
The LDs will also fancy their chances of making inroads into the Tory majority in Chesham and Amersham as the seat was in Chiltern local authority area (now in Bucks) which was 55% Remain.
The top Tory only beat the top LD by 2% in Amersham and Chesham Bois on Thursday with the top Green on 6%.
In Chesham the top Tory got 15% with the top LD on 9% and the top Labour candidate on 10% and the top Green on 6%
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
In that case, why did we have a Brexit?
Because Westminster sought instruction from the voters and, correctly, implemented the results of that referendum
But Westminster decided to impose a period of instability as a result of an election. Despite previous promises in the 2014 referendum.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
In that case, why did we have a Brexit?
That was 30+ years since the first one.
That wasn't the reason, the reason was that the electorate elected a government who wanted a referendum. Just like they have in Scotland...
The main difference being they elected one that could actually implement it.
That's not really relevant to the timing issue though.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
I think it is much more important for SKS to retain it than the Tories to take it. The pressure is all on Labour.
It is like a relegation battle on the last day for SKS, any mistake can't be recovered from. And ... err ... won't there be some in his party who want him to fail ?
The constituency seems to be 60 per cent leave. It is certainly more ethnically mixed than Hartlepool, but that also has potential pitfalls for Labour as well.
I'd probably make Labour very slight favourites -- but then I made Labour favourites to hold Hartlepool.
Overall, a knife-edge by-election in the midst of party disarray is not really what SKS needs right now.
Kirklees local authority though, which contains Batley and Spen, was only 54.7% Leave which is significantly less than Hartlepool which was 69.6% Leave and there will be less BXP vote for the Tories to squeeze, though the blue vote should still be up.
The LDs will also fancy their chances of making inroads into the Tory majority in Chesham and Amersham as the seat was in Chiltern local authority area (which was in Bucks) which was 55% Remain.
The top Tory only beat the top LD by 2% in Amersham and Chesham Bois on Thursday with the top Green on 6%.
In Chesham the top Tory got 15% with the top LD on 9% and the top Labour candidate on 10% and the top Green on 6%
Well Russia pulled The Death of Stalin from cinemas, so Putin may not have picked up on some obvious things to avoid should he ever find himself in need of good doctors.
WHOM among the PB hordes would make the BEST independent/mini-party by-election candidate?
My nomination is for Leon.
Articulate, amusing, passionate, intelligent, determined (any book author has some grit in their gizzard).
PLUS he'd be sure to snap up the votes of
a) fellow flint knappers (who feel themselves seriously unrepresented in parliament) b) connoisseurs of his fine handcrafted flint dildos (a significant & varied slice of the electorate) c) drunken PBers (ditto)
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
TBF there was no-one to vote for if you wanted independence but not in the next X years. You had to vote for a 2023 Ref2 party, or a unionist one. A vote is a blunt instrument. Let us be thankful for the quiet refined genius of Westminster who will, with the noisy assistance of Nicola, close the matter down for now, keeping everyone in a job.
I suppose Starmers non reshuffle isn't quite as comical as at the height of Jezza where he literally couldn't find enough MP to do jobs and they had to double up roles, as people just kept refusing.
When I think of Sir Keir, almost instantly the words to Beat Surrender by The Jam come to mind
"All the things that I shout about (but never act upon) All the courage and the dreams that I have (but seem to wait so long) My doubt is cast aside, watch phonies run to hide The dignified don't even enter in the game And if you feel there's no passion No quality sensation Seize the young determination Show the fakers you ain't foolin You'll see me come runnin To the sound of your strummin Fill my heart with joy and gladness I've lived too long in shadows of sadness"
All the things he is not.
Labour should be a revolutionary party campaigning for the rights of the workers and those left behind by capitalism. Corbyn may have been a nutter, but he had passion, and conviction. Labour voters should be young, enthusiastic and full of passion, not middle of the road and middle aged. I actually think Labour can be successful without being in government as relentless insurgents keeping the Tories on their toes. Sir Keir's corporate middle management style is the worst of all worlds - he isn't going to win, and he doesn't have any gusto. Labour should get rid and go left field
At least one of
Female Not white Not straight
Should be essentials for their next leader. Walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk
If I passionately didn't want Labour to be in power over the next 20 years I would certainly run with this agenda. A dose of this (grand daughter of Corbyn + yoof+ idealism+ gender and race politics) actually might see them off altogether.
I am beginning to think maybe Labour shouldn't be concerned about being in power, but being constant opposition - to be fair it has been like that most of my life anyway, and when they were in power they had to wear Tory clothes, and smuggle in their big lefty ideas undercover. So why not just go for it, free from the constraints of focus group politics and worrying about polls - Let the Tories be the stiffs again
That is why I like d being in UKIP , we knew we weren't ever going to be the government, so we could do and say what we liked/believed
Two wards round here were electing two councillors.
Bingley Rural: Three parties fielded a Muslim and a non-Muslim candidate. In all three cases the non-Muslim outpolled their colleague.
Keighley Central: The reverse - Labour and Conservative each had their Muslim candidate elected, with the non-Muslim trailing. Indeed, third place went to an Independent who was also a Muslim.
So it cuts both ways, but in both cases I find it depressing.
BBC page showing the LDs in England have a net gain of 7 cllrs, and a council.
Given what could have happened, I guess they'd be happy with that?
They're still in the same coma they've been in for the last ten years, but at least the doctors haven't decided to switch off the life support machine.
That's the present state, in the round, of the Liberal Democrats.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I'm more and more convinced that the Unionists on PB and more generally are like whiny toddlers trying to think up successive excuses why they should not Go To Bed.
How do you get more and more convinced than the 100% convinced you already were?
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
'A comfortable win for No' means at minimum 55%+, any lower margin than 2014 and Nationalists will see the swing to Yes and push for indyref3 the next day and the UK government having been so weak as to give Nationalists indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since indyref1 in 2014 will not be strong enough to resist.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
I think it is much more important for SKS to retain it than the Tories to take it. The pressure is all on Labour.
It is like a relegation battle on the last day for SKS, any mistake can't be recovered from. And ... err ... won't there be some in his party who want him to fail ?
The constituency seems to be 60 per cent leave. It is certainly more ethnically mixed than Hartlepool, but that also has potential pitfalls for Labour as well.
I'd probably make Labour very slight favourites -- but then I made Labour favourites to hold Hartlepool.
Overall, a knife-edge by-election in the midst of party disarray is not really what SKS needs right now.
Kirklees local authority though, which contains Batley and Spen, was only 54.7% Leave which is significantly less than Hartlepool which was 69.6% Leave and there will be less BXP vote for the Tories to squeeze, though the blue vote should still be up.
The LDs will also fancy their chances of making inroads into the Tory majority in Chesham and Amersham as the seat was in Chiltern local authority area (which was in Bucks) which was 55% Remain.
The top Tory only beat the top LD by 2% in Amersham and Chesham Bois on Thursday with the top Green on 6%.
In Chesham the top Tory got 15% with the top LD on 9% and the top Labour candidate on 10% and the top Green on 6%
I don't think either one is remotely in the bag, and both have the potential to do damage to Boris. At the moment a Labour loss at Batley won't add much to their pre existing woes. But a Tory fail to win in Batley, and losing or a narrow win at the Hams would have a little touch of failure about it, unpleasing to Boris.
Those on here who are celebrating the death of the Labour Party have short memories or are young - or both. We've been here before.
In 1983, Thatcher destroyed the Labour Party, eating deep into its heartlands in the north, the midlands and London. It was absolutely rife for commentators to report that the Party had been taken over by "Hampstead intellectuals", as personified by its hapless leader, Michael Foot, and had lost, or abandoned, its working class roots. The Labour Party was dead and would never govern again, they said. 27.6% of the votes - a complete disaster, an existential crisis. And it was.
But the rest is history. Yes, it took a long time for the Party to reinvigorate itself. But I suspect overcoming Boris's undoubted political skills will be somewhat easier than it was to break through against Thatcherism, if only because the current PM and his cabal could implode quite quickly.
Can I just say that I do not celebrate the possible demise of labour
HMG needs a proper opposition and so does the country
I would. I think it is unhealthy how institutionally influential the unions are in Labour. An independent party would be a better opposition
But of course the influence of corporate donors and the landed gentry in the Conservative Party is a force for good?
Relatively few corporate donors these days, just rich individuals. But I would probably cap donations from any individuals / affiliated companies at say £100k per year.
The landed gentry don’t have that much influence any more
Big Money = Free Speech! Or so says SCOTUS.
Well we know from Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade that SCOTUS is not infallible
I said after SCOTUS handed down decision re: Bush v Gore, that now Al could REALLY empathize with Dred Scott.
(Bit surprised that nobody - that I'm aware of anyway - has NOT called Alex Salmond "Dred Scott"?)
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
According to this poll tonight Independence is going backwatds
Good! I am not an advocate for independence! I am an advocate for democracy. Scotland just voted in record numbers to implement a 2nd referendum. How they choose to vote afterwards is not currently the question - that they have the right to have their democratic will carried out IS the question.
I'm more and more convinced that the Unionists on PB and more generally are like whiny toddlers trying to think up successive excuses why they should not Go To Bed.
How do you get more and more convinced than the 100% convinced you already were?
Well, you know, "Nats & Numbers".....
That's because I had no idea to what extent of logic and mathematics Unionists would go until the last 48 hours. The simile had not occurred to me till this evening, if slightly surprisingly, right down to the sulks and unwillingness when the errors are pointed out. So what I say is (a) true and (b) entirely logical.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
I agree with you, and it's just a question of tactics.
On one thing I'd be firm, though, it shouldn't happen until Autumn 2022 at the earliest because it'll put a huge question mark over the UK's recovery and we all desperately need that right now - the hole we're in is simply too big to risk the rebound.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
I think it is much more important for SKS to retain it than the Tories to take it. The pressure is all on Labour.
It is like a relegation battle on the last day for SKS, any mistake can't be recovered from. And ... err ... won't there be some in his party who want him to fail ?
The constituency seems to be 60 per cent leave. It is certainly more ethnically mixed than Hartlepool, but that also has potential pitfalls for Labour as well.
I'd probably make Labour very slight favourites -- but then I made Labour favourites to hold Hartlepool.
Overall, a knife-edge by-election in the midst of party disarray is not really what SKS needs right now.
Kirklees local authority though, which contains Batley and Spen, was only 54.7% Leave which is significantly less than Hartlepool which was 69.6% Leave and there will be less BXP vote for the Tories to squeeze, though the blue vote should still be up.
The LDs will also fancy their chances of making inroads into the Tory majority in Chesham and Amersham as the seat was in Chiltern local authority area (which was in Bucks) which was 55% Remain.
The top Tory only beat the top LD by 2% in Amersham and Chesham Bois on Thursday with the top Green on 6%.
In Chesham the top Tory got 15% with the top LD on 9% and the top Labour candidate on 10% and the top Green on 6%
Still about 10% less Leave than Hartlepool even then, though I would not rule out the Tories gaining Batley and Spen from Labour but losing Chesham and Amersham to the LDs
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
I mean objectively the Scots don't have the power to change that law through democracy. The SNP already hold pretty much every Scottish Westminster seat.
I'm afraid you're being very hypocritical here Charles.
No. The Union doesn’t just involve Scotland. Other parts of the Uk have a say as well.
No. The European Union doesn’t just involve the UK. Other parts of the EU have a say as well.
Imagine the prolapses and strokes if some etiolated minor EUrocrat had popped that one out and expected to be taken seriously!
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
WHOM among the PB hordes would make the BEST independent/mini-party by-election candidate?
My nomination is for Leon.
Articulate, amusing, passionate, intelligent, determined (any book author has some grit in their gizzard).
PLUS he'd be sure to snap up the votes of
a) fellow flint knappers (who feel themselves seriously unrepresented in parliament) b) connoisseurs of his fine handcrafted flint dildos (a significant & varied slice of the electorate) c) drunken PBers (ditto)
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Fascinating
It also falls down as a comparison because there is this teensy weeeeeensy difference between federation and powers-retained devolution UK style. Is HYUFD advocating the breakup of England into provinces of equal status and roughjly equal size with Wales, etc.?
When I think of Sir Keir, almost instantly the words to Beat Surrender by The Jam come to mind
"All the things that I shout about (but never act upon) All the courage and the dreams that I have (but seem to wait so long) My doubt is cast aside, watch phonies run to hide The dignified don't even enter in the game And if you feel there's no passion No quality sensation Seize the young determination Show the fakers you ain't foolin You'll see me come runnin To the sound of your strummin Fill my heart with joy and gladness I've lived too long in shadows of sadness"
All the things he is not.
Labour should be a revolutionary party campaigning for the rights of the workers and those left behind by capitalism. Corbyn may have been a nutter, but he had passion, and conviction. Labour voters should be young, enthusiastic and full of passion, not middle of the road and middle aged. I actually think Labour can be successful without being in government as relentless insurgents keeping the Tories on their toes. Sir Keir's corporate middle management style is the worst of all worlds - he isn't going to win, and he doesn't have any gusto. Labour should get rid and go left field
At least one of
Female Not white Not straight
Should be essentials for their next leader. Walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk
I had been away for a while and just realised posts like this are why I have been returning (under various noms de guerre) for many years. Thanks isam
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
I mean objectively the Scots don't have the power to change that law through democracy. The SNP already hold pretty much every Scottish Westminster seat.
I'm afraid you're being very hypocritical here Charles.
No. The Union doesn’t just involve Scotland. Other parts of the Uk have a say as well.
No. The European Union doesn’t just involve the UK. Other parts of the EU have a say as well.
Imagine the prolapses and strokes if some etiolated minor EUrocrat had popped that one out and expected to be taken seriously!
Indeed. Anyway, I'm being sensible and going to bed now, even if the toddlers won't.
Starmer needs to find a northern, leave-voting candidate, from a working class background to stand in Batley. Ideally one who does a proper job in the private sector. But before he asks for my number, soz, I don't fancy it.
Failing that, as I suggested earlier, Caroline Flint.
This system where some metro mayors are PCCs and some are not is ridiculous. What a mess.
It all depends on whether the mayoral boundaries match the police force area. West Yorkshire yes, Teesside no.
We need fewer police forces in my opinion.
We need more effective police forces, where "effective" is a nuanced term, but I fear proposals to merge forces or combine different emergency services are at best displacement activities. I suppose Police Scotland might provide some evidence one way or the other.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
I suppose you don't want us to point out:
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.?
Well Russia pulled The Death of Stalin from cinemas, so Putin may not have picked up on some obvious things to avoid should he ever find himself in need of good doctors.
Georgy Zhukov : That's me told. I'm off to represent the entire Red Army at the buffet. You girls enjoy yourselves.
This desire to repeat 97...It reminds me of teams hiring Jose Morinho, because he had success, but the game has evolved and his tactics are transparent these days and don't work any more even against middle tier opposition.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
Salmond and Sturgeon, last time around.
Well? Not legislation.
And diffferent parliamentary terms.
Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum. How many do you think actually read legislation, vs. read/listen to the news on the tv or internet?
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
"Who gives a monkey's about generations?"
Debretts? House of Lords? Geneticists? And fruit flies?
And of course Charles & HYUFD! For somewhat different but convergent reasons.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Fascinating
It also falls down as a comparison because there is this teensy weeeeeensy difference between federation and powers-retained devolution UK style. Is HYUFD advocating the breakup of England into provinces of equal status and roughjly equal size with Wales, etc.?
No, though an English Parliament is fine with me as is devomax for Holyrood.
Your point is also wrong, Ontario, the largest Canadian province, has a population of 14 million, Quebec has a population of 8 million, Nunavut, the smallest Canadian province by population, has a population of just 35,944
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
I mean objectively the Scots don't have the power to change that law through democracy. The SNP already hold pretty much every Scottish Westminster seat.
I'm afraid you're being very hypocritical here Charles.
No. The Union doesn’t just involve Scotland. Other parts of the Uk have a say as well.
No. The European Union doesn’t just involve the UK. Other parts of the EU have a say as well.
Imagine the prolapses and strokes if some etiolated minor EUrocrat had popped that one out and expected to be taken seriously!
Indeed. Anyway, I'm being sensible and going to bed now, even if the toddlers won't.
Except the Union was formed as a complete merger of the two states. The two states were dissolved, leaving a single state. The EU is very, very different, much like how you complained about the situation in Quebec being nothing like in Scotland.
WHOM among the PB hordes would make the BEST independent/mini-party by-election candidate?
My nomination is for Leon.
Articulate, amusing, passionate, intelligent, determined (any book author has some grit in their gizzard).
PLUS he'd be sure to snap up the votes of
a) fellow flint knappers (who feel themselves seriously unrepresented in parliament) b) connoisseurs of his fine handcrafted flint dildos (a significant & varied slice of the electorate) c) drunken PBers (ditto)
Pronoun alert.
Did NOT realize you are a school marm?
But thanks (I guess) for slapping me across the fingers with your ruler!
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
Salmond and Sturgeon, last time around.
I mean, that's completely meaningless, considering a "generation" is not defined anywhere other than what is convenient in @HYUFD 's head. I'm sure even if it was 15 years on "generation" would be redefined to mean 40 years.
"Gabriel Pogrund @Gabriel_Pogrund Anneliese Dodds has been sacked as shadow chancellor, a senior party source confirms. She will be offered a new role within the shadow cabinet."
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
Salmond and Sturgeon, last time around.
I mean, that's completely meaningless, considering a "generation" is not defined anywhere other than what is convenient in @HYUFD 's head. I'm sure even if it was 15 years on "generation" would be redefined to mean 40 years.
I think we can all agree seven years is not a generation.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
The number of MSPs is relevant to the mandate. Whether the mandate should be denied by Westminster on arcane legal grounds is a separate question. My opinion is it could be but shouldn't be. For 2 reasons, one of principle, one pragmatic. The principle is the right of the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to stay a part of the union. The pragmatism is that to deny and delay would make an acrimonious split more likely. Remain would be favourite if the vote were held soon. Respect democracy, win the vote, secure the union. That's the right way, the honest way, the best way. So I suppose Johnson won't do it. Or might he? In truth I'm not so sure.
And that’s exactly the point:
The MSP mandate explicitly doesn’t include a referendum under the terms of the law that established the Scottish Parliament
The right of the Scottish people to determine their future is more strongly demonstrated by the share of the vote which was about 50/50. If it had been 60/40 then I would have happily argued that Westminster should listen to that demand. But 50/50 doesn’t demonstrate a desire to go through the trauma of a further referendum
Glad that Charles is on the "uppity Scotch were too stupid to know what they were voting for" bus. That is how you ensure the future of the union - tell Scotland that whatever it thinks it voted for it can't have it, so get back in line and do what England tell you to.
How odd that the people on that bus claim to be Unionists.
No, I’m not on the”uppity” bus
I’m on the “that’s the law, buddy, and if you don’t like it then campaign for it to be changed” bus
I mean objectively the Scots don't have the power to change that law through democracy. The SNP already hold pretty much every Scottish Westminster seat.
I'm afraid you're being very hypocritical here Charles.
No. The Union doesn’t just involve Scotland. Other parts of the Uk have a say as well.
No. The European Union doesn’t just involve the UK. Other parts of the EU have a say as well.
Imagine the prolapses and strokes if some etiolated minor EUrocrat had popped that one out and expected to be taken seriously!
Indeed. Anyway, I'm being sensible and going to bed now, even if the toddlers won't.
If you give me my milk bottle and dummy and then tuck me in, I might.
They need somebody with more presence, but also more nuance than after Sunak announces £200 trillionn of new emergency spending to stand up and say well that's not enough.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
The Quebec comparison may well not apply here, primarily because the nationalist side in Scotland is effectively united (pro-secession voters can game the system by voting Green on the lists, which is just one of the reasons why the Alba Party was utterly pointless,) whereas the unionist parties are hopelessly split and at least a large fraction of their supporters refuse to vote tactically to help the others out.
My concern is what happens if the second referendum takes place, produces another No vote, and then the Scots simply keep on returning masses of SNP politicians to power. First of all, they will manufacture excuses to hold more referendums until they get the result they want (for, if you follow the logic that a pro-independence majority at Holyrood was not only entitled to demand one in 2011 but is also entitled to demand it again in 2021, then why not in 2031, 2041 and 2051 as well?) Secondly, they may at some point end up holding the balance of power at Westminster, and then we are all in danger from their meddling.
It's quite plausible to argue that the risk of a second referendum isn't that the Scots vote to go, it's that they vote to hang about.
Two wards round here were electing two councillors.
Bingley Rural: Three parties fielded a Muslim and a non-Muslim candidate. In all three cases the non-Muslim outpolled their colleague.
Keighley Central: The reverse - Labour and Conservative each had their Muslim candidate elected, with the non-Muslim trailing. Indeed, third place went to an Independent who was also a Muslim.
So it cuts both ways, but in both cases I find it depressing.
The entire point of modern sectional politics is that we carefully define the population in terms of a matrix of identities.
It then comes as a surprise to people who have PhDs in sociology that people then see themselves in terms of a series of identities which results in social separatism.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Fascinating
It also falls down as a comparison because there is this teensy weeeeeensy difference between federation and powers-retained devolution UK style. Is HYUFD advocating the breakup of England into provinces of equal status and roughjly equal size with Wales, etc.?
No, though an English Parliament is fine with me as is devomax for Holyrood.
Your point is also wrong, Ontario, the largest Canadian province, has a population of 14 million, Quebec has a population of 8 million, Nunavut, the smallest Canadian province by population, has a population of just 35,944
Nunavut is a territory, like Yukon and Northwest Territory.
Though distinction between Canadian province and territory is pretty academic these days, as both are (mostly) self-governing in local matters AND are represented in federal parliament.
Does anyone believe Keir Starmer could remain as leader if Batley & Spen is also lost at a by-election?
Yes, if only because his opponents would die laughing...
Why - labour haven't got a chance of keeping that seat
Are you serious? I thought it would be a tougher hill to climb than Hartlepool, but I'm happy to defer to local knowledge.
B/S is not Hartlepool. Much more Muslim, for a start, and not as working class. Also held by the Conservatives within living memory (held in 1992, IIRC). Once upon a time the latter would have been a distinct positive indicator for the Tories, but I'm not sure if it is any more. Are there any prices for it yet? My guess is Lab about 60% likely to win, Con about 40%.
I think it is much more important for SKS to retain it than the Tories to take it. The pressure is all on Labour.
It is like a relegation battle on the last day for SKS, any mistake can't be recovered from. And ... err ... won't there be some in his party who want him to fail ?
The constituency seems to be 60 per cent leave. It is certainly more ethnically mixed than Hartlepool, but that also has potential pitfalls for Labour as well.
I'd probably make Labour very slight favourites -- but then I made Labour favourites to hold Hartlepool.
Overall, a knife-edge by-election in the midst of party disarray is not really what SKS needs right now.
Kirklees local authority though, which contains Batley and Spen, was only 54.7% Leave which is significantly less than Hartlepool which was 69.6% Leave and there will be less BXP vote for the Tories to squeeze, though the blue vote should still be up.
The LDs will also fancy their chances of making inroads into the Tory majority in Chesham and Amersham as the seat was in Chiltern local authority area (which was in Bucks) which was 55% Remain.
The top Tory only beat the top LD by 2% in Amersham and Chesham Bois on Thursday with the top Green on 6%.
In Chesham the top Tory got 15% with the top LD on 9% and the top Labour candidate on 10% and the top Green on 6%
Still about 10% less Leave than Hartlepool even then, though I would not rule out the Tories gaining Batley and Spen from Labour but losing Chesham and Amersham to the LDs
Aaron Bastani waxing lyrical about China - the most negative thing he could bring himself to say
"They aren't perfect - they don't have the NHS"
Lisa Nandy now being crapped all over by them - apparently she is a neocon.......
He isn't worried about the low pay and terrible working conditions ? And by low, I mean in some cases no pay, as it is slave labour.
You've got to understand that his concern about injustice is utterly narcisstic - it's so he can feel good about himself and raise his virtuous status in the eyes of others.
It's not, you know, actually about fighting injustice because that would involve a lot of hard work and contesting its most serious forms would require him to do some hard thinking about his warped ideology.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that, as the first minister claims, holding another referendum is now clearly the "will of the people" in Scotland.
Rather, the outcome of the election confirms that Scotland is evenly divided on the constitutional question.
The three main pro-union parties won 50.4 per cent of the constituency vote, but the three main list parties secured 50.1 per cent of the list vote. The pro-independence majority is a consequence of the limitations of Holyrood’s supposedly proportional electoral system (devised over twenty years ago by Labour and the Liberal Democrats) rather than evidence of a clear majority in favour of another referendum.
It's not the Will of the People, but there's a clear democratic mandate for it. Both these things are true at the same time.
The number of MSPs is irrelevant - you don’t elect a representative to represent you in something that is outwith their powers
But they just did
No, they didn’t. The SNP candidates promised* to hold a referendum on independence. But it is not in their power to grant a legal referendum. They can only try to put pressure on the Westminster parliament to grant one.** It would like a Mayor of London promising to declare war on France - it might win votes but doesn’t change the scope of their power
* I haven’t read their manifesto so don’t know precisely what they promised
** the share of the vote is a better argument - although only for putting pressure on Westminster - but I understand (saw some debate between @DavidL & @RochdalePioneers this afternoon) that was pretty close up 50/50 so not an overwhelming demand
DAvidL and RP were both in agreement that it was over the 50% mark. It's HYUFD who was using the psephological equivalent of creative bistromathics.
Yes - I don’t recall the details but think it was around 50.1/50.4? Hence my comment that it wasn’t “overwhelming demand”.
Highest ever turnout Highest ever SNP vote Highest ever number of MSPs elected on a Yes platform who now have a clear majority Yes took more votes than No
So obviously it is still up in the air...
Turnout - relevant but not decisive SNP vote - not a majority MSPs - not relevant as it’s not in their remit majority of votes cast - only marginally so not a decisive argument
Read the spectator article @CarlottaVance linked to. It puts the argument on mandates better than I can
Charles. You are (I assume) a Unionist. Is your plan to maintain the union to tell Scotland that despite them electing a clear majority of MSPs pledged to a referendum that (a) they didn't and (b) that they can't have it anyway?
Do you think this goes away if you sit in England if you tell Scotland they have no way to leave however they vote? If you want to preserve the union then you need to face into the problem not waft it away. It won't waft away. It needs to be defeated head on.
A 2nd referndum - as polls suggest - could be a comfortable win for No. At which point the clause barring a repeat for x period which I assume would have been inserted into the agreement comes into effect.
I’m a federalist.
But there was a vote in 2014. Independence was rejected. You don’t get a do over - the winners of that vote have the right to a period of stability
You do get a do over. It's called democracy. If the Scottish people wanted "a period of stability" they wouldn't keep voting for the SNP, would they?
I think two things can be true at the same time here, though.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
That's why it's in our interest to sort this out one way or the other. By denying the SNP you're just delaying the issue and keeps their voting coalition together.
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
Quebec's indyref2 was held in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after
Who gives a monkey's aboiut generations? You show us all where the word is in the legislation.
Salmond and Sturgeon, last time around.
I mean, that's completely meaningless, considering a "generation" is not defined anywhere other than what is convenient in @HYUFD 's head. I'm sure even if it was 15 years on "generation" would be redefined to mean 40 years.
I think we can all agree seven years is not a generation.
You've missed the point. The point is that a "generation" is meaningless because it has no agreed definition. It's just a tool to justify ignoring the Scottish people's vote for a referendum.
Comments
Some have been, er, less defensible than others.
You're right but at the same time every time there's a referendum on the horizon it depressed sterling and dips investment a bit as it throws the whole future of the UK into doubt - that affects all of us.
The LDs will also fancy their chances of making inroads into the Tory majority in Chesham and Amersham as the seat was in Chiltern local authority area (now in Bucks) which was 55% Remain.
The top Tory only beat the top LD by 2% in Amersham and Chesham Bois on Thursday with the top Green on 6%.
In Chesham the top Tory got 15% with the top LD on 9% and the top Labour candidate on 10% and the top Green on 6%
https://buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=17&RPID=3792032
https://buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=2&RPID=3791902
You call Nicola's bluff - you have IndyRef2, the Scots will in all likelihood vote to stay in the UK, and then realistically that's it for the foreseeable future. There's no huge political or societal change like Brexit on the horizon, the SNP cannot get any stronger, the only way is down.
It's Quebec v2.
And if, by some miracle, they vote to leave, well then rUK's stability is confirmed longterm anyway.
https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1391429735419363333?s=20
You see?
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1391487843135066117?s=19
Given what could have happened, I guess they'd be happy with that?
Source is here:
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/kirklees-constituency-voted-against-brexit-12593757
WHOM among the PB hordes would make the BEST independent/mini-party by-election candidate?
My nomination is for Leon.
Articulate, amusing, passionate, intelligent, determined (any book author has some grit in their gizzard).
PLUS he'd be sure to snap up the votes of
a) fellow flint knappers (who feel themselves seriously unrepresented in parliament)
b) connoisseurs of his fine handcrafted flint dildos (a significant & varied slice of the electorate)
c) drunken PBers (ditto)
That is why I like d being in UKIP , we knew we weren't ever going to be the government, so we could do and say what we liked/believed
Two wards round here were electing two councillors.
Bingley Rural: Three parties fielded a Muslim and a non-Muslim candidate. In all three cases the non-Muslim outpolled their colleague.
Keighley Central: The reverse - Labour and Conservative each had their Muslim candidate elected, with the non-Muslim trailing. Indeed, third place went to an Independent who was also a Muslim.
So it cuts both ways, but in both cases I find it depressing.
That's the present state, in the round, of the Liberal Democrats.
(Bit surprised that nobody - that I'm aware of anyway - has NOT called Alex Salmond "Dred Scott"?)
On one thing I'd be firm, though, it shouldn't happen until Autumn 2022 at the earliest because it'll put a huge question mark over the UK's recovery and we all desperately need that right now - the hole we're in is simply too big to risk the rebound.
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1391487423931207681?s=20
"They aren't perfect - they don't have the NHS"
Lisa Nandy now being crapped all over by them - apparently she is a neocon.......
Imagine the prolapses and strokes if some etiolated minor EUrocrat had popped that one out and expected to be taken seriously!
One senior MP says he’s “actively involved” & encouraging Chapman/McSweeney to “follow his past strategy of isolating the Left.”
Another party source claims they’re both “enamoured by him”.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1391491348746866693?s=20
What's he got to do with weak council results or Hartlepool?
Thanks isam
He epitomises the spoilt brat tendency of British politics.
And diffferent parliamentary terms.
Here's an issue. Very senior GP calls out the move to non-face-to-face medicine.
https://twitter.com/thelucyjohnston/status/1391309207832510464/photo/1
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect. ?
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130102230945/http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agreement-final-for-signing.pdf
Debretts? House of Lords? Geneticists? And fruit flies?
And of course Charles & HYUFD! For somewhat different but convergent reasons.
Your point is also wrong, Ontario, the largest Canadian province, has a population of 14 million, Quebec has a population of 8 million, Nunavut, the smallest Canadian province by population, has a population of just 35,944
But thanks (I guess) for slapping me across the fingers with your ruler!
Nick Brown and Anneliese Dodds were both representatives of party unity in big roles
Fight Fight
@Gabriel_Pogrund
Anneliese Dodds has been sacked as shadow chancellor, a senior party source confirms. She will be offered a new role within the shadow cabinet."
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1391492353731538949
My concern is what happens if the second referendum takes place, produces another No vote, and then the Scots simply keep on returning masses of SNP politicians to power. First of all, they will manufacture excuses to hold more referendums until they get the result they want (for, if you follow the logic that a pro-independence majority at Holyrood was not only entitled to demand one in 2011 but is also entitled to demand it again in 2021, then why not in 2031, 2041 and 2051 as well?) Secondly, they may at some point end up holding the balance of power at Westminster, and then we are all in danger from their meddling.
It's quite plausible to argue that the risk of a second referendum isn't that the Scots vote to go, it's that they vote to hang about.
It then comes as a surprise to people who have PhDs in sociology that people then see themselves in terms of a series of identities which results in social separatism.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1391493283034058755?s=20
Though distinction between Canadian province and territory is pretty academic these days, as both are (mostly) self-governing in local matters AND are represented in federal parliament.
A Nation weeps ....
Performance on current brief makes pretty clear she's a cypher able to fake the mannerisms of intelligence without actually possessing it.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1391493521346007040?s=20
It's not, you know, actually about fighting injustice because that would involve a lot of hard work and contesting its most serious forms would require him to do some hard thinking about his warped ideology.