Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

One in nine of those younger than 25 on the YouGov panel don’t even know who Tony Blair was – politi

124678

Comments

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766
    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,578
    edited May 14

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I pretty much agree with all of that, and linked to it I therefore lament the lack of any serious discussion on the issue. The West (and obviously, mostly still the US) still has the power to change things (a bit, at least). But we don’t and we won’t because of the domestic politics of it all.
    Indeed. Whilst people not connected to it use the conflict for nefarious purposes, a peaceful resolution has never looked so distant. It's bleak.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,308
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Fishing said:

    isam said:

    ...

    People like Beckett cannot see Priti Patel, Sajid Javid, Trever Phillips etc... as minorities because minorities support their views. It's a really ugly blind spot.


    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1393160472908771332?s=20

    The far left think Thatcher didn’t really count as a female PM too. Ethnic minorities and women need to know their place
    I think what they really can't stand is that she got to the top an stayed there for 11 years on merit, without quotas, female-only shortlists or positive discirmination of any kind.

    And that she had more balls than any of them.
    Overthinking it a bit. It was mainly her politics wot done it. Although there was, no question, some misogyny thrown in. Same with all high profile women. Also medium and low profile ones. Behave like (we think) a woman should or you'll get a roasting. Fact, you might get one anyway.
    Er, unfortunate wording, 'roasting' - presumably not intended.
    Completely unintended yes. I wasn't aware of any meaning other than the one I was going for.
    Isn't it annoying when some smart alec with a dirtier mind points such things out to one?
    Oi, that's my job!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,308
    edited May 14

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    My screenshots seem to have been miniaturised lately, but I'll give it a try



    Edit: Nope, still tiny (as the actress etc)
  • Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,578
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Fishing said:

    isam said:

    ...

    People like Beckett cannot see Priti Patel, Sajid Javid, Trever Phillips etc... as minorities because minorities support their views. It's a really ugly blind spot.


    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1393160472908771332?s=20

    The far left think Thatcher didn’t really count as a female PM too. Ethnic minorities and women need to know their place
    I think what they really can't stand is that she got to the top an stayed there for 11 years on merit, without quotas, female-only shortlists or positive discirmination of any kind.

    And that she had more balls than any of them.
    Overthinking it a bit. It was mainly her politics wot done it. Although there was, no question, some misogyny thrown in. Same with all high profile women. Also medium and low profile ones. Behave like (we think) a woman should or you'll get a roasting. Fact, you might get one anyway.
    Er, unfortunate wording, 'roasting' - presumably not intended.
    Completely unintended yes. I wasn't aware of any meaning other than the one I was going for.
    Isn't it annoying when some smart alec with a dirtier mind points such things out to one?
    ☺ - Doesn't happen too often either. My mind's a sewer.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766
    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    The transformation from King with Parliament to King against Parliament and finally with the Glorious Revolution King in Parliament, shows that what ultra at one point in one time can be vires later just a few years (or centuries) later.
  • Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    My screenshots seem to have been miniaturised lately, but I'll give it a try



    Edit: Nope, still tiny (as the actress etc)
    Thanks anyway
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,413
    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    The meaning of the law's balance is that there are more interests than those of Scotland alone to consider. Internal boundaries in the UK, and leaving the UK, are a matter for local opinion of course but Scotland leaving UK = England leaving Scotland without its consent. England's only representation is in Westminster. It's voice is a legitimate one.

    Consider this: On a complete triviality like country boundaries and the structure of local authorities within them the local population/council has no power of its own to change them without Westminster agreeing. So on this much larger matter of separation and creation of a new state in international law the same applies, only it is much more important.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,790

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,664
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    Excellent post. Don't *entirely* agree, but there's a lot of truth in there.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,420
    Just checked. On Monday I will be Jab 1 +8 weeks. I am currently booked for Jab 2 at 11 weeks. Let's see what happens.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,967
    edited May 14

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    From his majority of seats

    Essentially the only legal course the SNP has is to persuade Westminster to approve a referendum. My argument is that is dependent on the recent age of voters who supported parties that wanted a referendum. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    Whether 50/50 is a strong case is a judgement call. I don’t believe it is
    The Brexit referendum was passed by a Governemtn that won just 36% of the vote. Presumably that shouldn’t have happened either?
    The Brexit vote was 52/48. That’s where the democratic mandate came from. In this case it was even stronger - parliament had sought instruction from the voters so was duty bound to implement them

    (Similarly if a majority voted in a legal Scottish referendum for independence then Westminster would be obligated to fulfil that instruction)

    Edit

    Reviewing your post I may have misunderstood.

    The right to grant a Brexit referendum was within the power of the Westminster parliament so the number of seats is what matters.

    The issue in the Scottish case is that the power is also vested in the Westminster parliament. So you need to persuade a majority of MPs to vote in favour. For me the number of votes cast for independence backing parties is the relevant metric
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,852
    Imagine the fuss if young people didn't know who Churchill was? :smile:
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,587

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,587

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    The transformation from King with Parliament to King against Parliament and finally with the Glorious Revolution King in Parliament, shows that what ultra at one point in one time can be vires later just a few years (or centuries) later.
    Yes, but every single thing passed by Parliament from 1642 to 1660 was declared invalid after the restoration and the bits that the new regime wanted to keep, like the Navigation Acts, had to be re-enacted.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,803
    edited May 14
    In reality, no referendum should allow a bare majority of voters - or even a minority of electors - to change a deep constitutional settlement.

    Cameron fucked this up. Not once, but twice.
    The result? Years of rancour.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,680
    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    From his majority of seats

    Essentially the only legal course the SNP has is to persuade Westminster to approve a referendum. My argument is that is dependent on the recent age of voters who supported parties that wanted a referendum. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    Whether 50/50 is a strong case is a judgement call. I don’t believe it is
    Can you remind us how many seats Boris has in Scotland?
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,213

    People like Beckett cannot see Priti Patel, Sajid Javid, Trever Phillips etc... as minorities because minorities support their views. It's a really ugly blind spot.


    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1393160472908771332?s=20

    The Blessed Owen has weighed in:

    Double standards Jones...if a Tory or a business had suggested deporting an ethnic minority MP, he would be organizing a pile-on and boycott.
    Imagine if a Tory had said that David Lammy or Diane Abbott should be deported. Would he be so forgiving then? This is my problem with any Talking Head like Owen. They are almost always blind to their own sides failures.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,187

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I pretty much agree with all of that, and linked to it I therefore lament the lack of any serious discussion on the issue. The West (and obviously, mostly still the US) still has the power to change things (a bit, at least). But we don’t and we won’t because of the domestic politics of it all.
    Another plus one. Was involved in a Track 2 meeting many aeons ago. It is not just the British political factions talking past each other. As one Egyptian told me: "Egypt has been around for thousands of years - if we cease to exist for a few decades we know we will be back. Israel has been in existence on 50 years. They don't have our confidence."

    The issue is, how do we get the parties to put their long and complicated history and associated psychological baggage to one side and focus on what can work going forward.
    The general silence of liberal America on Gaza is quite something to behold. Black Lives Matter but Palestinian Lives..... Don't?

    This is especially perplexing when Israel is doing to Palestine pretty much exactly what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd. A slow, steady asphyxiation, laced with contempt, apparently untroubled by the consequences
    You do have a point.

    One distinction, is that the black lives that Black Lives Matter and the millions of all kinds and colors in the USA who support BLM to some degree - these are the lives of our fellow Americans, living in our own country and society.
    The tone-deafness of Kamala Harris is particularly severe

    She tweeted this 20 hours ago, at exactly the time Israel was pouring down fire on Gaza

    "Vice President Kamala Harris
    @VP

    As Ramadan comes to an end, Muslims around our country and the world celebrate the breaking of the fast with family and friends. Eid Mubarak to all who are celebrating!"

    https://twitter.com/VP/status/1392972928376000536?s=20

    She hasn't actually tweeted anything ABOUT Gaza or the renewed violence
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    The were clearly some issues re: the Liberty Bell that cropped up AFTER it was delivered.

    A bad day at the foundry? Or just an early example of why disgruntled US car owners used to slap the following sticker on the bumpers of their UK imports:

    "The Parts Falling Off of This Car Are of the Finest British Workmanship"

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,967
    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,408
    MaxPB said:

    maaarsh said:

    stodge said:

    I love the way the Labour and the media, who struggle to even get the daily stats right latch on to some idea and push it, todays it all about all over 16s getting jabbed. Now as far as I know only over 18 years are cleared at the moment and like the we need to jab all the teachers push, I doubt they have done any or have access to any modelling on the effectiveness of different strategic approaches. But it doesn't stop them talking about it for hours.

    I presume we will at some point soon get a paper released on this and why the government have gone for reduction to 8 weeks for 2nd doses.

    Reasons to shorten the 2nd dose interval

    - Get the over 50s too maximum immunity faster
    - The T-cell thing that was mentioned in the Guardian report.
    - All of the above
    - ???
    Wouldn't it be more effective to get first vaccinations into as many as people to reduce the numbers who might a) have serious problems if contracting the Indian Variant and b) could potentially transmit the Variant?

    There's something here doesn't make sense - what is it about this particular Variant that has suddenly caused a change in vaccination policy which has been consistent since New Year? Is it perhaps more serious than we have been led to believe?

    The line to now has been the degree of immunity existing 11 weeks after a fist vaccination is high (the reason we moved from the 3 weeks recommended by Pfizer to 12 weeks). Now, it seems the push is to get second vaccinations into those most at risk but the emphasis until now has been to get first vaccinations into as many people as before.

    It's been 9 weeks since my first vaccination and I'm due my second in a fortnight - am I going to be contacted for an earlier appointment? It all smacks of something more serious we're not being told.

    Needless to say, postponing Monday's next stage of "freedom" would have been politically suicidal for Johnson so we're going to have to go with it and see what (if anything) happens. Too many people have vested too much in the final lifting of restrictions on 21/6 for it not to happen.
    The 8 week move feels utterly bonkers if it affects the speed of first dose roll out, so the only way I can rationalise is that they now have sufficient Az to race through 2nd doses with, and which are more or less useless for first doses now, so they might as well crack on and use it. I just hope they're building overall jabbing capacity so we can start doing 4 or 5 hundred thousand of each in a day and get this thing over with.
    It's not going to. The second dose debt falls mostly on AZ, under 40s are getting Pfizer and Moderna.
    "Wouldn't it be more effective to get first vaccinations into as many as people to reduce the numbers who might a) have serious problems if contracting the Indian Variant and b) could potentially transmit the Variant?"

    There are relatively few people left to first vaccinate in the vulnerable groups. Getting them to fully vaccinated status quicker might be a good response.

    Also note the response to the question about the speed of the roll out - this change apparently won't effect it.

    As to vaccination capacity - it has been clear all through this that we could do more with more vaccine.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,967

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    My screenshots seem to have been miniaturised lately, but I'll give it a try



    Edit: Nope, still tiny (as the actress etc)
    They are turning an old building into a boutique hotel and some locals are getting wound up
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766

    In reality, no referendum should allow a bare majority of voters - or even a minority of electors - to change a deep constitutional settlement.

    Cameron fucked this up. Not once, but twice.
    The result? Years of rancour.

    That's been one of the big problems (not the only one, but a biggie) with statehood for Puerto Rico. Getting a clear majority in a high turnout, free and fair election.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,967

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    From his majority of seats

    Essentially the only legal course the SNP has is to persuade Westminster to approve a referendum. My argument is that is dependent on the recent age of voters who supported parties that wanted a referendum. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    Whether 50/50 is a strong case is a judgement call. I don’t believe it is
    Can you remind us how many seats Boris has in Scotland?
    The composition of the Scottish parliament is not relevant. 31.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,680
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    From his majority of seats

    Essentially the only legal course the SNP has is to persuade Westminster to approve a referendum. My argument is that is dependent on the recent age of voters who supported parties that wanted a referendum. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    Whether 50/50 is a strong case is a judgement call. I don’t believe it is
    Can you remind us how many seats Boris has in Scotland?
    The composition of the Scottish parliament is not relevant. 31.
    I was talking about Westminster - just 6!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,680
    Charles said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
    Just 6 Tory Westminster seats in Scotland...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,187

    In reality, no referendum should allow a bare majority of voters - or even a minority of electors - to change a deep constitutional settlement.

    Cameron fucked this up. Not once, but twice.
    The result? Years of rancour.

    Yes, even tho I voted Leave, I've gone right off referendums. The people who said they are poisonous were right. We are not used to them, we don't do them properly (unlike the Swiss) we have a famous parliament for a reason.

    Once a generation. No more for 15 years. Thanks
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766
    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,578

    People like Beckett cannot see Priti Patel, Sajid Javid, Trever Phillips etc... as minorities because minorities support their views. It's a really ugly blind spot.


    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1393160472908771332?s=20

    The Blessed Owen has weighed in:

    Double standards Jones...if a Tory or a business had suggested deporting an ethnic minority MP, he would be organizing a pile-on and boycott.
    Imagine if a Tory had said that David Lammy or Diane Abbott should be deported. Would he be so forgiving then? This is my problem with any Talking Head like Owen. They are almost always blind to their own sides failures.
    He was clear sighted on antisemitism. And he said this tweet was bad. There are many more one eyed than he. Including many of those attacking him on this.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,680

    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
    You guys drive on the RIGHT side of the road.

    WE drive on the CORRECT side of the road! :lol:
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,036
    Leon said:

    In reality, no referendum should allow a bare majority of voters - or even a minority of electors - to change a deep constitutional settlement.

    Cameron fucked this up. Not once, but twice.
    The result? Years of rancour.

    Yes, even tho I voted Leave, I've gone right off referendums. The people who said they are poisonous were right. We are not used to them, we don't do them properly (unlike the Swiss) we have a famous parliament for a reason.

    Once a generation. No more for 15 years. Thanks
    We should do them properly. Like the Swiss.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I pretty much agree with all of that, and linked to it I therefore lament the lack of any serious discussion on the issue. The West (and obviously, mostly still the US) still has the power to change things (a bit, at least). But we don’t and we won’t because of the domestic politics of it all.
    Another plus one. Was involved in a Track 2 meeting many aeons ago. It is not just the British political factions talking past each other. As one Egyptian told me: "Egypt has been around for thousands of years - if we cease to exist for a few decades we know we will be back. Israel has been in existence on 50 years. They don't have our confidence."

    The issue is, how do we get the parties to put their long and complicated history and associated psychological baggage to one side and focus on what can work going forward.
    The general silence of liberal America on Gaza is quite something to behold. Black Lives Matter but Palestinian Lives..... Don't?

    This is especially perplexing when Israel is doing to Palestine pretty much exactly what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd. A slow, steady asphyxiation, laced with contempt, apparently untroubled by the consequences
    You do have a point.

    One distinction, is that the black lives that Black Lives Matter and the millions of all kinds and colors in the USA who support BLM to some degree - these are the lives of our fellow Americans, living in our own country and society.
    The tone-deafness of Kamala Harris is particularly severe

    She tweeted this 20 hours ago, at exactly the time Israel was pouring down fire on Gaza

    "Vice President Kamala Harris
    @VP

    As Ramadan comes to an end, Muslims around our country and the world celebrate the breaking of the fast with family and friends. Eid Mubarak to all who are celebrating!"

    https://twitter.com/VP/status/1392972928376000536?s=20

    She hasn't actually tweeted anything ABOUT Gaza or the renewed violence
    I agree. Don’t get me wrong, I have an issue with our politicians’ cowardice on confronting the issue whilst also confronting anti-semites (one can do both), but I absolve them through their irrelevance. Israel doesn’t care what we think - it cares very much about the US.

    Another issue on which George H Bush was sound.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,587
    Charles said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
    RIght, but abortion was a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998 until it was devolved by the Scotland Act 2016. So, any money spent by the Scottish government on requesting that change was ultra vires? That appears to be what you're saying?
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,213
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    Excellent post. Don't *entirely* agree, but there's a lot of truth in there.
    Agree with you up until you mention white supremacist. This is the Hitler was a vegan paradox. I think there are a good number of people who see the group on your local labour group and think if they are for it then I am against it

    The biggest problem I have with Palestine is that it seems like the richer Arab agitators funnel weapons to Hamas so the war happens in poor little Palestine and not on their doorstep.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,545

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    From his majority of seats

    Essentially the only legal course the SNP has is to persuade Westminster to approve a referendum. My argument is that is dependent on the recent age of voters who supported parties that wanted a referendum. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    Whether 50/50 is a strong case is a judgement call. I don’t believe it is
    Can you remind us how many seats Boris has in Scotland?
    Boris: 692,969 voters - 6 seats

    Sturgeon: 1,242,380 voters - 48 seats

    The delights of FPTP. Not that you'll hear us Tories complaining.....
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766
    rpjs said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    The transformation from King with Parliament to King against Parliament and finally with the Glorious Revolution King in Parliament, shows that what ultra at one point in one time can be vires later just a few years (or centuries) later.
    Yes, but every single thing passed by Parliament from 1642 to 1660 was declared invalid after the restoration and the bits that the new regime wanted to keep, like the Navigation Acts, had to be re-enacted.
    Just a way for the politicos to send some pretty fat fees to some of their pretty fat lawyer cronies.

    Old school Cameronism. Before the actual Camerons got their toffy noses in the trough. Irony!
  • kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I must be a bit confused here. You talk of race. I was under the, perhaps erroneous, assumption that the Israelis and the Palestinians were both of the Semitic race of people.
    Is this not the case and, if it is, then would the preference for one side or the other not be based on racial prejudice but rather on cultural or political or religious preference?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,681

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    The were clearly some issues re: the Liberty Bell that cropped up AFTER it was delivered.

    A bad day at the foundry? Or just an early example of why disgruntled US car owners used to slap the following sticker on the bumpers of their UK imports:

    "The Parts Falling Off of This Car Are of the Finest British Workmanship"

    Or that other classic

    Q: Why do the British drink their beer warm?

    A: Because Lucas also make refrigerators.

    That must be my coat...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,680

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    From his majority of seats

    Essentially the only legal course the SNP has is to persuade Westminster to approve a referendum. My argument is that is dependent on the recent age of voters who supported parties that wanted a referendum. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    Whether 50/50 is a strong case is a judgement call. I don’t believe it is
    Can you remind us how many seats Boris has in Scotland?
    Boris: 692,969 voters - 6 seats

    Sturgeon: 1,242,380 voters - 48 seats

    The delights of FPTP. Not that you'll hear us Tories complaining.....
    Well, even in votes, Boris was just over half as popular as Nicola.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    Ah! Thank you. A complete disgrace but no more than you would expect.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,578
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    The meaning of the law's balance is that there are more interests than those of Scotland alone to consider. Internal boundaries in the UK, and leaving the UK, are a matter for local opinion of course but Scotland leaving UK = England leaving Scotland without its consent. England's only representation is in Westminster. It's voice is a legitimate one.

    Consider this: On a complete triviality like country boundaries and the structure of local authorities within them the local population/council has no power of its own to change them without Westminster agreeing. So on this much larger matter of separation and creation of a new state in international law the same applies, only it is much more important.
    Yes I understand this point. I've often thought of what would happen if England voted to become independent when Scotland wished to remain in the Union. It's not that straightforward really. There's this inherent imbalance in power because of relative size. Nothing gets round that.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I pretty much agree with all of that, and linked to it I therefore lament the lack of any serious discussion on the issue. The West (and obviously, mostly still the US) still has the power to change things (a bit, at least). But we don’t and we won’t because of the domestic politics of it all.
    Another plus one. Was involved in a Track 2 meeting many aeons ago. It is not just the British political factions talking past each other. As one Egyptian told me: "Egypt has been around for thousands of years - if we cease to exist for a few decades we know we will be back. Israel has been in existence on 50 years. They don't have our confidence."

    The issue is, how do we get the parties to put their long and complicated history and associated psychological baggage to one side and focus on what can work going forward.
    The general silence of liberal America on Gaza is quite something to behold. Black Lives Matter but Palestinian Lives..... Don't?

    This is especially perplexing when Israel is doing to Palestine pretty much exactly what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd. A slow, steady asphyxiation, laced with contempt, apparently untroubled by the consequences
    You do have a point.

    One distinction, is that the black lives that Black Lives Matter and the millions of all kinds and colors in the USA who support BLM to some degree - these are the lives of our fellow Americans, living in our own country and society.
    The tone-deafness of Kamala Harris is particularly severe

    She tweeted this 20 hours ago, at exactly the time Israel was pouring down fire on Gaza

    "Vice President Kamala Harris
    @VP

    As Ramadan comes to an end, Muslims around our country and the world celebrate the breaking of the fast with family and friends. Eid Mubarak to all who are celebrating!"

    https://twitter.com/VP/status/1392972928376000536?s=20

    She hasn't actually tweeted anything ABOUT Gaza or the renewed violence
    I wonder if liberal America has also been persuaded, as liberals and the left have in this country, that any criticism of the Israeli state is ipso facto anti-Semitic? I've certainly been nervous about writing on the topic, knowing full well that if I write what I really think about Israel's actions I would be attacked, even on this site. Kudos to those who have raised their heads above the parapet. Anybody who thinks that there is 'equal' suffering between the Israelis and the Palestinians needs a reality check. But that's still the dominant discourse.
    Kamala Harris is NOT Donald Trump. (Thank you Jesus, Jehovah and Allah!)

    Thus she does NOT tweet incessantly about everything 24/7.

    And not just because she ain't Trumpsky - she's also VICE President of the United States.

    If you think she's gonna start being some kind of independent voice in ANY kind of policy while Uncle Joe is still at the helm - forget about it.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,743

    RobD said:

    RH1992 said:

    "The slightest suspicion that someone may be entering Britain to work is often enough for them to be locked up, held at detention centres for up to a week and then expelled to wherever they have travelled from, some of those caught up by the policy have said.

    An Italian NHS consultant told of his horror when his niece arrived from Italy for a short visit but ended up in a detention centre surrounded by barbed wire.

    There is growing anger over what campaigners and MEPs have said is a “disproportionate” and “heavy-handed” implementation of post-Brexit immigration restrictions on EU citizens.

    On Friday the EU’s co-chair of the post Brexit UK-EU partnership council, Maroš Šefčovič, told a group of Romanian MEPs he would be raising it with the UK authorities.

    Giuseppe Pichierri, who has worked for the NHS for 15 years, told the Guardian he had waited for hours at Heathrow airport on 17 April with his four-year-old daughter to collect his 24-year-old niece Marta Lomartire with balloons and cards.

    But she did not show. She had been stopped, quizzed and issued with an expulsion order before being locked up in Colnbrook detention centre for the night.

    Pichierri took his tearful daughter home and was called in the middle of the night and told Lomartire was being taken into detention. “We were never approached or told where she was,” he said. The following day, despite being on call at Kingston hospital, he tracked her down to Colnbrook and had to travel to the detention centre to meet Lomartire, who was scared and upset."

    The ugly face of Brexit - and the best way to thank NHS workers. You can be certain the European negotiating teams are taking notes, as mentioned in the article, and as I mentioned yesterday.

    As much as I agree that it's heavy handed (if you ask me the Home Office is rotten to the core and needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch), why would the European negotiating teams be "taking notes"?

    We're not in the EU and we have our own immigration policy. We're treating them how we would treat non-EU nationals now. We have no obligation to give them special treatment and I object to The Guardian complaining about the plight of white Europeans having to stay a night in detention when people fleeing persecution have been locked up in these places for weeks or months on end unfairly.
    No Britons have been detained offsite from ports or airport in EU detention centres so far, let alone for a week ; that's why the Europeans will be taking notes.

    It does also serve an additional useful purpose of showing the routine treatment for many others from around the world, too, though, as you say, often irrespective of whether they are genuine refugees or not.
    Are you sure about that? Germany routinely puts people in prison while awaiting deportation.
    In summary, EU good, UK bad. ;)
    Try travelling around Africa without the right visas.....
    or the right vaccination certification
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    Ah! Thank you. A complete disgrace but no more than you would expect.
    What would you prefer they (whoever they are) did with the building?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,789

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    From his majority of seats

    Essentially the only legal course the SNP has is to persuade Westminster to approve a referendum. My argument is that is dependent on the recent age of voters who supported parties that wanted a referendum. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    Whether 50/50 is a strong case is a judgement call. I don’t believe it is
    Can you remind us how many seats Boris has in Scotland?
    Boris: 692,969 voters - 6 seats

    Sturgeon: 1,242,380 voters - 48 seats

    The delights of FPTP. Not that you'll hear us Tories complaining.....
    You win some, you lose some.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,681

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    Ah! Thank you. A complete disgrace but no more than you would expect.
    Loughborough has the UKs only working bell foundry, I think.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,308
    edited May 14

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I pretty much agree with all of that, and linked to it I therefore lament the lack of any serious discussion on the issue. The West (and obviously, mostly still the US) still has the power to change things (a bit, at least). But we don’t and we won’t because of the domestic politics of it all.
    Another plus one. Was involved in a Track 2 meeting many aeons ago. It is not just the British political factions talking past each other. As one Egyptian told me: "Egypt has been around for thousands of years - if we cease to exist for a few decades we know we will be back. Israel has been in existence on 50 years. They don't have our confidence."

    The issue is, how do we get the parties to put their long and complicated history and associated psychological baggage to one side and focus on what can work going forward.
    The general silence of liberal America on Gaza is quite something to behold. Black Lives Matter but Palestinian Lives..... Don't?

    This is especially perplexing when Israel is doing to Palestine pretty much exactly what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd. A slow, steady asphyxiation, laced with contempt, apparently untroubled by the consequences
    You do have a point.

    One distinction, is that the black lives that Black Lives Matter and the millions of all kinds and colors in the USA who support BLM to some degree - these are the lives of our fellow Americans, living in our own country and society.
    The tone-deafness of Kamala Harris is particularly severe

    She tweeted this 20 hours ago, at exactly the time Israel was pouring down fire on Gaza

    "Vice President Kamala Harris
    @VP

    As Ramadan comes to an end, Muslims around our country and the world celebrate the breaking of the fast with family and friends. Eid Mubarak to all who are celebrating!"

    https://twitter.com/VP/status/1392972928376000536?s=20

    She hasn't actually tweeted anything ABOUT Gaza or the renewed violence
    I wonder if liberal America has also been persuaded, as liberals and the left have in this country, that any criticism of the Israeli state is ipso facto anti-Semitic? I've certainly been nervous about writing on the topic, knowing full well that if I write what I really think about Israel's actions I would be attacked, even on this site. Kudos to those who have raised their heads above the parapet. Anybody who thinks that there is 'equal' suffering between the Israelis and the Palestinians needs a reality check. But that's still the dominant discourse.
    Very true.
    My positions are that I acknowledge that plenty of the strident anti Zionist folks use the term as cover for their instinctive antisemitism, while I'm also certain that the Israeli government expends considerable resources to portray any criticism of the shitty actions of the state of Israel as antisemitism. Unfortunately stating this has the potential to unleash a bucket of shit upon one, particularly the latter view on a place like this. It's not dissimilar to the trans debate, though the stakes in the former are imho higher (even saying that might get me into bucket of shit territory).
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766

    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
    You guys drive on the RIGHT side of the road.

    WE drive on the CORRECT side of the road! :lol:
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!

    Nat King Cole - (Get Your Kicks on) Route 66
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuDE1SJlPo
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    Ah! Thank you. A complete disgrace but no more than you would expect.
    What would you prefer they (whoever they are) did with the building?
    Given the importance of the company and its work I would think a small museum with recasts of historic bells and information on how they were originally made would be a suitable alternative.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,945
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I pretty much agree with all of that, and linked to it I therefore lament the lack of any serious discussion on the issue. The West (and obviously, mostly still the US) still has the power to change things (a bit, at least). But we don’t and we won’t because of the domestic politics of it all.
    Another plus one. Was involved in a Track 2 meeting many aeons ago. It is not just the British political factions talking past each other. As one Egyptian told me: "Egypt has been around for thousands of years - if we cease to exist for a few decades we know we will be back. Israel has been in existence on 50 years. They don't have our confidence."

    The issue is, how do we get the parties to put their long and complicated history and associated psychological baggage to one side and focus on what can work going forward.
    The general silence of liberal America on Gaza is quite something to behold. Black Lives Matter but Palestinian Lives..... Don't?

    This is especially perplexing when Israel is doing to Palestine pretty much exactly what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd. A slow, steady asphyxiation, laced with contempt, apparently untroubled by the consequences
    You do have a point.

    One distinction, is that the black lives that Black Lives Matter and the millions of all kinds and colors in the USA who support BLM to some degree - these are the lives of our fellow Americans, living in our own country and society.
    The tone-deafness of Kamala Harris is particularly severe

    She tweeted this 20 hours ago, at exactly the time Israel was pouring down fire on Gaza

    "Vice President Kamala Harris
    @VP

    As Ramadan comes to an end, Muslims around our country and the world celebrate the breaking of the fast with family and friends. Eid Mubarak to all who are celebrating!"

    https://twitter.com/VP/status/1392972928376000536?s=20

    She hasn't actually tweeted anything ABOUT Gaza or the renewed violence
    +1
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,362
    edited May 14

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    Ah! Thank you. A complete disgrace but no more than you would expect.
    Not complete disagraces. Bell ends.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937

    Step 3 from MONDAY goes ahead.

    Vaccination gap for over 50 year olds cut to 8 weeks

    Does this apply to Group 6ers? I'll be on 10 weeks, next week.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,673
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I pretty much agree with all of that, and linked to it I therefore lament the lack of any serious discussion on the issue. The West (and obviously, mostly still the US) still has the power to change things (a bit, at least). But we don’t and we won’t because of the domestic politics of it all.
    Another plus one. Was involved in a Track 2 meeting many aeons ago. It is not just the British political factions talking past each other. As one Egyptian told me: "Egypt has been around for thousands of years - if we cease to exist for a few decades we know we will be back. Israel has been in existence on 50 years. They don't have our confidence."

    The issue is, how do we get the parties to put their long and complicated history and associated psychological baggage to one side and focus on what can work going forward.
    The general silence of liberal America on Gaza is quite something to behold. Black Lives Matter but Palestinian Lives..... Don't?

    This is especially perplexing when Israel is doing to Palestine pretty much exactly what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd. A slow, steady asphyxiation, laced with contempt, apparently untroubled by the consequences
    You do have a point.

    One distinction, is that the black lives that Black Lives Matter and the millions of all kinds and colors in the USA who support BLM to some degree - these are the lives of our fellow Americans, living in our own country and society.
    The tone-deafness of Kamala Harris is particularly severe

    She tweeted this 20 hours ago, at exactly the time Israel was pouring down fire on Gaza

    "Vice President Kamala Harris
    @VP

    As Ramadan comes to an end, Muslims around our country and the world celebrate the breaking of the fast with family and friends. Eid Mubarak to all who are celebrating!"

    https://twitter.com/VP/status/1392972928376000536?s=20

    She hasn't actually tweeted anything ABOUT Gaza or the renewed violence
    For politicians these Eid tweets are like wearing a poppy; an aide will have diaried to put one out every year, and then tick it off the to-do list, just so no-one can say “you didn’t put out an Eid greeting”. No thought goes into it at all.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,043

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Sell it to France. The Scots and the French deserve each other on so many levels.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766
    edited May 14

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    Ah! Thank you. A complete disgrace but no more than you would expect.
    What would you prefer they (whoever they are) did with the building?
    Given the importance of the company and its work I would think a small museum with recasts of historic bells and information on how they were originally made would be a suitable alternative.
    Sound good to me, perhaps incorporated into the hotel? Would be a draw for guests esp American when the airways are open again.

    Plenty of conversions of former factories & such, some bad, some good, some very good.

    EDIT - so what you're objecting to is taking out the old workspace to put in a pool? Perhaps they could have both pool AND museum? Though my druthers if you had to choose would be the museum.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,967

    Charles said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
    Just 6 Tory Westminster seats in Scotland...
    So?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,945

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    This doesn't work. It's weak. Does Johnson's mandate come from 360 odd seats or 43% of the vote?

    There IS a democratic mandate to seek a Sindy vote. Westminster DOES have the legal power to frustrate it.

    That's the situation.
    From his majority of seats

    Essentially the only legal course the SNP has is to persuade Westminster to approve a referendum. My argument is that is dependent on the recent age of voters who supported parties that wanted a referendum. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    Whether 50/50 is a strong case is a judgement call. I don’t believe it is
    Can you remind us how many seats Boris has in Scotland?
    Boris: 692,969 voters - 6 seats

    Sturgeon: 1,242,380 voters - 48 seats

    The delights of FPTP. Not that you'll hear us Tories complaining.....
    I don't know why the Tories don't support AV because it would probably give them a much bigger majority in current circumstances.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,967
    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
    RIght, but abortion was a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998 until it was devolved by the Scotland Act 2016. So, any money spent by the Scottish government on requesting that change was ultra vires? That appears to be what you're saying?
    No because it’s part of the ongoing dialogue. Ordering a referendum with significant cost would be
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,673

    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
    You guys drive on the RIGHT side of the road.

    WE drive on the CORRECT side of the road! :lol:
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!

    Nat King Cole - (Get Your Kicks on) Route 66
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuDE1SJlPo
    An almost unique example of Americans manage to pronounce ‘route’ properly!
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,719

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
    Slight difference. Kick racism out of football does what it says on the tin. Taking the knee has become linked with BLM, which also promotes the destruction of the nuclear family and advocates Marxism amongst other things
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,553

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Shoulda been involved in the slave trade, lads.

    https://twitter.com/thedaillew/status/1393242588820475906?s=21

    What does it say? I appear to be blocked.

    Try refreshing it. Seems to work sometime.
    Nah. Didn’t work. Not too concerned. I always feel if someone has blocked me then I win as they must be the most almighty tedious bellend and so I don’t have to see their utter shite.

    Thanks anyway.
    It was just commenting on UKG allowing the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (products incl Liberty Bell, Bow Bells and Big Ben) into a hotel. Whether this is equivalent to taking statues for a swim, is presumably implied.
    Ah! Thank you. A complete disgrace but no more than you would expect.
    But it closed down some time ago. The world simply doesn't have the demand for bells for two consecutive.peting bell foundries to exist in the UK. And to be frank, if we were to keep one, we've kept the better one.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    MrEd said:

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
    Slight difference. Kick racism out of football does what it says on the tin. Taking the knee has become linked with BLM, which also promotes the destruction of the nuclear family and advocates Marxism amongst other things
    Only in your head as a justification for irrational hatred of an anti-racism symbol. Get a grip man.

    Black Lives Matter, the organisation, is a completely separate thing. Does it even still exist?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,247
    Meanwhile, in Gilead:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/14/edwin-poots-elected-dup-leader-to-succeed-arlene-foster

    Poots, 55, is a young Earth creationist from the party’s conservative Christian wing who believes the planet is 6,000 years old, a belief that could impede the party’s effort to court new voters.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,680
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
    Just 6 Tory Westminster seats in Scotland...
    So?
    Why is your party so unpopular in Scotland?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766
    edited May 14
    Fenman said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Sell it to France. The Scots and the French deserve each other on so many levels.
    In that case Auld Alliance would come unglued pretty quickly. Wheres Scots would be a pretty good fit AND get a pretty good deal from USA. And visas versa.

    Actually was thinking of a deal that would best benefit the ENGLISH ir you actually succeed in driving the Scots out of the Union. And still wanted to get anything out it other than (yet) another disgruntled victim of British imperialism crowding around the Commonwealth conference table?

    EDIT - Oh, you mean sell BERWICK to France? Sure, why not, we'd consider it and doubt Great State of Scotland would object IF we/they got duty free wine or the like as a quid-pro-quo.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,362

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
    Just 6 Tory Westminster seats in Scotland...
    So?
    Why is your party so unpopular in Scotland?
    Because it isn’t the SNP.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
    Just 6 Tory Westminster seats in Scotland...
    So?
    It would be better if you skipped the pseudo-intellectual justification and simply admitted that you don't want Scotland to be independent so they can't have their referendum. At least it would be more honest.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,719

    MrEd said:

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
    Slight difference. Kick racism out of football does what it says on the tin. Taking the knee has become linked with BLM, which also promotes the destruction of the nuclear family and advocates Marxism amongst other things
    Only in your head as a justification for irrational hatred of an anti-racism symbol. Get a grip man.

    Black Lives Matter, the organisation, is a completely separate thing. Does it even still exist?
    BLM still exists. Quite a few people doing very well off the back of it.

    As for getting a grip, you inferred Casino would have been one of those against kicking racism out of football, which is quite is a serious allegation. Maybe avoid the hyperbole
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,680

    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
    You guys drive on the RIGHT side of the road.

    WE drive on the CORRECT side of the road! :lol:
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!

    Nat King Cole - (Get Your Kicks on) Route 66
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuDE1SJlPo
    Depeche Mode - (Get Your Kicks on) Route 66
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PnOlP5RR7w
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
    Slight difference. Kick racism out of football does what it says on the tin. Taking the knee has become linked with BLM, which also promotes the destruction of the nuclear family and advocates Marxism amongst other things
    Only in your head as a justification for irrational hatred of an anti-racism symbol. Get a grip man.

    Black Lives Matter, the organisation, is a completely separate thing. Does it even still exist?
    BLM still exists. Quite a few people doing very well off the back of it.

    As for getting a grip, you inferred Casino would have been one of those against kicking racism out of football, which is quite is a serious allegation. Maybe avoid the hyperbole
    I inferred nothing of the sort. I was merely comparing one anti-racism symbol to another.
    If you oppose the take the knee symbol, then surely you must also oppose the kick racism out of football advertising. They are the same thing. They are both anti-racism symbols.

    Like I said — irrational hatred. Maybe you should reflect.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,719

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
    Slight difference. Kick racism out of football does what it says on the tin. Taking the knee has become linked with BLM, which also promotes the destruction of the nuclear family and advocates Marxism amongst other things
    Only in your head as a justification for irrational hatred of an anti-racism symbol. Get a grip man.

    Black Lives Matter, the organisation, is a completely separate thing. Does it even still exist?
    BLM still exists. Quite a few people doing very well off the back of it.

    As for getting a grip, you inferred Casino would have been one of those against kicking racism out of football, which is quite is a serious allegation. Maybe avoid the hyperbole
    I inferred nothing of the sort. I was merely comparing one anti-racism symbol to another.
    If you oppose the take the knee symbol, then surely you must also oppose the kick racism out of football advertising. They are the same thing. They are both anti-racism symbols.

    Like I said — irrational hatred. Maybe you should reflect.
    Reflect on what, pray tell?

    Good also to see that you are the arbitration of what is right and wrong. And the left wonders why it is doing so badly.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    edited May 14
    For what it is worth, I also think the "take the knee" thing before football matches is a little bit stale too, to be honest, like @Casino_Royale said. I don't start frothing with rage every time I see it though, like some we know...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,664

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is grim

    Israeli Jews chuckling as they talk about wiping out the Arabs. Not settlers, "normal" folk

    https://twitter.com/EmpireFiles/status/1393015740291162120?s=20


    Unfortunately, I can believe this is true. I was in Israel ten years ago and I heard very racist stuff from kids, and I feared for the future, then

    “We conquered these places.... they are ours”.

    “Devine justice”.

    Yuck.

    It’s the same lines you get from IS in reverse.

    I do have some limited empathy on the basis that I might just want to carpet bomb Dublin, irrespective of who started the dispute, if the Irish lobbed rockets at us every night for a week; but empathy on an emotional level only. We need to walk them back from the ledge or this will just get worse and worse.
    When I was in Israel ten years ago I witnessed horrible racist chanting at football grounds. It's a major problem in Israeli football

    "Beitar Jerusalem fans: 'Here we are, we're the most racist football team in the country'"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8

    It was largely kids age 12-20, and it was obvious what lay ahead. It is a perverse irony that some Jews have turned into Nazis
    Yes, I’ve always been careful about the sensitivity of that analogy, but it’s hard not to think of it more and more.

    Because this is the internet, and you’re only ever one step away from being called all sorts of names, I will also emphasise that I have no time at all for Hammas. But then the passing of the PLO and a chance for peace was kind of the Israeli’s fault too.
    As regards the fevered digital debate of this issue in the UK, I think both sides merit a tongue lashing and I'm minded to give them one here and now.

    You get some on the left with no direct connection to the conflict who immerse themselves in the Palestinian cause and talk about it incessantly as if this particular oppression by a US enabled Israel is THE most appalling thing that's happening in the world today, or has ever happened in all of history. There are a handful like this in my local Labour party. Or there were, don't know if the end of Jeremy has meant the end of them too.

    Now it could well be that this is driven by an anti-imperialist mindset rather than an antisemitic one (almost certainly is in most cases) but given most Jews live in Israel or America it's difficult - if you're also a bit thick and prone to conspiracy theory stuff - to stop the slide into something so close to antisemitism that it's antisemitism.

    Then you have the other side and oh dear what a cesspit. Supporting an evil undertaking (the systematic treatment of a people as if they were less than human) on the grounds of "Israel's right to defend itself". Or shrugging and saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" when, given the imbalance in casualties, you have to consider an Arab life to be worth a fraction of an Israeli one to get to such an equivalence.

    And yes, sorry in advance, since I know some on here have a fit of the vapours at the very mention of the R word, but race is a factor. It's no co-incidence that people with white supremacy sympathies are prominent amongst those who, come what may, defend Israel to the hilt. These people neither have a direct connection to the conflict. They are the mirror of the unhinged lefties above.

    In fact they are (for me) a good deal more unsavoury. Why? Because the unhinged lefties are usually tumbling into antisemitism through anti-imperialism plus lack of brains. Whereas these people are expressing their pre-existing, innate racism through the Arab Israeli conflict. PLUS lack of brains.
    I must be a bit confused here. You talk of race. I was under the, perhaps erroneous, assumption that the Israelis and the Palestinians were both of the Semitic race of people.
    Is this not the case and, if it is, then would the preference for one side or the other not be based on racial prejudice but rather on cultural or political or religious preference?
    Some semites are browner than others.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766
    IanB2 said:

    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
    You guys drive on the RIGHT side of the road.

    WE drive on the CORRECT side of the road! :lol:
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!

    Nat King Cole - (Get Your Kicks on) Route 66
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuDE1SJlPo
    An almost unique example of Americans manage to pronounce ‘route’ properly!
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument at any truck stop on Route 66! OR within 2,000 miles!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
    Slight difference. Kick racism out of football does what it says on the tin. Taking the knee has become linked with BLM, which also promotes the destruction of the nuclear family and advocates Marxism amongst other things
    Only in your head as a justification for irrational hatred of an anti-racism symbol. Get a grip man.

    Black Lives Matter, the organisation, is a completely separate thing. Does it even still exist?
    BLM still exists. Quite a few people doing very well off the back of it.

    As for getting a grip, you inferred Casino would have been one of those against kicking racism out of football, which is quite is a serious allegation. Maybe avoid the hyperbole
    I inferred nothing of the sort. I was merely comparing one anti-racism symbol to another.
    If you oppose the take the knee symbol, then surely you must also oppose the kick racism out of football advertising. They are the same thing. They are both anti-racism symbols.

    Like I said — irrational hatred. Maybe you should reflect.
    Reflect on what, pray tell?

    Good also to see that you are the arbitration of what is right and wrong. And the left wonders why it is doing so badly.
    You're just talking in hyperbole now.

    You should reflect on why you irrationally hate an anti-racism symbol.

    You can hate the BLM organisation, I know I do, but that has nothing to do with the anti-racism symbol. If you can't separate the two, well, you should reflect on that as well.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,680

    IanB2 said:

    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
    You guys drive on the RIGHT side of the road.

    WE drive on the CORRECT side of the road! :lol:
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!

    Nat King Cole - (Get Your Kicks on) Route 66
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuDE1SJlPo
    An almost unique example of Americans manage to pronounce ‘route’ properly!
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument at any truck stop on Route 66! OR within 2,000 miles!
    Route 66? Doesn't that go from Leytonstone to Romford? :lol:
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,719

    For what it is worth, I also think the "take the knee" thing before football matches is a little bit stale too, to be honest, like @Casino_Royale said. I don't start frothing with rage every time I see it though, like some we know...

    Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you are “frothing with rage”. But you seem to jump to that conclusion quite quickly.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,187
    edited May 14
    Thought.

    Israel GDP per capita is $43,000

    Palestinian GDP per capita is $3,000


    A ridiculous and grotesque disparity........ and maybe one which Israel could help to fix? Have the Israelis ever thought of being absurdly generous? Pour money into Gaza rather than rockets and bombs. If they could briskly raise the living standards of Palestinians from $3000 to $10,000 GDP per capita, a lot of hatred might melt away. Easier said than done, but still maybe worth doing

    I am reminded of Robert McNamara's belated revelation about Vietnam. Basically: "America would have won in Vietnam if we'd dropped refrigerators on the Vietnamese rather than Agent Orange"


  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    MrEd said:

    For what it is worth, I also think the "take the knee" thing before football matches is a little bit stale too, to be honest, like @Casino_Royale said. I don't start frothing with rage every time I see it though, like some we know...

    Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you are “frothing with rage”. But you seem to jump to that conclusion quite quickly.
    You have failed to explain why you "disagree" with people participating in an anti-racism gesture. Please do, without reference to the BLM organisation, which has nothing to do with it.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,784

    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
    You guys drive on the RIGHT side of the road.

    WE drive on the CORRECT side of the road! :lol:
    Now that there is so much touch-screen action in cars, perhaps the rest of the world has got it right, or at least easier. Based on car reviews, it does look like some of those touch-screen infotainment systems are accidents waiting to happen, as drivers look away from the road to navigate down layers of sub-menus with their non-dominant hands.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,392

    <
    In that case Auld Alliance would come unglued pretty quickly. Wheres Scots would be a pretty good fit AND get a pretty good deal from USA. And visas versa.

    Actually was thinking of a deal that would best benefit the ENGLISH ir you actually succeed in driving the Scots out of the Union. And still wanted to get anything out it other than (yet) another disgruntled victim of British imperialism crowding around the Commonwealth conference table?

    EDIT - Oh, you mean sell BERWICK to France? Sure, why not, we'd consider it and doubt Great State of Scotland would object IF we/they got duty free wine or the like as a quid-pro-quo.

    I thought the plan was to sell the whole of the United Kingdom to Disney and, after a few months, it would be re-opened as a theme park called the "United Magic Kingdom".
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    Leon said:

    Thought.

    Israel GDP per capita is $43,000

    Palestinian GDP per capita is $3,000


    A ridiculous and grotesque disparity........ and maybe one which Israel could help to fix? Have the Israelis ever thought of being absurdly generous? Pour money into Gaza rather than rockets and bombs. If they could briskly raise the living standards of Palestinians from $3000 to $10,000 GDP capita, a lot of hatred might melt away. Easier said than done, but still maybe worth doing

    I am reminded of Robert McNamara's belated revelation about Vietnam. Basically: "America would have won in Vietnam if we'd dropped refrigerators on the Vietnamese rather than Agent Orange"


    @Leon. Mate.

    You are the one who literally starts wanking over the prospect with war with France over every slight insult.

    Now pretend you are Israeli. Citizens are getting rockets fired at their houses. Do you think there are significant votes to be won in being nice to the people who attack them?

    No matter who's at fault — that is the reality. People vote for security. They don't vote for perceived weakness.

    It's a flaw of democracy, really.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,648

    Meanwhile, in Gilead:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/14/edwin-poots-elected-dup-leader-to-succeed-arlene-foster

    Poots, 55, is a young Earth creationist from the party’s conservative Christian wing who believes the planet is 6,000 years old, a belief that could impede the party’s effort to court new voters.

    So here’s the thing. He’s mocked because he believes in god and creationism. Well I think everyone who believes in god(s) are idiots. That’s my choice. Why is his belief in his version of the history of the planet any worse than believing any other aspects of religion?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    If we voted 55% to abolish the monarchy but it failed because we had a 2/3rds threshold for "major constitutional change" - which it would be - how would republicans feel about that?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,719

    MrEd said:

    For what it is worth, I also think the "take the knee" thing before football matches is a little bit stale too, to be honest, like @Casino_Royale said. I don't start frothing with rage every time I see it though, like some we know...

    Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you are “frothing with rage”. But you seem to jump to that conclusion quite quickly.
    You have failed to explain why you "disagree" with people participating in an anti-racism gesture. Please do, without reference to the BLM organisation, which has nothing to do with it.
    Because it means nothing and has become a token symbol for people to virtue signal as opposed to doing something and concrete about helping Black peoples’ lives. Look at the States (and arguably the U.K.). The breakdown of the family structure has probably done far more damage to Black communities than some Enoch Powell type lurking in the background. Yet the biggest “proponents” of black lives don’t touch that issue and nor do they try to stop black on black murders, which is by far the most prevalent cause of murders in the US and the U.K. BLM is only interested when it’s a white person shooting a black person. Funnily enough, they don’t seem to be around to stop black people killing each other.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,772

    MrEd said:

    For what it is worth, I also think the "take the knee" thing before football matches is a little bit stale too, to be honest, like @Casino_Royale said. I don't start frothing with rage every time I see it though, like some we know...

    Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you are “frothing with rage”. But you seem to jump to that conclusion quite quickly.
    You have failed to explain why you "disagree" with people participating in an anti-racism gesture. Please do, without reference to the BLM organisation, which has nothing to do with it.
    Sky continue to show the BLM logo up during matches, so I don't think it's right to say that it's a gesture that has nothing to do with the organisation.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    For what it is worth, I also think the "take the knee" thing before football matches is a little bit stale too, to be honest, like @Casino_Royale said. I don't start frothing with rage every time I see it though, like some we know...

    Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you are “frothing with rage”. But you seem to jump to that conclusion quite quickly.
    You have failed to explain why you "disagree" with people participating in an anti-racism gesture. Please do, without reference to the BLM organisation, which has nothing to do with it.
    Because it means nothing and has become a token symbol for people to virtue signal as opposed to doing something and concrete about helping Black peoples’ lives. Look at the States (and arguably the U.K.). The breakdown of the family structure has probably done far more damage to Black communities than some Enoch Powell type lurking in the background. Yet the biggest “proponents” of black lives don’t touch that issue and nor do they try to stop black on black murders, which is by far the most prevalent cause of murders in the US and the U.K. BLM is only interested when it’s a white person shooting a black person. Funnily enough, they don’t seem to be around to stop black people killing each other.
    So how is it any less of a token symbol than the "Let's Kick Racism out of Football" billboards?

    I'm sorry but I still think your hatred is completely irrational. You may think it's ineffective — I think it's ineffective! But to hate it. Come on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,715

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    rpjs said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
    ....

    In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9


    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1393201453863419909?s=20

    Very plausable
    Doesn't surprise me, esp after the prorogation case (which had Unionists astounded as the UKSC wouldn't override Scots law as she is spoke in Parliament Square - remember).

    The law does need to be checked and tested, but the issue always was that the law itself was incompatible with the mandates conferred on the Scottish Pmt. Which will put the ball in the Westminster court sooner or later.
    The MSPs *can’t* get a mandate that is ultra vires. It simply isn’t a mandate.

    It’s like a candidate for PCC in Yorkshire making a declaration of war on Germany the centrepiece of his manifesto. Even if he’s elected it doesn’t mean he has a mandate to declare war on Germany
    That's right, if you are relying solely on a legal technicality, but it expresses what is wanted - a change in the law, and that is in the political realm [edit]. And I'm off to finish what I am doing as we are now at the same old logjam.
    Around 50% want a further referendum. Not an overwhelming case.
    More than half the Scottish Pmt. And most of the Scottish representation in HoC. Which is the way things work in a representative democracy. Which is where we were before. So I'll change the subject now and admire the blue sky asnd puffy white clouds outside.
    Not in ultra vires matters

    - Holyrood has no authority in this matter. It’s composition is irrelevant
    - Westminster doesn’t have a nationalist majority
    - The case that the SNP can make is that there is a moral imperative for Westminster to grant a referendum because there is overwhelming demand. But if you add all the votes cast in the latest election is about 50/50.
    Right, but what does "ultra vires" mean in this context? Obviously it's clear that an Act of Holyrood actually declaring Scotland independent of the United Kingdom would not be lawful under the Scotland Act, but is that the case for legislation authorizing a referendum? Historically, local government in the UK has been very constrained as to what it can authorize the expenditure of public money on, with, in general, any expenditure on a matter not specifically authorized by statute being ultra vires and the councillors subject to surcharge to reclaim such monies spent.

    In recent years though, legislation has been passed to allow local authorities to assume a general power of competence in which the formula is reversed: they may spend public money on any matter of benefit to their community unless specifically forbidden to by statute. IIRC, this power was first enacted by Westminster for English authorities, but at least one of the devolved assemblies (NI, I think) has enacted it for its local authorities. So, if a devolved assembly can confer a general power of competence upon its local authorities, then surely it follows that it itself possesses such a power?

    So in that case, is it ultra vires for Scotland to hold a referendum? It could be argued that all the Scottish government would be doing is asking its electorate for authorization to negotiate an extension of the Scottish Parliament's powers with the UK government. As the Scotland Act (and the legislation for Wales and NI too) has been amended several times since 1998 to give Scotland more powers, and presumably the Scottish government must have spent public money on the process of requesting and negotiating such powers, how is the expenditure on an independence referendum any different?
    All matters related to the Union are specifically reserved to Westminster
    Just 6 Tory Westminster seats in Scotland...
    So?
    Why is your party so unpopular in Scotland?
    It is actually more popular in Scotland than it was throughout the period from 1997 to 2016, the combined Unionist vote still got more than the SNP on the constituency vote last week
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
    I wasn't aware it was possible for a billboard to be self-indulgent, but perhaps I don't know many billboards.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,766

    IanB2 said:

    rpjs said:

    Perhaps with reference to the turbulent, revolting tribes of North Briton, HMG in Westminster is considering (in its secret heart of hearts) taking a leaf from the book of yet another great Tory statesman, Lord Salisbury?

    That is, the Heligoland Solution - selling Scotland to a willing buyer and in the process currying favor, if not with the Scots.

    Give Ireland right of first refusal, which they'd likely refuse, which they likely would for myriad reasons esp. financial.

    Then make a deal with the USA.

    Bet you Biden & the Democrats would jump at the chance. And while Republicans would be wary (if not canny) they'd be hard pressed to ignore the sentiments of their own Scotch (Irish) base. And anyway would be better (from MAGA view) than statehood for Puerto Rico OR District of Columbia.

    Also would greatly facilitate UK - US trade deal, if only to avoid a hard border running from Solway Firth to the Tweed.

    Yes, I know that Berwick is south of the Tweed! Also know that we'd want it back for the Great State of Scotland!!!

    USA! USA! USA!

    Perhaps we could swap it for the US Virgin Islands so we can complete the set.
    As long as you keep the place duty free for the cruise ships, it's a deal!

    And you can keep Berwick (for now).

    Note that drivers in USVI already drive on the wrong (left) side of the road. Though in American left-side drive cars, which CAN get a bit tricky on their winding roads.
    You guys drive on the RIGHT side of the road.

    WE drive on the CORRECT side of the road! :lol:
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!

    Nat King Cole - (Get Your Kicks on) Route 66
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuDE1SJlPo
    An almost unique example of Americans manage to pronounce ‘route’ properly!
    Do NOT attempt to make this argument at any truck stop on Route 66! OR within 2,000 miles!
    Route 66? Doesn't that go from Leytonstone to Romford? :lol:
    How far is it from Leytonstone to Winona?

    According to wiki it's 4,816 miles from Amarillo to Romford. But that's as the crow flies NOT highway mileage.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937
    tlg86 said:

    MrEd said:

    For what it is worth, I also think the "take the knee" thing before football matches is a little bit stale too, to be honest, like @Casino_Royale said. I don't start frothing with rage every time I see it though, like some we know...

    Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you are “frothing with rage”. But you seem to jump to that conclusion quite quickly.
    You have failed to explain why you "disagree" with people participating in an anti-racism gesture. Please do, without reference to the BLM organisation, which has nothing to do with it.
    Sky continue to show the BLM logo up during matches, so I don't think it's right to say that it's a gesture that has nothing to do with the organisation.
    What 'logo'?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,937

    On "taking a knee", regardless of what one thinks of it, I think part of the problem is it going on too long. It's become self-indulgent, tokenistic and rather boring, and has lost any resonance it once might have had.

    If there was 30 seconds silence before every football match for Madeline McCann, Sarah Everard or Captain Tom that would get boring too.

    I assume you also objected to the "Kick Racism Out of Football" billboards being present for years. Self-indulgent tokenism, am I right?
    I wasn't aware it was possible for a billboard to be self-indulgent, but perhaps I don't know many billboards.
    Well the self-indulgence would be from the clubs or the Premier League, in choosing to show said billboard.

    Is it even a requirement or are the players choosing to do it of their own volition?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,715

    Meanwhile, in Gilead:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/14/edwin-poots-elected-dup-leader-to-succeed-arlene-foster

    Poots, 55, is a young Earth creationist from the party’s conservative Christian wing who believes the planet is 6,000 years old, a belief that could impede the party’s effort to court new voters.

    Poots wasn't elected to win new voters, he was elected to win back loyalist hardliner voters who have gone from the DUP to the TUV. He ran on a platform of stepping up DUP opposition to the Irish Sea border precisely to do that, those hardliners care far more about that than his creationism (though he can be pragmatic when required, having done deals with SF and the Irish government in the past)
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,719

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    For what it is worth, I also think the "take the knee" thing before football matches is a little bit stale too, to be honest, like @Casino_Royale said. I don't start frothing with rage every time I see it though, like some we know...

    Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you are “frothing with rage”. But you seem to jump to that conclusion quite quickly.
    You have failed to explain why you "disagree" with people participating in an anti-racism gesture. Please do, without reference to the BLM organisation, which has nothing to do with it.
    Because it means nothing and has become a token symbol for people to virtue signal as opposed to doing something and concrete about helping Black peoples’ lives. Look at the States (and arguably the U.K.). The breakdown of the family structure has probably done far more damage to Black communities than some Enoch Powell type lurking in the background. Yet the biggest “proponents” of black lives don’t touch that issue and nor do they try to stop black on black murders, which is by far the most prevalent cause of murders in the US and the U.K. BLM is only interested when it’s a white person shooting a black person. Funnily enough, they don’t seem to be around to stop black people killing each other.
    So how is it any less of a token symbol than the "Let's Kick Racism out of Football" billboards?

    I'm sorry but I still think your hatred is completely irrational. You may think it's ineffective — I think it's ineffective! But to hate it. Come on.
    Hatred? I go back to what I said before. You seem to view any disagreement as hatred. I think you need to take a good long hard look at yourself.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,187
    edited May 14

    Leon said:

    Thought.

    Israel GDP per capita is $43,000

    Palestinian GDP per capita is $3,000


    A ridiculous and grotesque disparity........ and maybe one which Israel could help to fix? Have the Israelis ever thought of being absurdly generous? Pour money into Gaza rather than rockets and bombs. If they could briskly raise the living standards of Palestinians from $3000 to $10,000 GDP capita, a lot of hatred might melt away. Easier said than done, but still maybe worth doing

    I am reminded of Robert McNamara's belated revelation about Vietnam. Basically: "America would have won in Vietnam if we'd dropped refrigerators on the Vietnamese rather than Agent Orange"


    @Leon. Mate.

    You are the one who literally starts wanking over the prospect with war with France over every slight insult.

    Now pretend you are Israeli. Citizens are getting rockets fired at their houses. Do you think there are significant votes to be won in being nice to the people who attack them?

    No matter who's at fault — that is the reality. People vote for security. They don't vote for perceived weakness.

    It's a flaw of democracy, really.
    I don't ACTUALLY want war with France. I don't think

    Do you have a better idea to achieve peace twixt Jews and Arabs?

    At least this is an idea, and one the Israelis have not tried. Is their present tactic, of sometimes killing lots of Palestinians and generally making Palestinian lives miserable, doing any good? Is it working in any way? Is it making Israel more secure? No. It is storing up historic hatred for Israel and - perhaps worse - turning the Isrealis themselves into blatant racists, which cannot work long term. It IS becoming apartheid South Africa

    I wonder if Israel is like some person who grew up poor, and who therefore still acts poor - eating shit food, taking the bus - even when he is now rich, and could get a lovely taxi?

    Israel has always seen itself as the underdog, the little country battling for survival, so it cannot see any other way of dealing with "enemies" other than hitting them as hard as possible. Well now it is wealthy, sophisticated, well educated, and it has nukes and the Iron Dome, it won't be overrun any time soon.

    This is the moment for it to change perceptions. Act the Christian. Be generous. Shower Gaza with hard cash.

    Buy the Peace
This discussion has been closed.