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.
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
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
But that was outweighed by the list vote.
At least you have moved on from averaging averages of disparate measures.
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'"
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?
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...
I think the trouble is, Gallowgate, and I don't doubt there are some who think like you insinuate (the "white lives matter" crowd) all the baggage that comes with it - there's a far larger number of people who think it's the thin end of a wedge that ends with their country, flag and history being rewritten.
"..they're suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the Left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme; and they're instinctively brilliant at distinguishing between the sentiment and the movement."
< 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".
Once amused a guy who gave me a lift on the Austria autobahn (the coach of the Hungarian alpine Olympic sky team) by telling him (in broken German) that" fur die Amerikaner Europa is ein grosses Disneylandt"
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?
Which other UK party leaders are Creationists out of interest?
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.
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"
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.
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.
You both might be surprised. The French have set up a huge f-y consulate with a very nice bistro on one of the most conspicuous road junctions on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh. DavidL and I discussed it some time back and we both rate the bistro very highly.
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...
I think the trouble is, Gallowgate, and I don't doubt there are some who think like you insinuate (the "white lives matter" crowd) all the baggage that comes with it - there's a far larger number of people who think it's the thin end of a wedge that ends with their country, flag and history being rewritten.
"..they're suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the Left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme; and they're instinctively brilliant at distinguishing between the sentiment and the movement."
This is what Tony Blair was writing about.
That may be true, but it's still irrational. To go from anti racism symbol to "country, flag, and history being rewritten". Well...
Irrational. I'm not going to shy away from calling it like I see it.
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?
Which other UK party leaders are Creationists out of interest?
No idea, but I think it unfair to mock his belief if honestly held. It’s no different from other faiths.
< 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".
Once amused a guy who gave me a lift on the Austria autobahn (the coach of the Hungarian alpine Olympic sky team) by telling him (in broken German) that" fur die Amerikaner Europa is ein grosses Disneylandt"
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?
Nopthing to do with religion. If that is his attitude to science that I do know about, what is it going to be for, say, public health, or toxic waste, or covid?
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.
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.
Hm. Here’s Owen Jones totally not being a gigantic hypocrite on the topic of racism:
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?
Scotland voted 51.6% for Devolution in 1979, but it amounted to less than 40% electorate, even on a 64% turnout..
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.
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
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
Only because you don't like it. Extewnding abortions also had a significant cost.
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"
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
C’mon Bibi, act the Christian!
There was an actually Secretary of State who urged the Arabs and Israelis to ‘settle their problems like good Christians.’
I can’t remember which one. I’ve got a feeling it was James Byrnes but I can’t be sure.
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
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.
And notably the SNP are in favour of AV at Westminster, to their immediate disadtantage.
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...
I think the trouble is, Gallowgate, and I don't doubt there are some who think like you insinuate (the "white lives matter" crowd) all the baggage that comes with it - there's a far larger number of people who think it's the thin end of a wedge that ends with their country, flag and history being rewritten.
"..they're suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the Left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme; and they're instinctively brilliant at distinguishing between the sentiment and the movement."
This is what Tony Blair was writing about.
That may be true, but it's still irrational. To go from anti racism symbol to "country, flag, and history being rewritten". Well...
Irrational. I'm not going to shy away from calling it like I see it.
If you look at the leaders of the BLM movement, that's precisely what they advocate.
Sure, they've taken that down from their website now - and lots of people say they support blm but not BLM - but the brand damage is done, particularly since many councils and institutions have acted (and are still acting) on it like a manifesto keeping that direct link at the front of public minds.
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.
But the point is, it isn't simply an anti-racism message. It's not about kicking out racism directed towards Asians or Jews, for example.
But that's just wrong. That's the classic "white lives matter" trope. So in response, I will use the classic retort: when you use the phrase "save the whales" you're not insinuating that all other ocean life should get f*cked, are you?
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
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
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?
Personally I blame Sir Alec. He had so much promise - and promised so much!
All went downhill, after the unfortunate incident with the grouse, the gamekeeper, the poacher and the stripper.
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
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.
If the Scots vote for independence they can be independent. I think it will be a shame but it’s up to them.
However the majority of people who voted in 2014 chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. They have the right to have that decision respected. After a period of time - I think about 20 years but there is no magic to that - there can be another vote. The exception is if there is evidence that an overwhelming majority of voters have changed their mind. That is not there - the split is about 50/50
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?
Nopthing to do with religion. If that is his attitude to science that I do know about, what is it going to be for, say, public health, or toxic waste, or covid?
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. If you can believe in god, you can believe he arranged the evidence to suggest the planet is billions of years old, whereas it’s really just over 6000. Clever bit of distressing on a barely run in planet. (Note this is not my belief). If he proves to be anti science then fair enough.
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?
Scotland voted 51.6% for Devolution in 1979, but it amounted to less than 40% electorate, even on a 64% turnout..
Because they also used an old electoral roll, so any dead were assumed to vote no. the 40% rule was actually deliberately introduced as a wrecking amendment, against overt (at least) Labour policy.
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...
I think the trouble is, Gallowgate, and I don't doubt there are some who think like you insinuate (the "white lives matter" crowd) all the baggage that comes with it - there's a far larger number of people who think it's the thin end of a wedge that ends with their country, flag and history being rewritten.
"..they're suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the Left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme; and they're instinctively brilliant at distinguishing between the sentiment and the movement."
This is what Tony Blair was writing about.
That may be true, but it's still irrational. To go from anti racism symbol to "country, flag, and history being rewritten". Well...
Irrational. I'm not going to shy away from calling it like I see it.
If you look at the leaders of the BLM movement, that's precisely what they advocate.
Sure, they've taken that down from their website now - and lots of people say they support blm but not BLM - but the brand damage is done, particularly since many councils and institutions have acted (and are still acting) on it like a manifesto keeping that direct link at the front of public minds.
Well I can't speak for councils and other institutions. I don't like virtue signalling from companies either, and that includes Sky.
But at the end of the day, the kneeling symbol, especially when done by sportsmen, is not some big political statement about flags and statues, it's merely an anti-racism symbol.
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?
Disappointed but fine with it. Status quo should have an advantage over major change.
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?
Nopthing to do with religion. If that is his attitude to science that I do know about, what is it going to be for, say, public health, or toxic waste, or covid?
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. If you can believe in god, you can believe he arranged the evidence to suggest the planet is billions of years old, whereas it’s really just over 6000. Clever bit of distressing on a barely run in planet. (Note this is not my belief). If he proves to be anti science then fair enough.
Quite. Some very good medics, chemists, etc. have a blind spot when it comes to geology and evolutionary biology.
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.
But the point is, it isn't simply an anti-racism message. It's not about kicking out racism directed towards Asians or Jews, for example.
But that's just wrong. That's the classic "white lives matter" trope. So in response, I will use the classic retort: when you use the phrase "save the whales" you're not insinuating that all other ocean life should get f*cked, are you?
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
Whether you agree it should be divisive or not is almost irrelevant, though.
The fact of the matter is that it *is* divisive for the reasons I've outlined.
If you want that to change I'm afraid, given what's happened, it needs a new brand, a new (measured) campaign that focuses on bringing everyone together, doesn't threaten what many people value, keeps all the Left-wing cranks away, appeals for restraint from anyone overzealously trying to interpret its message and publicly corrects those that misrepresent it.
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
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.
If the Scots vote for independence they can be independent. I think it will be a shame but it’s up to them.
However the majority of people who voted in 2014 chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. They have the right to have that decision respected. After a period of time - I think about 20 years but there is no magic to that - there can be another vote. The exception is if there is evidence that an overwhelming majority of voters have changed their mind. That is not there - the split is about 50/50
The split in 2013 was about 27:73 IIRC. And your party allowed a referendum then.
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"
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
C’mon Bibi, act the Christian!
There was an actually Secretary of State who urged the Arabs and Israelis to ‘settle their problems like good Christians.’
I can’t remember which one. I’ve got a feeling it was James Byrnes but I can’t be sure.
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?
Nopthing to do with religion. If that is his attitude to science that I do know about, what is it going to be for, say, public health, or toxic waste, or covid?
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. If you can believe in god, you can believe he arranged the evidence to suggest the planet is billions of years old, whereas it’s really just over 6000. Clever bit of distressing on a barely run in planet. (Note this is not my belief). If he proves to be anti science then fair enough.
I've met Mormon biologists in Utah, entirely scientific yet faithful Mormons. They find a way to reconcile the two
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
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.
I quite like the 3 that live just outside Ebbing, Missouri
More I look at it, the more the "mask" looks like Donald Trumpsky! Has same facial expression and even has a mullet!
As for the rest of the scene (including woman's hair do) looks like something you might see strolling around at Mar-el-Lago looking to pick up juicy contracts and/or coveted endorsements (in addition to the COVID).
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"
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
C’mon Bibi, act the Christian!
There was an actually Secretary of State who urged the Arabs and Israelis to ‘settle their problems like good Christians.’
I can’t remember which one. I’ve got a feeling it was James Byrnes but I can’t be sure.
He was SoS from 1945 to 1947.
Thanks, I know when he was in office. I just don’t know whether it was him who said it.
It would have been rather typical of him. Thoughtless, tactless and ignorant of foreign affairs. But dogs and bad names spring to mind.
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.
But the point is, it isn't simply an anti-racism message. It's not about kicking out racism directed towards Asians or Jews, for example.
But that's just wrong. That's the classic "white lives matter" trope. So in response, I will use the classic retort: when you use the phrase "save the whales" you're not insinuating that all other ocean life should get f*cked, are you?
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
Fucking hell. You were comparing BLM to the generic kick it out campaign earlier asking if people get upset about that. Well, here's the difference mate.
And, yes, all lives do matter.
BLM in the USA makes sense as I think there is a specific issue of anti-black racism. That isn't the case here.
But hey, you enjoy calling anyone who dares to disagree a racist.
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.
I would prefer museum. BTW “Druthers” is possibly my favourite Americanism
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
See my later post re distressing. As a scientist I cannot find anything to make me religious, but not all scientists think like me. Some reconcile their beliefs, but I cannot.
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
Interestingly, also a comparatively recent - mostly Victorian - phenomenon.
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.
But the point is, it isn't simply an anti-racism message. It's not about kicking out racism directed towards Asians or Jews, for example.
But that's just wrong. That's the classic "white lives matter" trope. So in response, I will use the classic retort: when you use the phrase "save the whales" you're not insinuating that all other ocean life should get f*cked, are you?
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
Fucking hell. You were comparing BLM to the generic kick it out campaign earlier asking if people get upset about that. Well, here's the difference mate.
And, yes, all lives do matter.
BLM in the USA makes sense as I think there is a specific issue of anti-black racism. That isn't the case here.
But hey, you enjoy calling anyone who dares to disagree a racist.
Good night.
I didn't call you a racist. I didn't say all lives didn't matter. I demonstrated there was no difference from BLM to a generic "kick it out" campaign. And you go off on one...
There doesn't have to a specific issue of anti-black racism in the UK to support the message.
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!
Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
Interestingly, also a comparatively recent - mostly Victorian - phenomenon.
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
For me, anti-evolutionism and rigid creationism have always logically implied a distinct LACK of faith in the power of God.
Just because science doesn't square with a particular interpretation of holy writ, does NOT mean that God hasn't found a way around your objections!
Vatican once made a BIG deal about how Galileo was blaspheming. Until they came to realize that he wasn't. Which made them somewhat (though hardly totally) gun-shy at running around half-cocked in matters of science.
Seems that fundamentalist Protestants have to learn the same lesson on their own.
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.
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"
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
They tried that, IIRC, and Hamas took all the building materials and used them to make tunnels and mortars
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.
But the point is, it isn't simply an anti-racism message. It's not about kicking out racism directed towards Asians or Jews, for example.
But that's just wrong. That's the classic "white lives matter" trope. So in response, I will use the classic retort: when you use the phrase "save the whales" you're not insinuating that all other ocean life should get f*cked, are you?
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
Fucking hell. You were comparing BLM to the generic kick it out campaign earlier asking if people get upset about that. Well, here's the difference mate.
And, yes, all lives do matter.
BLM in the USA makes sense as I think there is a specific issue of anti-black racism. That isn't the case here.
But hey, you enjoy calling anyone who dares to disagree a racist.
Good night.
I didn't call you a racist. I didn't say all lives didn't matter. I demonstrated there was no difference from BLM to a generic "kick it out" campaign. And you go off on one...
There doesn't have to a specific issue of anti-black racism in the UK to support the message.
It's completely irrational.
It’s not irrational. We import lots of shit from America. The BLM stuff just feeds the grievance culture among the black community and I personally don’t think the PL and Sky should feed it.
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"
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
They tried that, IIRC, and Hamas took all the building materials and used them to make tunnels and mortars
The trick would be to get around Hamas, somehow. I admit this is not easy
One obvious thing Israel should have done is: flood Palestine with vaccines. Enlightened self interest. Keep the bug at bay in the occupied territories - that benefits Israel AND buys rare goodwill, home and abroad
Instead, Israel will keep pounding and pounding and winning and winning until it loses
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!
Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!
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.
But the point is, it isn't simply an anti-racism message. It's not about kicking out racism directed towards Asians or Jews, for example.
But that's just wrong. That's the classic "white lives matter" trope. So in response, I will use the classic retort: when you use the phrase "save the whales" you're not insinuating that all other ocean life should get f*cked, are you?
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
Fucking hell. You were comparing BLM to the generic kick it out campaign earlier asking if people get upset about that. Well, here's the difference mate.
And, yes, all lives do matter.
BLM in the USA makes sense as I think there is a specific issue of anti-black racism. That isn't the case here.
But hey, you enjoy calling anyone who dares to disagree a racist.
Good night.
Try telling that there is no anti-black racism in the UK to Dalian Atkinson's family.
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
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
Only because you don't like it. Extewnding abortions also had a significant cost.
Was that cost incurred before the Scotland Act was amended?
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?
Which other UK party leaders are Creationists out of interest?
< 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".
Once amused a guy who gave me a lift on the Austria autobahn (the coach of the Hungarian alpine Olympic sky team) by telling him (in broken German) that" fur die Amerikaner Europa is ein grosses Disneylandt"
I am sure he was amused.
Everyone knows it should be ‘ein Amerikaner.’
He was Hungarian. And I was drinking his home-made palinka (he was not) so doubt my grammar (not so hot in any language) was really the reason.
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
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.
If the Scots vote for independence they can be independent. I think it will be a shame but it’s up to them.
However the majority of people who voted in 2014 chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. They have the right to have that decision respected. After a period of time - I think about 20 years but there is no magic to that - there can be another vote. The exception is if there is evidence that an overwhelming majority of voters have changed their mind. That is not there - the split is about 50/50
The split in 2013 was about 27:73 IIRC. And your party allowed a referendum then.
I wasn’t a member of any party then and I am not now either.
But there hadn’t been a referendum for 35 years. I wasn’t happy that I had never had a chance to vote on EU membership so it’s reasonable people should have a chance to vote occasionally on Scottish membership of the UK
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!
Do NOT attempt to make this argument while getting your kicks on Route 66!
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.
But the point is, it isn't simply an anti-racism message. It's not about kicking out racism directed towards Asians or Jews, for example.
But that's just wrong. That's the classic "white lives matter" trope. So in response, I will use the classic retort: when you use the phrase "save the whales" you're not insinuating that all other ocean life should get f*cked, are you?
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
Fucking hell. You were comparing BLM to the generic kick it out campaign earlier asking if people get upset about that. Well, here's the difference mate.
And, yes, all lives do matter.
BLM in the USA makes sense as I think there is a specific issue of anti-black racism. That isn't the case here.
But hey, you enjoy calling anyone who dares to disagree a racist.
Good night.
Try telling that there is no anti-black racism in the UK to Dalian Atkinson's family.
I didn’t realise that race was part of the prosecution’s case there.
The point I was making was that Jews and Asians and others are just as likely to be on the receiving end of racism as blacks.
We've protected the NHS. We've vaccinated the vulnerable.
Unless SAGE can come up with concrete evidence that this variant evades the vaccine and will fill up wards again then the politicians should over rule their advice.
And by concrete evidence I do not mean one of Warwick's mathematical models.
As @Leon has said: Johnson has to go over this one if it takes off. All the work of the vaccine will be have been thrown away by our PM.
I remember banging on about it and Him at the time, and being pooh-poohed by various people - including Leon IIRC. Perhaps that was one of Leon's earlier regenerations poking through.
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
See my later post re distressing. As a scientist I cannot find anything to make me religious, but not all scientists think like me. Some reconcile their beliefs, but I cannot.
Religion is a matter of faith - it explains what science cannot (yet) explain.
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"
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
C’mon Bibi, act the Christian!
There was an actually Secretary of State who urged the Arabs and Israelis to ‘settle their problems like good Christians.’
I can’t remember which one. I’ve got a feeling it was James Byrnes but I can’t be sure.
As @Leon has said: Johnson has to go over this one if it takes off. All the work of the vaccine will be have been thrown away by our PM.
I remember banging on about it and Him at the time, and being pooh-poohed by various people - including Leon IIRC. Perhaps that was one of Leon's earlier regenerations poking through.
You do NOT remember correctly. I have always been hugely critical of the government's lax approach to the borders, and I was shouting at him to shut down flights with India from the get-go
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"
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
They tried that, IIRC, and Hamas took all the building materials and used them to make tunnels and mortars
The trick would be to get around Hamas, somehow. I admit this is not easy
One obvious thing Israel should have done is: flood Palestine with vaccines. Enlightened self interest. Keep the bug at bay in the occupied territories - that benefits Israel AND buys rare goodwill, home and abroad
Instead, Israel will keep pounding and pounding and winning and winning until it loses
I would say that Israel is its own worst enemy… except that’s not true 😉
We've protected the NHS. We've vaccinated the vulnerable.
Unless SAGE can come up with concrete evidence that this variant evades the vaccine and will fill up wards again then the politicians should over rule their advice.
And by concrete evidence I do not mean one of Warwick's mathematical models.
This is a common error. The variant does not have to evade the vaccine to be a significant problem. It just has to be more transmissible. There is plenty of evidence that it is, we just don't know how much
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"
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
They tried that, IIRC, and Hamas took all the building materials and used them to make tunnels and mortars
The trick would be to get around Hamas, somehow. I admit this is not easy
One obvious thing Israel should have done is: flood Palestine with vaccines. Enlightened self interest. Keep the bug at bay in the occupied territories - that benefits Israel AND buys rare goodwill, home and abroad
Instead, Israel will keep pounding and pounding and winning and winning until it loses
YES! Would have run into high level of refusal no doubt (but they had same issue with their own hyper-orthodox) but the dividends would have been tremendous.
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"
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
C’mon Bibi, act the Christian!
There was an actually Secretary of State who urged the Arabs and Israelis to ‘settle their problems like good Christians.’
I can’t remember which one. I’ve got a feeling it was James Byrnes but I can’t be sure.
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
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.
If the Scots vote for independence they can be independent. I think it will be a shame but it’s up to them.
However the majority of people who voted in 2014 chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. They have the right to have that decision respected. After a period of time - I think about 20 years but there is no magic to that - there can be another vote. The exception is if there is evidence that an overwhelming majority of voters have changed their mind. That is not there - the split is about 50/50
The split in 2013 was about 27:73 IIRC. And your party allowed a referendum then.
I wasn’t a member of any party then and I am not now either.
But there hadn’t been a referendum for 35 years. I wasn’t happy that I had never had a chance to vote on EU membership so it’s reasonable people should have a chance to vote occasionally on Scottish membership of the UK
Regarding the idea of generational referendums. Should it not be that once people not born at the time of the last one are now eligible to vote then the question can be reopened? That seems to have a certain internal logic to me.
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
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
Only because you don't like it. Extewnding abortions also had a significant cost.
Was that cost incurred before the Scotland Act was amended?
Both before and after. The moment one spends staff time and photocopying.
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
See my later post re distressing. As a scientist I cannot find anything to make me religious, but not all scientists think like me. Some reconcile their beliefs, but I cannot.
Religion is a matter of faith - it explains what science cannot (yet) explain.
It’s when it tries to dismiss what science can explain that it just looks silly. Or dangerous.
Tasty match between Yorkshire and Glamorgan, despite the loss of a day. Young Harry Duke looks a prospect.
Will be interesting to see who they pick for the first Test. Looks like Craig Overton for Ben Stokes. Fairly strong rumours that Bracey will play, either as wicketkeeper or in the top three replacing Burns. Lawrence has presumably done enough to save his place.
We could see a side like this.
Crawley Sibley Bracey Root Pope Lawrence Foakes Overton Anderson Broad Leach
Or drop Lawrence and raise Foakes/Overton one place, inserting another seamer - Robinson or Archer.
We've protected the NHS. We've vaccinated the vulnerable.
Unless SAGE can come up with concrete evidence that this variant evades the vaccine and will fill up wards again then the politicians should over rule their advice.
And by concrete evidence I do not mean one of Warwick's mathematical models.
This is a common error. The variant does not have to evade the vaccine to be a significant problem. It just has to be more transmissible. There is plenty of evidence that it is, we just don't know how much
I just don't buy it. The vast majority of cases that have ended up in hospital are the older cohort who have now been vaccinated.
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
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.
If the Scots vote for independence they can be independent. I think it will be a shame but it’s up to them.
However the majority of people who voted in 2014 chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. They have the right to have that decision respected. After a period of time - I think about 20 years but there is no magic to that - there can be another vote. The exception is if there is evidence that an overwhelming majority of voters have changed their mind. That is not there - the split is about 50/50
The split in 2013 was about 27:73 IIRC. And your party allowed a referendum then.
I wasn’t a member of any party then and I am not now either.
But there hadn’t been a referendum for 35 years. I wasn’t happy that I had never had a chance to vote on EU membership so it’s reasonable people should have a chance to vote occasionally on Scottish membership of the UK
Regarding the idea of generational referendums. Should it not be that once people not born at the time of the last one are now eligible to vote then the question can be reopened? That seems to have a certain internal logic to me.
That’s part of my logic for thinking every 20 years is about right.
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
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
Only because you don't like it. Extewnding abortions also had a significant cost.
Was that cost incurred before the Scotland Act was amended?
Both before and after. The moment one spends staff time and photocopying.
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
See my later post re distressing. As a scientist I cannot find anything to make me religious, but not all scientists think like me. Some reconcile their beliefs, but I cannot.
Religion is a matter of faith - it explains what science cannot (yet) explain.
It’s when it tries to dismiss what science can explain that it just looks silly. Or dangerous.
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"
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
C’mon Bibi, act the Christian!
There was an actually Secretary of State who urged the Arabs and Israelis to ‘settle their problems like good Christians.’
I can’t remember which one. I’ve got a feeling it was James Byrnes but I can’t be sure.
Think maybe it was him who said it. As a joke, James Byrnes was NOT a dummy nor an ignoramus.
After Pearl Harbor, FDR turned over a LOT of responsibility for domestic affairs to Byrnes. Who in turn thought that Roosevelt was going to put him on the Democratic ticket for VP in 1944.
Instead, FDR picked Harry Truman (to replace VP Henry Wallace). And when Truman became president, Byrnes, who'd been Harry's friend AND leader in the US Senate, became Secretary of State. Until they had a falling out, and Byrnes got pushed out.
We've protected the NHS. We've vaccinated the vulnerable.
Unless SAGE can come up with concrete evidence that this variant evades the vaccine and will fill up wards again then the politicians should over rule their advice.
And by concrete evidence I do not mean one of Warwick's mathematical models.
This is a common error. The variant does not have to evade the vaccine to be a significant problem. It just has to be more transmissible. There is plenty of evidence that it is, we just don't know how much
I just don't buy it. The vast majority of cases that have ended up in hospital are the older cohort who have now been vaccinated.
We did the maths earlier. There are ~5m vulnerable (over 40) people unvaxxed in the UK. If half of them catch the very infectious new variant in the summer, we would see about 280 extra dead per day, and a total of 250,000 hospital admissions in the same time
That's enough to seriously impact the NHS and derail unlockdown
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
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.
If the Scots vote for independence they can be independent. I think it will be a shame but it’s up to them.
However the majority of people who voted in 2014 chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. They have the right to have that decision respected. After a period of time - I think about 20 years but there is no magic to that - there can be another vote. The exception is if there is evidence that an overwhelming majority of voters have changed their mind. That is not there - the split is about 50/50
The split in 2013 was about 27:73 IIRC. And your party allowed a referendum then.
I wasn’t a member of any party then and I am not now either.
But there hadn’t been a referendum for 35 years. I wasn’t happy that I had never had a chance to vote on EU membership so it’s reasonable people should have a chance to vote occasionally on Scottish membership of the UK
Regarding the idea of generational referendums. Should it not be that once people not born at the time of the last one are now eligible to vote then the question can be reopened? That seems to have a certain internal logic to me.
That’s part of my logic for thinking every 20 years is about right.
Except your lot insisted that voting No was the only way to avoid leaving the EU. And now. The electorate is about 98% different - we're no longer European citizens.
Come off it, you're coming up with a looong string of quibbles like a toddler trying to avoid bed. Which reminds me, I need to pack up. Night all.
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"
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
C’mon Bibi, act the Christian!
There was an actually Secretary of State who urged the Arabs and Israelis to ‘settle their problems like good Christians.’
I can’t remember which one. I’ve got a feeling it was James Byrnes but I can’t be sure.
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.
Couldn't help yourself.
BLM don’t. Where have they been in Chicago, Baltimore et al stopping Black on Black crime?
Anyway Mrs Ed says hi - she is actually black but says she always finds it amusing when some white middle-class right on woke-ist thinks they know the answer.
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.
But the point is, it isn't simply an anti-racism message. It's not about kicking out racism directed towards Asians or Jews, for example.
But that's just wrong. That's the classic "white lives matter" trope. So in response, I will use the classic retort: when you use the phrase "save the whales" you're not insinuating that all other ocean life should get f*cked, are you?
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
Fucking hell. You were comparing BLM to the generic kick it out campaign earlier asking if people get upset about that. Well, here's the difference mate.
And, yes, all lives do matter.
BLM in the USA makes sense as I think there is a specific issue of anti-black racism. That isn't the case here.
But hey, you enjoy calling anyone who dares to disagree a racist.
Good night.
Try telling that there is no anti-black racism in the UK to Dalian Atkinson's family.
I didn’t realise that race was part of the prosecution’s case there.
The point I was making was that Jews and Asians and others are just as likely to be on the receiving end of racism as blacks.
In years gone by, Irish too - speak to anyone Irish who was around in the 1970s and they faced a hell of a lot of racism.
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
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.
If the Scots vote for independence they can be independent. I think it will be a shame but it’s up to them.
However the majority of people who voted in 2014 chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. They have the right to have that decision respected. After a period of time - I think about 20 years but there is no magic to that - there can be another vote. The exception is if there is evidence that an overwhelming majority of voters have changed their mind. That is not there - the split is about 50/50
The split in 2013 was about 27:73 IIRC. And your party allowed a referendum then.
I wasn’t a member of any party then and I am not now either.
But there hadn’t been a referendum for 35 years. I wasn’t happy that I had never had a chance to vote on EU membership so it’s reasonable people should have a chance to vote occasionally on Scottish membership of the UK
Regarding the idea of generational referendums. Should it not be that once people not born at the time of the last one are now eligible to vote then the question can be reopened? That seems to have a certain internal logic to me.
That’s part of my logic for thinking every 20 years is about right.
Except your lot insisted that voting No was the only way to avoid leaving the EU. And now. The electorate is about 98% different - we're no longer European citizens.
Come off it, you're coming up with a looong string of quibbles like a toddler trying to avoid bed. Which reminds me, I need to pack up. Night all.
And in the same referendum your side campaigned for a YES vote which meant instant departure from the EU, so Brexit really wasn't so important THEN.
We've protected the NHS. We've vaccinated the vulnerable.
Unless SAGE can come up with concrete evidence that this variant evades the vaccine and will fill up wards again then the politicians should over rule their advice.
And by concrete evidence I do not mean one of Warwick's mathematical models.
This is a common error. The variant does not have to evade the vaccine to be a significant problem. It just has to be more transmissible. There is plenty of evidence that it is, we just don't know how much
I just don't buy it. The vast majority of cases that have ended up in hospital are the older cohort who have now been vaccinated.
We did the maths earlier. There are ~5m vulnerable (over 40) people unvaxxed in the UK. If half of them catch the very infectious new variant in the summer, we would see about 280 extra dead per day, and a total of 250,000 hospital admissions in the same time
That's enough to seriously impact the NHS and derail unlockdown
How many of them are in the proper at risk age cohorts?
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?
I'll bite. Belief in a creator God is not incompatible with a belief in science. The problem with "young earth" creationists is that they are looking at the science and saying "fake news". They are no better than flat earthers.
See my later post re distressing. As a scientist I cannot find anything to make me religious, but not all scientists think like me. Some reconcile their beliefs, but I cannot.
Religion is a matter of faith - it explains what science cannot (yet) explain.
Matt Chorley @MattChorley · 3h Chris Whitty repeatedly saying at the press conference that older people are more at risk, prioritising vaccine to most at risk is key, and most of the most at risk are jabbed
Matt Chorley @MattChorley I am genuinely perplexed. And have asked experts on the show about this all week.
90%+ of those at risk of illness/death have been vaccinated.
If they don’t think the new variant is resistant to the vaccine, what is the risk? Young healthy people get Covid for a week?
There are arguments out there about how even if the vaccines defeat Covid, we are going to face an horrendously bad flu season this year. I do wonder if there are some scientists out there who have been so impressed by the impact that the lockdowns have had on flu that they secretly think we should be having a semi lockdown season every winter going forward.
Matt Chorley @MattChorley · 3h Chris Whitty repeatedly saying at the press conference that older people are more at risk, prioritising vaccine to most at risk is key, and most of the most at risk are jabbed
He was emphasing all the older groups need to get their second vaccination
Comments
At least you have moved on from averaging averages of disparate measures.
"..they're suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the Left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme; and they're instinctively brilliant at distinguishing between the sentiment and the movement."
This is what Tony Blair was writing about.
To go from anti racism symbol to "country, flag, and history being rewritten". Well...
Irrational. I'm not going to shy away from calling it like I see it.
Everyone knows it should be ‘ein Amerikaner.’
Good weekend all.
I can’t remember which one. I’ve got a feeling it was James Byrnes but I can’t be sure.
Sure, they've taken that down from their website now - and lots of people say they support blm but not BLM - but the brand damage is done, particularly since many councils and institutions have acted (and are still acting) on it like a manifesto keeping that direct link at the front of public minds.
It's an anti-racism message that's highlighting one form of racism that is particularly topical in the western world. That's not saying other forms of racism aren't as bad. It in turn highlights all forms of racism.
It really doesn't need this level of analysis. it really shouldn't be divisive at all. Like I said, I think it's completely irrational.
All went downhill, after the unfortunate incident with the grouse, the gamekeeper, the poacher and the stripper.
However the majority of people who voted in 2014 chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. They have the right to have that decision respected. After a period of time - I think about 20 years but there is no magic to that - there can be another vote. The exception is if there is evidence that an overwhelming majority of voters have changed their mind. That is not there - the split is about 50/50
But at the end of the day, the kneeling symbol, especially when done by sportsmen, is not some big political statement about flags and statues, it's merely an anti-racism symbol.
The fact of the matter is that it *is* divisive for the reasons I've outlined.
If you want that to change I'm afraid, given what's happened, it needs a new brand, a new (measured) campaign that focuses on bringing everyone together, doesn't threaten what many people value, keeps all the Left-wing cranks away, appeals for restraint from anyone overzealously trying to interpret its message and publicly corrects those that misrepresent it.
Anyway, I really must go now.
More I look at it, the more the "mask" looks like Donald Trumpsky! Has same facial expression and even has a mullet!
As for the rest of the scene (including woman's hair do) looks like something you might see strolling around at Mar-el-Lago looking to pick up juicy contracts and/or coveted endorsements (in addition to the COVID).
It would have been rather typical of him. Thoughtless, tactless and ignorant of foreign affairs. But dogs and bad names spring to mind.
And, yes, all lives do matter.
BLM in the USA makes sense as I think there is a specific issue of anti-black racism. That isn't the case here.
But hey, you enjoy calling anyone who dares to disagree a racist.
Good night.
BTW “Druthers” is possibly my favourite Americanism
We are now possibly going to reap his whirlwind.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1393271922595667971
As @Leon has said: Johnson has to go over this one if it takes off. All the work of the vaccine will be have been thrown away by our PM.
More here:
https://historyforatheists.com/2021/03/the-great-myths-11-biblical-literalism/
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1393271922595667971
There doesn't have to a specific issue of anti-black racism in the UK to support the message.
It's completely irrational.
Just because science doesn't square with a particular interpretation of holy writ, does NOT mean that God hasn't found a way around your objections!
Vatican once made a BIG deal about how Galileo was blaspheming. Until they came to realize that he wasn't. Which made them somewhat (though hardly totally) gun-shy at running around half-cocked in matters of science.
Seems that fundamentalist Protestants have to learn the same lesson on their own.
One obvious thing Israel should have done is: flood Palestine with vaccines. Enlightened self interest. Keep the bug at bay in the occupied territories - that benefits Israel AND buys rare goodwill, home and abroad
Instead, Israel will keep pounding and pounding and winning and winning until it loses
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1393271922595667971?s=20
How can a government make the SAME tragic mistake SEVERAL TIMES?
But there hadn’t been a referendum for 35 years. I wasn’t happy that I had never had a chance to vote on EU membership so it’s reasonable people should have a chance to vote occasionally on Scottish membership of the UK
The point I was making was that Jews and Asians and others are just as likely to be on the receiving end of racism as blacks.
Unless SAGE can come up with concrete evidence that this variant evades the vaccine and will fill up wards again then the politicians should over rule their advice.
And by concrete evidence I do not mean one of Warwick's mathematical models.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/28/bethlehem-church-cleaning-monks-brawl
As in Androcles and the Lion.
This is because, when the five Christian churches who share the building kept the keys, it led to actual fights.
There is a ladder above the door that has been left there for over a century because all five would have to agree to remove it and they never do.
Young Harry Duke looks a prospect.
That seems to have a certain internal logic to me.
Or dangerous.
We could see a side like this.
Crawley
Sibley
Bracey
Root
Pope
Lawrence
Foakes
Overton
Anderson
Broad
Leach
Or drop Lawrence and raise Foakes/Overton one place, inserting another seamer - Robinson or Archer.
After Pearl Harbor, FDR turned over a LOT of responsibility for domestic affairs to Byrnes. Who in turn thought that Roosevelt was going to put him on the Democratic ticket for VP in 1944.
Instead, FDR picked Harry Truman (to replace VP Henry Wallace). And when Truman became president, Byrnes, who'd been Harry's friend AND leader in the US Senate, became Secretary of State. Until they had a falling out, and Byrnes got pushed out.
Because Johnson is in charge?
That's enough to seriously impact the NHS and derail unlockdown
Come off it, you're coming up with a looong string of quibbles like a toddler trying to avoid bed. Which reminds me, I need to pack up. Night all.
Anyway Mrs Ed says hi - she is actually black but says she always finds it amusing when some white middle-class right on woke-ist thinks they know the answer.
(Test apparatus for a British fusion project.)
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/First-Light-Fusion-completes-two-stage-gas-gun-wit
Matt Chorley
@MattChorley
I am genuinely perplexed. And have asked experts on the show about this all week.
90%+ of those at risk of illness/death have been vaccinated.
If they don’t think the new variant is resistant to the vaccine, what is the risk? Young healthy people get Covid for a week?
Pure hypocrisy
@MattChorley
·
3h
Chris Whitty repeatedly saying at the press conference that older people are more at risk, prioritising vaccine to most at risk is key, and most of the most at risk are jabbed