"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Depends what you mean by Westminster. If you mean legislation by the HoC, fine. If you mean executive acts of the S o S for Scotland, them's judicially reviewable. I don't see how a request for an indyref would be answered by an Act of Parliament. It would be an executive refusal.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
The slippery slope fallacy doesn't help you here. Clearly you, or your street, could not function as an independent country. You'd be a menace to those around you and such nanostates are not really what anyone is advocating. Clearly Scotland-sized countries are viable. There are many that are smaller.
If you want me to draw a line to say where in between the cutoff is, I honestly don't know. You have a go. But it's not really what's being talked about.
You're just flailing now
I am? Thank goodness I'm not an independent state of one or it'd be all over!
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
Still doesn't make sense, unless Epping primary children breed like, erm, rabbits.
Yeah, it does. They should occur at most once a decade, which is more than, say, once per century.
Not in the HYUFD context. He is always rabbiting (sic) on about generations. That is, the years bit of the ratio. He was saying just now at most once a decade - ie no longer a cycle than 10 years. Like 0.1 cm is a shorter wavelength than 3 cm.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
Still doesn't make sense, unless Epping primary children breed like, erm, rabbits.
Yeah, it does. They should occur at most once a decade, which is more than, say, once per century.
Not in the HYUFD context. He is always rabbiting (sic) on about generations. That is, the years bit of the ratio. He was saying just now at most once a decade - ie no longer a cycle than 10 years. Like 0.1 cm is a shorter wavelength than 3 cm.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
The word Macron uses is métissage. In this context probably best translated as mixed- race. Can also mean multicultural as well as interbreeding.
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
"métissage" in English métissage {m}EN miscegenation crossbreeding crossing interbreeding
métissé
adjective
of mixed race having ancestors (especially parents) from two or more different human races.
French to English: more detail... métissage: miscegenation; mixture of races Wiktionary: métissage → interbreeding, crossbreeding, crossing, miscegenation
The ability of twattish Remoaners like you to bend over backwards and forgive an EU politician a ridiculously stupid and insulting remark is always remarkable. If Boris said the equivalent you'd herniate yourself in your confected outrage
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
Still doesn't make sense, unless Epping primary children breed like, erm, rabbits.
Yeah, it does. They should occur at most once a decade, which is more than, say, once per century.
Not in the HYUFD context. He is always rabbiting (sic) on about generations. That is, the years bit of the ratio. He was saying just now at most once a decade - ie no longer a cycle than 10 years. Like 0.1 cm is a shorter wavelength than 3 cm.
But he didn't mention generations at all here.
So? Who cares? He's only mentioned it 3,341 times. It's his default option.
And in any case, I really do worry what is happening in Epping schools under his supervision (or at least that of his colleagues) if he thinks 10 years is a generation. Not that I am complaining; he's improving.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
The slippery slope fallacy doesn't help you here. Clearly you, or your street, could not function as an independent country. You'd be a menace to those around you and such nanostates are not really what anyone is advocating. Clearly Scotland-sized countries are viable. There are many that are smaller.
If you want me to draw a line to say where in between the cutoff is, I honestly don't know. You have a go. But it's not really what's being talked about.
There are 24 nations in the world with populations under 50,000 ie smaller than most UK cities and 8 with populations under 10,000 ie smaller even than most UK market towns
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
The slippery slope fallacy doesn't help you here. Clearly you, or your street, could not function as an independent country. You'd be a menace to those around you and such nanostates are not really what anyone is advocating. Clearly Scotland-sized countries are viable. There are many that are smaller.
If you want me to draw a line to say where in between the cutoff is, I honestly don't know. You have a go. But it's not really what's being talked about.
Tisn't a size cut off, it's an historical fact - you are a country by heredity or you aren't, same way as you are an Earl by heredity or you aren't - the parallel is exact, though it may not be palatable to the more sansculotte nationalists (all of them). Orkney n Shetland just about make it as a country, 1472 being fairly recent in the scheme of things.
Yes but FG and FF still have combined 10% more than SF and FG and FF are the current Irish coalition government. Ireland also has pure PR STV not FPTP so SF cannot benefit from a split vote amongst its opponents
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
The word Macron uses is métissage. In this context probably best translated as mixed- race. Can also mean multicultural as well as interbreeding.
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
More on this. French Wikipedia gives Barack Obama as example of métissage. Strictly you could say he's crossbred, but it's not the way you would put it, I think.
Mulatto? Quadroon? High-yaller?
And how, metaphorically or literally, does France have Africa "in its blood" than any other European nation which pillaged the continent?
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Depends what you mean by Westminster. If you mean legislation by the HoC, fine. If you mean executive acts of the S o S for Scotland, them's judicially reviewable. I don't see how a request for an indyref would be answered by an Act of Parliament. It would be an executive refusal.
It would be under the Scotland Act 1998 that it would be refused as going beyond Holyrood's powers as set out by Westminster
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Depends what you mean by Westminster. If you mean legislation by the HoC, fine. If you mean executive acts of the S o S for Scotland, them's judicially reviewable. I don't see how a request for an indyref would be answered by an Act of Parliament. It would be an executive refusal.
Quite. As a matter of interest, though, why not an Act of Parliament?
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
It will be interesting to see if the Tories get a Conferene bounce. Perhaps this will be the year that no party gets any such thing. Perhaps they are now "over" as a thing
That said, it is clear which is the bouncier party, after their conference, and their leader's speech
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
Note the important caveat at the bottom. They weren't forced to watch the whole thing.
And I think the Kool Aid swings both ways.
Scott has absolutely drank the FBPE Kool Aid as have others. I expect Boris will be quite happy to take 51% agreeing with him, even if Scott's Kool Aid gang disagree with him.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
The word Macron uses is métissage. In this context probably best translated as mixed- race. Can also mean multicultural as well as interbreeding.
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
"métissage" in English métissage {m}EN miscegenation crossbreeding crossing interbreeding
métissé
adjective
of mixed race having ancestors (especially parents) from two or more different human races.
French to English: more detail... métissage: miscegenation; mixture of races Wiktionary: métissage → interbreeding, crossbreeding, crossing, miscegenation
The ability of twattish Remoaners like you to bend over backwards and forgive an EU politician a ridiculously stupid and insulting remark is always remarkable. If Boris said the equivalent you'd herniate yourself in your confected outrage
This the example French Wikipedia uses for métissage. Would you describe Barack Obama as interbred, crossbred or miscegenated? No but you might say he's mixed race. That's what Macron meant because that's a normal understanding of the word
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
Imperialism - a love affair between two peoples. Or at least, a system where one country gratuitously fucks the other over repeatedly.
Actually, imperialism isn't all one way - it provides internal and external security and infrastructure, for example, that allows trade and growth where chaos may previously have reigned.
But, the quality of life for the average person does depend on the attitude of the rulers.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Depends what you mean by Westminster. If you mean legislation by the HoC, fine. If you mean executive acts of the S o S for Scotland, them's judicially reviewable. I don't see how a request for an indyref would be answered by an Act of Parliament. It would be an executive refusal.
Quite. As a matter of interest, though, why not an Act of Parliament?
Because that's not how things generally work. If you want to tell someone to bugger off, the usual way to do it is to say "Bugger off." Rather than introduce a Buggering Off Bill and have days of debate as to how much Buggering Off there should be, with speeches by the SNP and stuff.
I think. Struggling to think of a parallel, though, and could be wrong.
The 'Ireland should rejoin the UK' still biding its time I imagine, ready to erupt.
All 3 of those Irish parties supported Irish independence from the UK and grew out of Sinn Fein after Irish independence in 1922. Fine Gael's parent party split from Sinn Fein to form a new pro Anglo Irish Treaty party in 1923. Fianna Fail split from Sinn Fein in 1926 when De Valera, at the time the leader of the anti Treaty Sinn Fein, failed to get his party to support a motion to allow elected members to take their seats in the Dail if the Oath of Allegiance was removed and left it to form FF.
Yes but FG and FF still have combined 10% more than SF and FG and FF are the current Irish coalition government. Ireland also has pure PR STV not FPTP so SF cannot benefit from a split vote amongst its opponents
I think 7% is surprisingly good for the Greens at the moment TBH considering the last time they participated in gvt with FF they got wiped out in 2011.
Labour and the SDs are also holding steady on 4% and 3% like they got in 2020 so there is the potential for more efficient transferring/seat gains and SF will put up more candidates next time.
I think some kind of 'left led' gvt is a massive long shot but not completely impossible considering SFs utter dominance with young voters and they probably aren't going anywhere.
Yes but FG and FF still have combined 10% more than SF and FG and FF are the current Irish coalition government. Ireland also has pure PR STV not FPTP so SF cannot benefit from a split vote amongst its opponents
STV is not pure PR, though it's correct FF and FG would be likely to have more seats combined than SF on those figures. It's a surprisingly high figure for FF. I would have expected them to suffer for supporting Coveney in the confidence vote.
The news in Ireland today is that the ruling coalition is on the verge of losing another TD, which would drop their majority to 3. To see out their full term they will have to start buying favours from some of the independents before too long.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
The word Macron uses is métissage. In this context probably best translated as mixed- race. Can also mean multicultural as well as interbreeding.
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
"métissage" in English métissage {m}EN miscegenation crossbreeding crossing interbreeding
métissé
adjective
of mixed race having ancestors (especially parents) from two or more different human races.
French to English: more detail... métissage: miscegenation; mixture of races Wiktionary: métissage → interbreeding, crossbreeding, crossing, miscegenation
The ability of twattish Remoaners like you to bend over backwards and forgive an EU politician a ridiculously stupid and insulting remark is always remarkable. If Boris said the equivalent you'd herniate yourself in your confected outrage
This the example French Wikipedia uses for métissage. Would you describe Barack Obama as interbred, crossbred or miscegenated? No but you might say he's mixed race. That's what Macron meant because that's a normal understanding of the word
it doesn't change what Macron said. He boasted that France, unlike other countries, ALLOWED some Africans to have sex with white French people. That's it. He's also said lots of other stupid things. It is therefore not surprising that his attempt to woo Africa has gone down like a coupe de cold sick
Yes but FG and FF still have combined 10% more than SF and FG and FF are the current Irish coalition government. Ireland also has pure PR STV not FPTP so SF cannot benefit from a split vote amongst its opponents
I think 7% is surprisingly good for the Greens at the moment TBH considering the last time they participated in gvt with FF they got wiped out in 2011.
Labour and the SDs are also holding steady on 4% and 3% like they got in 2020 so there is the potential for more efficient transferring/seat gains and SF will put up more candidates next time.
I think some kind of 'left led' gvt is a massive long shot but not completely impossible considering SFs utter dominance with young voters and they probably aren't going anywhere.
I expect FG and FF would do a deal with Independents if necessary to get a majority if the Greens joined SF and Labour and the SDs
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Depends what you mean by Westminster. If you mean legislation by the HoC, fine. If you mean executive acts of the S o S for Scotland, them's judicially reviewable. I don't see how a request for an indyref would be answered by an Act of Parliament. It would be an executive refusal.
Quite. As a matter of interest, though, why not an Act of Parliament?
Because that's not how things generally work. If you want to tell someone to bugger off, the usual way to do it is to say "Bugger off." Rather than introduce a Buggering Off Bill and have days of debate as to how much Buggering Off there should be, with speeches by the SNP and stuff.
I think. Struggling to think of a parallel, though, and could be wrong.
Oh, it has happened. There was that case where the Scottish Parliament passed an act in re Brexit which was within its powers - only for HMG in London to hold up the court case by delaying tactics while they changed the law.
"The court sparked a row between the UK and Scottish governments by confirming that much of the bill was lawful when it was introduced in March, but had since been made unlawful when the UK government changed the EU Withdrawal Act in the Lords, to further limit Holyrood’s powers."
Basically, HMG realisedf that they couldn't legally say 'Bugger off' so delayed with intent and changed the law, effectively retrospectively.
The 'Ireland should rejoin the UK' movement still biding its time I imagine, ready to erupt.
That the UK should, with a bit of humility, seek to rejoin Ireland would be the better way; an unrealisable dream, but what a wonderful one. What you might call the New Zealand solution to having two islands close together.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
The word Macron uses is métissage. In this context probably best translated as mixed- race. Can also mean multicultural as well as interbreeding.
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
More on this. French Wikipedia gives Barack Obama as example of métissage. Strictly you could say he's crossbred, but it's not the way you would put it, I think.
Mulatto? Quadroon? High-yaller?
And how, metaphorically or literally, does France have Africa "in its blood" than any other European nation which pillaged the continent?
Words that mean the same thing can vary from the preferred to the highly pejorative. Dual heritage vs half caste for example. The weirdest one is "people of colour" vs "coloured people".
My French is not good enough to translate the nuances of the word Macron used.
France has its own approach to ethnicity and Frenchness. Clearly there is a group who sees non ethnically French as a threat to national identity, but on the other hand France officially refuses to collect statistics on religion and ethnicity on the grounds that these are irrelevant to being French, which is seen as an idea rather than an ethnicity.
I am not sure whether the British system of identity politics or the French suppression of identities is best, but it is a distinctly different philosophical approach.
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
The 'Ireland should rejoin the UK' movement still biding its time I imagine, ready to erupt.
That the UK should, with a bit of humility, seek to rejoin Ireland would be the better way; an unrealisable dream, but what a wonderful one. What you might call the New Zealand solution to having two islands close together.
My advice would be for all parties: careful where you leave your consent lest it gets misplaced in future.
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
Of the clips shown as his best bits I've seen better from him, in terms of gags. Starmer's best bits taking on hecklers, though probably prepared, seemed more natural than rehearsed, and 'taking on dissenters' is just more interesting than an optimistic scrabble, even if people might prefer the latter at voting time.
The chat replay on the speech is something else though - PB has nothing on YouTube live chat for schizophrenic commentary:
Jay King - Jokes and gimmicks 🤦🏾♂ Jelly Bean - magic potion is right = pharmakia DIVINE CHAOS - Highest* Ko kyaw Myo - Save Myanmar Matthew - OMG GET A HAIR CUT!!! Barney Gumble A - Boris talking bollox as usual - just want to kill off the poor and disabled in the U.K.! K Philo - Spending it in the first place was wrong. Focusing on care homes and vulnerable never required broad lockdowns. マーティンサイモン - UK on its kness....no wonder Scotland wants out Shepperton Studios - Corduroyed communist cosmonaut was a great way to describe Jezza lmao
Yes but FG and FF still have combined 10% more than SF and FG and FF are the current Irish coalition government. Ireland also has pure PR STV not FPTP so SF cannot benefit from a split vote amongst its opponents
I think 7% is surprisingly good for the Greens at the moment TBH considering the last time they participated in gvt with FF they got wiped out in 2011.
Labour and the SDs are also holding steady on 4% and 3% like they got in 2020 so there is the potential for more efficient transferring/seat gains and SF will put up more candidates next time.
I think some kind of 'left led' gvt is a massive long shot but not completely impossible considering SFs utter dominance with young voters and they probably aren't going anywhere.
I expect FG and FF would do a deal with Independents if necessary to get a majority if the Greens joined SF and Labour and the SDs
On those figures, if SF put up more candidates, there's a good chance of a majority for SF + G + L + SD + PBP/S. It would be a hell of a herd of cats, but I think the chance for a first government not including either FF or FG would be one all those parties would be eager to see.
A long way to go still, but it's notable that the other opposition parties are hardly getting a look in. If the voters do decide to vote against FF & FG then there's not much alternative to a SF-led government.
The 'Ireland should rejoin the UK' movement still biding its time I imagine, ready to erupt.
That the UK should, with a bit of humility, seek to rejoin Ireland would be the better way; an unrealisable dream, but what a wonderful one. What you might call the New Zealand solution to having two islands close together.
Yes but FG and FF still have combined 10% more than SF and FG and FF are the current Irish coalition government. Ireland also has pure PR STV not FPTP so SF cannot benefit from a split vote amongst its opponents
I think 7% is surprisingly good for the Greens at the moment TBH considering the last time they participated in gvt with FF they got wiped out in 2011.
Labour and the SDs are also holding steady on 4% and 3% like they got in 2020 so there is the potential for more efficient transferring/seat gains and SF will put up more candidates next time.
I think some kind of 'left led' gvt is a massive long shot but not completely impossible considering SFs utter dominance with young voters and they probably aren't going anywhere.
I expect FG and FF would do a deal with Independents if necessary to get a majority if the Greens joined SF and Labour and the SDs
On those figures, if SF put up more candidates, there's a good chance of a majority for SF + G + L + SD + PBP/S. It would be a hell of a herd of cats, but I think the chance for a first government not including either FF or FG would be one all those parties would be eager to see.
A long way to go still, but it's notable that the other opposition parties are hardly getting a look in. If the voters do decide to vote against FF & FG then there's not much alternative to a SF-led government.
It does certainly seem likely that FF and FG are now effectively becoming the main centre right block in Ireland, FG a little more socially liberal than FF, FF a little more economically statist than FG with SF the main party of the centre left in Ireland.
The days of the FF and FG battle for power between each other is over, now they are effectively united against SF
I see the usual Scottish Independence Referendum arguments are being rehashed again. As long as Sturgeon continues to lead the SNP, there won’t be a referendum, or even a request for one.
Assuming Sturgeon is still SNP leader at the time of the next General Election, I can forsee three things happening. Some SNP voters will switch to Alba. Some will return to Labour. Some will stay at home.
If this happens, how many seats will the SNP lose? My estimate is that they will lose around 10 seats to Labour and fail to win any seats from any of the other parties.
Would it be enough for Sturgeon to be replaced?
Would it be enough to prevent another Conservative government?
Off topic, why are natural gas prices being quoted in pence per Therm. What sort of antiquated unit is that?
Let's use kWh or kJ. Even MMBTU would be better.
Nah - Therms sound nice and cosy and warm (literally nearly) , KWH or KJ sound soulless without the advantage of making it any easier to mentally picture the amount (unlike say metres can ) .
Also like the fact that oil is measured in barrels !
Pretty much all gas pricing (Henry Hub) is in $/mmbtu.
Can I have an honest assessment on BoJo's speech from those here
The jokes are serious.
That's Johnson's brand, which means there's nothing there now apart from anecdotes, slogans and narratives.
Which I think is what Cummings is thinking of when he says Johnson is unfit for office. Cummings is malign in my view but he is results driven and a good project manager. His slogans "take back control", "get Brexit done" etc served a purpose - to get majorities for Leave and the Conservatives. Now the slogans and narratives are the end purpose.
Can I have an honest assessment on BoJo's speech from those here
Just watched it. I thought it was all over the place. It wasn't overlong, his style is hard to follow but generally engaging, but with that it didn't seem structured so I found it hard to focus on what his key points were - long diversions followed by a whiplash inducing turn to a suddenly important point or theme eg when suddenly bigging up capitalism. Surprised he left it til about 3/4 through to bring up the Labour position around Covid.
I thought his many shout outs to Cabinet Members interesting, as I don't remember as many references in Starmer's speech, though they may have slipped by.
Overall C+. It got the job done, nothing obviously wrong with it. But I'd not have known the theme was 'Build Back Better' without it written in front of him.
I see the usual Scottish Independence Referendum arguments are being rehashed again. As long as Sturgeon continues to lead the SNP, there won’t be a referendum, or even a request for one.
Assuming Sturgeon is still SNP leader at the time of the next General Election, I can forsee three things happening. Some SNP voters will switch to Alba. Some will return to Labour. Some will stay at home.
If this happens, how many seats will the SNP lose? My estimate is that they will lose around 10 seats to Labour and fail to win any seats from any of the other parties.
Would it be enough for Sturgeon to be replaced?
Would it be enough to prevent another Conservative government?
I do wonder TBH. I was surprised how well the SNP vote held together on the constituency vote in May across the board considering the divisions in the independence movement. I expected the SNP to lose a few seats potentially putting the SNP+Grn majority in danger rather than end 1 seat up.
I think there will be a large chunk of anti Tory tactical voting among some anti Johnson unionists for the SNP like 2019 at the next GE but I don't know if apolitical hard core indy voters will stay at home in 2023/24 like 2017 if no indy referendum has happened and become demoralised. Who knows?
As I've said before I think people are simultaneously underestimating the long term resilience of the SNP at least at Holyrood and getting wrong the likelihood of a 2nd referendum EVER happening. This strange new equilibrium could hold for a long time.
A partial Labour recovery in Scotland is possible if/after Labour eventually gets into gvt at Westminster but Labour will probably not get more than 20 MPs in Scotland as a maximum in future.
Comments
métissage {m}EN
miscegenation crossbreeding crossing interbreeding
métissé
adjective
of mixed race having ancestors (especially parents) from two or more different human races.
French to English: more detail...
métissage:
miscegenation; mixture of races
Wiktionary:
métissage → interbreeding, crossbreeding, crossing, miscegenation
The ability of twattish Remoaners like you to bend over backwards and forgive an EU politician a ridiculously stupid and insulting remark is always remarkable. If Boris said the equivalent you'd herniate yourself in your confected outrage
Sinn Féin: 32%
Fine Gael: 22%
Fianna Fáil: 20%
https://twitter.com/PatLeahyIT/status/1445826534682464262
And in any case, I really do worry what is happening in Epping schools under his supervision (or at least that of his colleagues) if he thinks 10 years is a generation. Not that I am complaining; he's improving.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
Opinium results: https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1445844907382480898 https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1445846836925902849/photo/1
And how, metaphorically or literally, does France have Africa "in its blood" than any other European nation which pillaged the continent?
That said, it is clear which is the bouncier party, after their conference, and their leader's speech
Scott has absolutely drank the FBPE Kool Aid as have others. I expect Boris will be quite happy to take 51% agreeing with him, even if Scott's Kool Aid gang disagree with him.
But, the quality of life for the average person does depend on the attitude of the rulers.
Starmer's speech was better received than Johnson's
I think. Struggling to think of a parallel, though, and could be wrong.
Labour and the SDs are also holding steady on 4% and 3% like they got in 2020 so there is the potential for more efficient transferring/seat gains and SF will put up more candidates next time.
I think some kind of 'left led' gvt is a massive long shot but not completely impossible considering SFs utter dominance with young voters and they probably aren't going anywhere.
The news in Ireland today is that the ruling coalition is on the verge of losing another TD, which would drop their majority to 3. To see out their full term they will have to start buying favours from some of the independents before too long.
https://www.ft.com/content/cea9cdd9-c500-41bc-a2ae-2e4c01eaf2e8
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-57319524
"Macron blasted for comments on African women and their ‘seven or eight children’"
https://www.thelocal.fr/20170712/macron-accused-of-racism-for-comments-on-african-women-and-their-seven-or-children/
"The court sparked a row between the UK and Scottish governments by confirming that much of the bill was lawful when it was introduced in March, but had since been made unlawful when the UK government changed the EU Withdrawal Act in the Lords, to further limit Holyrood’s powers."
Basically, HMG realisedf that they couldn't legally say 'Bugger off' so delayed with intent and changed the law, effectively retrospectively.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/13/key-holyrood-brexit-legislation-breaches-law-rules-uk-supreme-court
My French is not good enough to translate the nuances of the word Macron used.
France has its own approach to ethnicity and Frenchness. Clearly there is a group who sees non ethnically French as a threat to national identity, but on the other hand France officially refuses to collect statistics on religion and ethnicity on the grounds that these are irrelevant to being French, which is seen as an idea rather than an ethnicity.
I am not sure whether the British system of identity politics or the French suppression of identities is best, but it is a distinctly different philosophical approach.
Interesting: BoJo 40%, Starmer 41%
Boring: BoJo 22%, Starmer 28%
And the other comparisons are quite a bit worse for the PM. See, for example the numbers for strong/weak.
If he's no more interesting than Starmer, and not much less boring, what exactly is his point?
(None of this really matters for now, but I can't see why the gentle closing of the gap shouldn't continue.)
The chat replay on the speech is something else though - PB has nothing on YouTube live chat for schizophrenic commentary:
Jay King - Jokes and gimmicks 🤦🏾♂
Jelly Bean - magic potion is right = pharmakia
DIVINE CHAOS - Highest*
Ko kyaw Myo - Save Myanmar
Matthew - OMG GET A HAIR CUT!!! Barney Gumble
A - Boris talking bollox as usual - just want to kill off the poor and disabled in the U.K.!
K Philo - Spending it in the first place was wrong. Focusing on care homes and vulnerable never required broad lockdowns.
マーティンサイモン - UK on its kness....no wonder Scotland wants out
Shepperton Studios - Corduroyed communist cosmonaut was a great way to describe Jezza lmao
Chris Curtis
@chriscurtis94
·
7h
The main thing he has going for him [Johnson] is that Starmer and Labour's numbers are also pretty grim.
A long way to go still, but it's notable that the other opposition parties are hardly getting a look in. If the voters do decide to vote against FF & FG then there's not much alternative to a SF-led government.
NEW THREAD
The days of the FF and FG battle for power between each other is over, now they are effectively united against SF
Assuming Sturgeon is still SNP leader at the time of the next General Election, I can forsee three things happening.
Some SNP voters will switch to Alba.
Some will return to Labour.
Some will stay at home.
If this happens, how many seats will the SNP lose? My estimate is that they will lose around 10 seats to Labour and fail to win any seats from any of the other parties.
Would it be enough for Sturgeon to be replaced?
Would it be enough to prevent another Conservative government?
That's Johnson's brand, which means there's nothing there now apart from anecdotes, slogans and narratives.
Which I think is what Cummings is thinking of when he says Johnson is unfit for office. Cummings is malign in my view but he is results driven and a good project manager. His slogans "take back control", "get Brexit done" etc served a purpose - to get majorities for Leave and the Conservatives. Now the slogans and narratives are the end purpose.
I thought his many shout outs to Cabinet Members interesting, as I don't remember as many references in Starmer's speech, though they may have slipped by.
Overall C+. It got the job done, nothing obviously wrong with it. But I'd not have known the theme was 'Build Back Better' without it written in front of him.
I think there will be a large chunk of anti Tory tactical voting among some anti Johnson unionists for the SNP like 2019 at the next GE but I don't know if apolitical hard core indy voters will stay at home in 2023/24 like 2017 if no indy referendum has happened and become demoralised. Who knows?
As I've said before I think people are simultaneously underestimating the long term resilience of the SNP at least at Holyrood and getting wrong the likelihood of a 2nd referendum EVER happening. This strange new equilibrium could hold for a long time.
A partial Labour recovery in Scotland is possible if/after Labour eventually gets into gvt at Westminster but Labour will probably not get more than 20 MPs in Scotland as a maximum in future.