"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
Got it. Thanks. But from Googling I see that Charles Hamilton is in the Guinness Book of Records as the most prolific writer in history, so perhaps Orwell could be forgiven for assuming that this vast output was the work of many hands writing under the same in-house pseudonyms.
But hang on! Orwell was right after all. Charles Hamilton did indeed use substitute writers:
During the 1910s Hamilton's input dropped during his frequent trips to the Continent to visit the gambling tables of Monte Carlo, and for about 20 years nearly 35 other authors wrote stories for publication under the pen names 'Martin Clifford' and 'Frank Richards'; these included Edwy Searles Brooks (1889-1965), Hedley Percival Angelo O'Mant (1899-1955), William Edward Stanton Hope (1889-1961), Julius Herman (1894-1955) John Nix Pentelow (1872-1931) and George Richmond Samways (1895-1996), the latter writing nearly 100 Greyfriars stories among others. Hamilton disparagingly referred to this pool of substitute writers as "The Menagerie". The last substitute-written story appeared in The Magnet in 1931; all subsequent stories were solely written by Hamilton
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
And I wouldn't call it intelligence.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
Are you OK? Sincere question
You're generally a wise and astute commenter but you're advancing some odd arguments
I've heard the "Beatles are crap" argument before. The broadcaster Robert Elms use to assert it (he's an acquaintance) he now blushes and thinks it was an embarrassing pose. But fair enough, it's an argument
Saying that "Orwell is not very bright" on the basis of a couple of odd paragraphs about comics, when you have the overwhelming evidence of "1984", "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" etc etc to set against them, is simply peculiar. To be frank
Orwell wrote two of the most important novels in history. His name now summarises entire political systems, because he had insights which become more prescient over time. The word "Orwellian" is chillingly apt when you look at modern China and the new surveillance state.
Orwell was very definitely a clever man. I don't believe that can be honestly disputed
I'm fine, not even drunk yet. We do seem to be going round the houses about what intelligence means though. I think world class literary genius is compatible with being not overly bright, and pointing to specific examples of lack of brightness. Not just the Magnet thing, also the unconscious English nationalism in the anti nationalism piece. You can add in the wholly misjudged attempt to rehabilitate Kipling if you like.
And I genuinely don't like the Beatles.
It seems you believe that there is one kind of intelligence.
I actually read his comment as saying the opposite, hence a genius of one thing could be not bright elsewhere.
Ah! My bad. But if that were the case, surely it can't be argued that Orwell was lacking in intelligence?
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
And I wouldn't call it intelligence.
Look again at this belly flop
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
The more distinctive the style is, the stronger evidence that is for multiple authorship? Really?
Plus, he could have asked someone. Not a state secret.
Are you OK? Sincere question
You're generally a wise and astute commenter but you're advancing some odd arguments
I've heard the "Beatles are crap" argument before. The broadcaster Robert Elms use to assert it (he's an acquaintance) he now blushes and thinks it was an embarrassing pose. But fair enough, it's an argument
Saying that "Orwell is not very bright" on the basis of a couple of odd paragraphs about comics, when you have the overwhelming evidence of "1984", "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" etc etc to set against them, is simply peculiar. To be frank
Orwell wrote two of the most important novels in history. His name now summarises entire political systems, because he had insights which become more prescient over time. The word "Orwellian" is chillingly apt when you look at modern China and the new surveillance state.
Orwell was very definitely a clever man. I don't believe that can be honestly disputed
I'm fine, not even drunk yet. We do seem to be going round the houses about what intelligence means though. I think world class literary genius is compatible with being not overly bright, and pointing to specific examples of lack of brightness. Not just the Magnet thing, also the unconscious English nationalism in the anti nationalism piece. You can add in the wholly misjudged attempt to rehabilitate Kipling if you like.
And I genuinely don't like the Beatles.
It seems you believe that there is one kind of intelligence. I thought the world had moved on from that idea.
No, I just find it helpful not to lump things which are different from and quite possibly more valuable than intelligence, all under the one heading. Aristotle rather relevantly said that intelligence is about seeing differences between things while imagination is about seeing similarities.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
The euro was both those things
It was hoped that it would increase trade and growth. Did it? Maybe a bit, but not much, and definitely not as much as hoped
No, it devastated growth, especially in southern Europe, as the microeconomic advantages of trade facilitation were swamped by the macroeconomic disadvantages of different countries having the same monetary and exchange rate policies.
As predicted by virtually every reputable economist.
And thoroughly ignored by the EU establishment, Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and many others.
Well, if you want to be locked into a fixed currency, you need to have a flexible labour market to enable you to do internal devaluations. (And the same is true - of course - of the gold standard.)
The European countries which have done best in the Euro, are those with flexible labour markets.
(It is notable that until the Schroder reforms of the early 2000s, Germany did not have a flexible labour market.)
Spain (and to a lesser extent Portugal) did implement labour market reforms in the wake of the Eurozone crisis. And both have recovered strongly.
There's a certain irony that if you want the Euro to work for you, you need Anglo Saxon economics policies.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
Given this case seems to have legislation designed to be found at fault by the Court, I can't see why they'd consider there a downside to attempting an advisory referendum. If lawful all the good, if not then look at Westminster trying to prevent us having a voice et al.
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
Got it. Thanks. But from Googling I see that Charles Hamilton is in the Guinness Book of Records as the most prolific writer in history, so perhaps Orwell could be forgiven for assuming that this vast output was the work of many hands writing under the same in-house pseudonyms.
Golly. 100m words, equivalent to 1200 average length novels.
Any of it still read today?
I had a look, as I read the Bunter novels as a child - they were routinely available in the 1960s and 1970s in paperback (and IIRC in comic strip form in one comic, though I may be conflating that with something else).
Todfay on Amazon, the only new Frank Richards books in the first two pages of search hits are the two (excellent, btw) memoirs of the quite different old Welsh soldier.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It isn't an "English" court you absolute numpty. It is a UK court. You really make yourself look very foolish and ignorant on this "colony" crap as well. I will write it for you again and you can read it very slowly.
Scots were massively enthusiastic colonialists. Since the Act of Union they have always been massively over represented in the British establishment and still are today. You also may want to look up a Scottish family called "The Stewarts". They ruled once England would you believe?!
Off topic - Anyone here got any advice for my daughter please? 3rd year history student wants a career in HR. Only non scientist in the family so we are floundering re advice to give her. Cheers in advance.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
"I support the Union of the Kingdoms" is hairy, eats Pal and Winalot, growls, and pees on a tree.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Certainly I think where we know someone was a genius in one respect it's reasonable to assume they were not a total fool in others, without evidence.
Off topic - Anyone here got any advice for my daughter please? 3rd year history student wants a career in HR. Only non scientist in the family so we are floundering re advice to give her. Cheers in advance.
Do an MSc in social psychology, organizational behaviour or some such.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
lol
We've had some odd arguments on PB in our time, but I never expected to be defending the notions that "George Orwell was not a moron" and "Shakespeare was actually quite bright"
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
"I support the Union of the Kingdoms" is hairy, eats Pal and Winalot, growls, and pees on a tree.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 2h Sweden 🇸🇪 has dropped to 50th in the ranking of total Covid deaths per capita since the pandemic began. Almost every other country ranked above Sweden had lockdowns, mask mandates and draconian restrictions. Sweden meanwhile, largely kept its society open and freedoms intact.
Sure: but the biggest determinant of Covid deaths is going be the number of intergenerational households (and as a secondary, the number of people per household). So you need to control for that.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
If it’s ultra vires for the Scottish government to do anything with regard to reserved matters under the Scotland Act, how was it legal for them to propose and consult on all the various amendments to the Scotland Act that have granted Scotland more powers since 1999?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
As far as I can see it is merely a discussion as to whether Holyrood can hold a referendum which Westminster would ignore the result of anyway or not.
Either way it would have no affect on the Union which would remain reserved to Westminster to decide
At least we're all clear now that it is not a union of consent.
Nationalist crap. When you had a referendum you opted by a majority to remain in the Union and to allow such matters to be reserved to Westminster. In fact the vast vast majority of the land mass of Scotland voted that way and only tiny little areas with a high concentration of swivel-eyed English haters actually voted for division.
Personally, I think if Glasgow wants independence, I think it should be granted. In fact it would be a good thing if it was given independence even if it doesn't want it!
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
"I support the Union of the Kingdoms" is hairy, eats Pal and Winalot, growls, and pees on a tree.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It isn't an "English" court you absolute numpty. It is a UK court. You really make yourself look very foolish and ignorant on this "colony" crap as well. I will write it for you again and you can read it very slowly.
Scots were massively enthusiastic colonialists. Since the Act of Union they have always been massively over represented in the British establishment and still are today. You also may want to look up a Scottish family called "The Stewarts". They ruled once England would you believe?!
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
Got it. Thanks. But from Googling I see that Charles Hamilton is in the Guinness Book of Records as the most prolific writer in history, so perhaps Orwell could be forgiven for assuming that this vast output was the work of many hands writing under the same in-house pseudonyms.
But hang on! Orwell was right after all. Charles Hamilton did indeed use substitute writers:
During the 1910s Hamilton's input dropped during his frequent trips to the Continent to visit the gambling tables of Monte Carlo, and for about 20 years nearly 35 other authors wrote stories for publication under the pen names 'Martin Clifford' and 'Frank Richards'; these included Edwy Searles Brooks (1889-1965), Hedley Percival Angelo O'Mant (1899-1955), William Edward Stanton Hope (1889-1961), Julius Herman (1894-1955) John Nix Pentelow (1872-1931) and George Richmond Samways (1895-1996), the latter writing nearly 100 Greyfriars stories among others. Hamilton disparagingly referred to this pool of substitute writers as "The Menagerie". The last substitute-written story appeared in The Magnet in 1931; all subsequent stories were solely written by Hamilton
I did not know that, and it kind of demolishes the point. Well googled!
But nb Hamilton wrote 80%+ of one and two thirds of the other and millions of other words as well, so the "far too much for one man to write" argument is still wrong.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
"I support the Union of the Kingdoms" is hairy, eats Pal and Winalot, growls, and pees on a tree.
The Union of the Kingdoms is.... God?
Wrong way round. As Father Brown once said.
Indeed. Bu do we know whether Father Brown was dyslexic or not?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
As far as I can see it is merely a discussion as to whether Holyrood can hold a referendum which Westminster would ignore the result of anyway or not.
Either way it would have no affect on the Union which would remain reserved to Westminster to decide
At least we're all clear now that it is not a union of consent.
Nationalist crap. When you had a referendum you opted by a majority to remain in the Union and to allow such matters to be reserved to Westminster. In fact the vast vast majority of the land mass of Scotland voted that way and only tiny little areas with a high concentration of swivel-eyed English haters actually voted for division.
Personally, I think if Glasgow wants independence, I think it should be granted. In fact it would be a good thing if it was given independence even if it doesn't want it!
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It isn't an "English" court you absolute numpty. It is a UK court. You really make yourself look very foolish and ignorant on this "colony" crap as well. I will write it for you again and you can read it very slowly.
Scots were massively enthusiastic colonialists. Since the Act of Union they have always been massively over represented in the British establishment and still are today. You also may want to look up a Scottish family called "The Stewarts". They ruled once England would you believe?!
Given the site's anthing or one but Noris stance, I am interested to speculate how an appalling poll for Labour might be spun on a future thread as somehow good for Starmer.
Anyone care what form this premise might be expounded ? I suspect the poll will be ignored.
You seemed to have moved on from complaining about all the biased articles to the bias in ones that haven't been written yet.
Well, given past history, there is going to ve bias isnt there. Its not going to ve favourable to Boris is it.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
Under the Scotland Act a provision is not law if it is outside their competence, and this is the case if it 'relates to' reserved matters. It is not contested that the Union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter.
The question is whether a Scottish Act for an advisory referendum on the Union of the Kingdoms is something which 'relates to' the Union of the Kingdoms.
Depending on who is paying you a series of eminent silks will be found to say 'Yes it does' and a long robed queue will form to say 'No it doesn't.'
It won't detain the SC long. The answer is 'Yes it does'. The obvious answer is also the correct one.
I have no dog in the fight; except that I support the Union of the Kingdoms and believe that if the Scottish parliament were so daft as to start on this it would do the union no harm.
"I support the Union of the Kingdoms" is hairy, eats Pal and Winalot, growls, and pees on a tree.
The Union of the Kingdoms is.... God?
Wrong way round. As Father Brown once said.
Indeed. Bu do we know whether Father Brown was dyslexic or not?
Is it possible to know that of a fictional character when G. K. Chesterton is long dead?
But as a RC priest - he was, wasn't he? - he'd have found the Latin tricky, no?
That gentle decline of fuel stocks over September we saw in the Sky chart yesterday was caused by a switch to a different type of fuel, not a lack of deliveries.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 2h Sweden 🇸🇪 has dropped to 50th in the ranking of total Covid deaths per capita since the pandemic began. Almost every other country ranked above Sweden had lockdowns, mask mandates and draconian restrictions. Sweden meanwhile, largely kept its society open and freedoms intact.
Sure: but the biggest determinant of Covid deaths is going be the number of intergenerational households (and as a secondary, the number of people per household). So you need to control for that.
Sweden has a lot of single person living, so could be a factor.
"And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.(1) Consequently they have to be written in a style that is easily imitated — an extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from anything else now existing in English literature..."
Orwell on Boys weeklies. The joke being that Frank Richards and Martin Clifford weren't in fact just individuals, they were the same individual.
Not very bright.
Run that one past me again.
We have two long running stories in the Gem and the Magnet, by Martin Clifford and Frank Richards respectively. Orwell thinks each name hides a team of dozens of writers. In fact every word of both stories was written by the same bloke, Charles Hamilton.
Got it. Thanks. But from Googling I see that Charles Hamilton is in the Guinness Book of Records as the most prolific writer in history, so perhaps Orwell could be forgiven for assuming that this vast output was the work of many hands writing under the same in-house pseudonyms.
But hang on! Orwell was right after all. Charles Hamilton did indeed use substitute writers:
During the 1910s Hamilton's input dropped during his frequent trips to the Continent to visit the gambling tables of Monte Carlo, and for about 20 years nearly 35 other authors wrote stories for publication under the pen names 'Martin Clifford' and 'Frank Richards'; these included Edwy Searles Brooks (1889-1965), Hedley Percival Angelo O'Mant (1899-1955), William Edward Stanton Hope (1889-1961), Julius Herman (1894-1955) John Nix Pentelow (1872-1931) and George Richmond Samways (1895-1996), the latter writing nearly 100 Greyfriars stories among others. Hamilton disparagingly referred to this pool of substitute writers as "The Menagerie". The last substitute-written story appeared in The Magnet in 1931; all subsequent stories were solely written by Hamilton
I did not know that, and it kind of demolishes the point. Well googled!
But nb Hamilton wrote 80%+ of one and two thirds of the other and millions of other words as well, so the "far too much for one man to write" argument is still wrong.
Oh dear. Not your finest day on PB?
I sincerely hope you regain your scattered wits soon, old chap
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
But Greece wasn't the Euro's fault. It was the Euro being abused and acting in self-defence.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
lol
We've had some odd arguments on PB in our time, but I never expected to be defending the notions that "George Orwell was not a moron" and "Shakespeare was actually quite bright"
You and your outlandish views, eh?
You'll be telling me next that Brunel was a more average engineer and Newton was quite good at maths and science.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Certainly I think where we know someone was a genius in one respect it's reasonable to assume they were not a total fool in others, without evidence.
That's what Twitter is for today.
Well, look at Lord Sumption, whom I revered (I really did) as a man of godlike intelligence and ability until some time in 2020. Now, less so.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
I visited the museum where the David is, out of season, many years ago. Nice and empty, and you could take your time.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Certainly I think where we know someone was a genius in one respect it's reasonable to assume they were not a total fool in others, without evidence.
That's what Twitter is for today.
Well, look at Lord Sumption, whom I revered (I really did) as a man of godlike intelligence and ability until some time in 2020. Now, less so.
Having read some of his stuff and found it compelling, the problem when he gets onto Covid issues seems to be laziness.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
lol
We've had some odd arguments on PB in our time, but I never expected to be defending the notions that "George Orwell was not a moron" and "Shakespeare was actually quite bright"
Nor indeed the Beatles were better than your average pub band.
Dan Bloom @danbloom1 · 3h Tory minister Nadine Dorries claims Universal Credit cut won't push a single person into poverty
I don't usually go for strong language, but this cut really is the single most revolting political act since the Tories won power in 2010. Dressed up as "reversing an uplift", whereas in fact inflation and living costs are spiralling very significantly higher than it was introduced ; economically idiotic, in extracting demand from the economy just at the moment it heads into the most uncertain period of last few years ; and crowning it all, morally dishonest, dressed up as "in favour of the workers of the workshy", when in fact very significant numbers affected will already be in work.
Discussing with two people I know serving on the management of Trussel, they expect foodbank use to explode again ; homelessness will also rise again, as was documented during the 2014-2015 cut ; and rates of mental illness will rise again.
I didn't think Johnson and others would be so backward, especially after Johnson's noises on keeping welfare "security " during his first budget, and that they take account of polled shifts of public opinion during the pandemic ; but no, back to the very moral and economic worst and dregs of the Osborne era.
I hope Johnson, Dorries, and others will have some of the wide-ranging results of this on their conscience some point, because they will deserve to.
Truly repulsive.
Maybe wait for the budget where I expect the issue and minimum wage to be addressed
Addressed how?
At a 75% combined real tax/taper to recoup £20 decrease someone working full time for 37.5 hours per week would need just over a £2.13 per hour pay rise just to break even.
Unless you address the taper, the vast majority of the increase in any wage rate is just going back to the Treasury anyway.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
As far as I can see it is merely a discussion as to whether Holyrood can hold a referendum which Westminster would ignore the result of anyway or not.
Either way it would have no affect on the Union which would remain reserved to Westminster to decide
At least we're all clear now that it is not a union of consent.
Nationalist crap. When you had a referendum you opted by a majority to remain in the Union and to allow such matters to be reserved to Westminster. In fact the vast vast majority of the land mass of Scotland voted that way and only tiny little areas with a high concentration of swivel-eyed English haters actually voted for division.
Personally, I think if Glasgow wants independence, I think it should be granted. In fact it would be a good thing if it was given independence even if it doesn't want it!
I'm on your side here, mostly, but I'm not sure 'the land mass voted X way' is the most compelling point.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It isn't an "English" court you absolute numpty. It is a UK court. You really make yourself look very foolish and ignorant on this "colony" crap as well. I will write it for you again and you can read it very slowly.
Scots were massively enthusiastic colonialists. Since the Act of Union they have always been massively over represented in the British establishment and still are today. You also may want to look up a Scottish family called "The Stewarts". They ruled once England would you believe?!
Wasn't the presiding judge also a Scot?
Not sure, but my understanding is that by convention there has to be 2 Scottish judges and one from NI. I suppose if one is as prejudiced and blinkered as Malc you would probably find some English lineage in them to discredit their tartan credentials
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
I visited the museum where the David is, out of season, many years ago. Nice and empty, and you could take your time.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
Then she asked me if Michelangelo was gay.
The David's penis is disproportionately small (as is also usually the case with ancient Greek statues).
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It isn't an "English" court you absolute numpty. It is a UK court. You really make yourself look very foolish and ignorant on this "colony" crap as well. I will write it for you again and you can read it very slowly.
Scots were massively enthusiastic colonialists. Since the Act of Union they have always been massively over represented in the British establishment and still are today. You also may want to look up a Scottish family called "The Stewarts". They ruled once England would you believe?!
F**K off you complete cretinous balloon, and keep doing it till you get back and then F**K off again.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
I visited the museum where the David is, out of season, many years ago. Nice and empty, and you could take your time.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
Then she asked me if Michelangelo was gay.
She could probably have looked at some of his female nudes and asked the same question.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
I visited the museum where the David is, out of season, many years ago. Nice and empty, and you could take your time.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
Then she asked me if Michelangelo was gay.
The David's penis is disproportionately small (as is also usually the case with ancient Greek statues).
Not necessarily, re David. Some folk have almost fully retractable front undercarriage, so to speak.
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
Except that under the Localism Act local authorities in England can apply for and be granted a general power of competence that allows them to spend public funds on any purpose that they deem beneficial to their community that is not specifically forbidden by law.
Northern Ireland and Wales have enacted similar provisions for their local authorities. It does not make sense that the devolved administrations would have the power to grant such general power of competence to their lower tiers but not possess it themselves.
All the powers you describe are ultimately creations of statute. If the Scottish parliament has a power to allow Argyll and Bute to put up public telescopes that does not give it the power to act ultra vires itself.
Agreed, but I am arguing with the position that Scotland’s powers fall into the “everything is permitted that is not specifically forbidden” category, rather than the reverse which indeed was the case for all bodies in the UK below Parliament prior to the early part of this century.
I found a Parliamentary briefing paper that describes the general power of competence broadly as allowing local authorities to do “anything an individual can do”. As an individual I can ask anyone whether Scotland should be an independent state, so why can’t the Scottish government?
Just in case anyone missed it (perish the thought) any options for a legal route to IndyRef2 without Westminster approval have been well and truly quashed by the Supreme Court. ScotGov tried their luck with a bill which transgressed into Westminster territory, which was obviously designed as a test of the system.
"The judgement by Lord Reed, one of Scotland’s most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach.”
Lord Reed is the senior judge on the Court. He was not amused.
There is a glaring loophole that means that a referendum might be lawful and consistent with this judgment though. Miller is why I think the SNP could win in SCOTUK the right to hold a referendum.
Don't think the SNP share your confidence judging by their comportment following the judgement. The fizz is going out of this whole issue. Nicola just going through the motions now.
I'm not confident, but nor do I think Nicola even wants the referendum anyway. I think she'd prefer to be rejected and stoke a grievance and continue living it up at Bute House than hold a referendum and lose.
However Miller provides a legal logic for why this could be legal. Logically:
1. Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) rules out any laws that conflict with reserved matters. 2. Miller ruled that all referendum are merely advisory. 3. Miller further ruled that referenda can not override Parliament 4. An independence referendum can not make Scotland independent as per Miller 5. It would be up to Parliament to decide how it wants to respond to any referendum 6. Parliament could even ignore a referendum. 7. Therefore a referendum does not conflict with reserved matters. 8. Therefore a referendum is legal.
Yeah, right. The whole thing is laughable even if its "logical". Going nowhere.
I think you may be right about Sturgeon although she stands to lose £50 if she does go early.
It may be laughable, but if its logical it could be legal. The law can do funny things sometimes once you've got a chain of logic lined up then that can become the law. I'm sure if SCOTUK agreed with that logic they'd write it in much better legalese but it could follow that path.
The key point is that since Miller has already clarified that referenda are advisory and can't change the law, then that opens up the window to have a referendum while saying that the final decision is still reserved to Westminster.
Since referenda can't change the law, there is potentially no conflict in having one since its only advisory and Westminster can ignore it anyway.
My guess is that if the SNP do frame legislation there will be a legal challenge from a unionist "Miller" before it takes place. The point you make is interesting because perhaps Sturgeon will make the case that the referendum is "advisory" and therefore legal.
SFAICS while the UK parliament can do as it likes (the fact it couldn't in the EU days was one of the objections to it) all subsidiary governing bodies, down to Great Snoring Parish Council can only do what a UK statute ultimately empowers them to do.
The question about a Scottish inspired advisory referendum will be: where is the enactment which allows it? Can our Scottish friends help?
That a rather Napoleonic outlook. "Everything is forbidden unless it's allowed".
The Scottish Parliament isn't only allowed to do what it's allowed to do. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes so long as it's not forbidden to do it. "Everything is allowed unless it's forbidden".
So the question is where is the enactment which forbids it? If by being advisory as per Miller the referenda isn't reserved then what's forbidding it?
You are confusing the general law of individual freedom and the law of local government. Local government at every level is a creation of statute. Its actions, unless authorised by law, are ultra vires and as such illegal.
The Scotland Act seems to think otherwise; s 29 says what it *cannot* do and implies that anything else, it can.
What it can't do is things that relate to reserved matters. The union is a reserved matter and it seems to me a referendum relates to the Union whether it's advisory or not. But so what? S 29 says an Act is "not law" if it relates to a reserved matter, it doesn't say it's otherwise wrong or ultra vires. So if the Parliament votes for a referendum and holds one, there's no sanction.
Injunction. Ultimately 'Misconduct in public office'. This won't fly.
Well, OK, if you think the Scotland Act confers specific and limited vires which the Parliament cannot act ultra where does it do that? Contrast the lga 1972 which exhaustively lists the functions of a la.
Reading this discussion with considerable interest. Much better than going on about the supremacy of Westminster and generations.
As far as I can see it is merely a discussion as to whether Holyrood can hold a referendum which Westminster would ignore the result of anyway or not.
Either way it would have no affect on the Union which would remain reserved to Westminster to decide
At least we're all clear now that it is not a union of consent.
Nationalist crap. When you had a referendum you opted by a majority to remain in the Union and to allow such matters to be reserved to Westminster. In fact the vast vast majority of the land mass of Scotland voted that way and only tiny little areas with a high concentration of swivel-eyed English haters actually voted for division.
Personally, I think if Glasgow wants independence, I think it should be granted. In fact it would be a good thing if it was given independence even if it doesn't want it!
I'm on your side here, mostly, but I'm not sure 'the land mass voted X way' is the most compelling point.
Well, I confess to be trolling, but the more important thing is that there are vast geographical areas of "Scotland" that do not want independence. If the folk of Glasgow can be independent of Westminster, why shouldn't the folk of Orkney or Borders be independent of the bossy twats from Glasgow?
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It isn't an "English" court you absolute numpty. It is a UK court. You really make yourself look very foolish and ignorant on this "colony" crap as well. I will write it for you again and you can read it very slowly.
Scots were massively enthusiastic colonialists. Since the Act of Union they have always been massively over represented in the British establishment and still are today. You also may want to look up a Scottish family called "The Stewarts". They ruled once England would you believe?!
F**K off you complete cretinous balloon, and keep doing it till you get back and then F**K off again.
Right, no more cask strength turnip juice for you. Back on the regular.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
Two actually, Malc. FWIW the breakdown of the Court is 2 Scots, 2 English, and 1 Welsh.
Hilarious this meme of poor little Scotland being a colony or, by extension, the Scots being oppressed natives. They certainly don't act that way now, do they?
Dan Bloom @danbloom1 · 3h Tory minister Nadine Dorries claims Universal Credit cut won't push a single person into poverty
I don't usually go for strong language, but this cut really is the single most revolting political act since the Tories won power in 2010. Dressed up as "reversing an uplift", whereas in fact inflation and living costs are spiralling very significantly higher than it was introduced ; economically idiotic, in extracting demand from the economy just at the moment it heads into the most uncertain period of last few years ; and crowning it all, morally dishonest, dressed up as "in favour of the workers of the workshy", when in fact very significant numbers affected will already be in work.
Discussing with two people I know serving on the management of Trussel, they expect foodbank use to explode again ; homelessness will also rise again, as was documented during the 2014-2015 cut ; and rates of mental illness will rise again.
I didn't think Johnson and others would be so backward, especially after Johnson's noises on keeping welfare "security " during his first budget, and that they take account of polled shifts of public opinion during the pandemic ; but no, back to the very moral and economic worst and dregs of the Osborne era.
I hope Johnson, Dorries, and others will have some of the wide-ranging results of this on their conscience some point, because they will deserve to.
Truly repulsive.
Maybe wait for the budget where I expect the issue and minimum wage to be addressed
Addressed how?
At a 75% combined real tax/taper to recoup £20 decrease someone working full time for 37.5 hours per week would need just over a £2.13 per hour pay rise just to break even.
Unless you address the taper, the vast majority of the increase in any wage rate is just going back to the Treasury anyway.
Dan Bloom @danbloom1 · 3h Tory minister Nadine Dorries claims Universal Credit cut won't push a single person into poverty
I don't usually go for strong language, but this cut really is the single most revolting political act since the Tories won power in 2010. Dressed up as "reversing an uplift", whereas in fact inflation and living costs are spiralling very significantly higher than it was introduced ; economically idiotic, in extracting demand from the economy just at the moment it heads into the most uncertain period of last few years ; and crowning it all, morally dishonest, dressed up as "in favour of the workers of the workshy", when in fact very significant numbers affected will already be in work.
Discussing with two people I know serving on the management of Trussel, they expect foodbank use to explode again ; homelessness will also rise again, as was documented during the 2014-2015 cut ; and rates of mental illness will rise again.
I didn't think Johnson and others would be so backward, especially after Johnson's noises on keeping welfare "security " during his first budget, and that they take account of polled shifts of public opinion during the pandemic ; but no, back to the very moral and economic worst and dregs of the Osborne era.
I hope Johnson, Dorries, and others will have some of the wide-ranging results of this on their conscience some point, because they will deserve to.
Truly repulsive.
Maybe wait for the budget where I expect the issue and minimum wage to be addressed
Addressed how?
At a 75% combined real tax/taper to recoup £20 decrease someone working full time for 37.5 hours per week would need just over a £2.13 per hour pay rise just to break even.
Unless you address the taper, the vast majority of the increase in any wage rate is just going back to the Treasury anyway.
As I said lets wait and see
Indeed. Its quite simple to do the maths, especially if the taper issue isn't fixed since a round 75% of any pay increase doesn't actually go to the person who is actually working.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
lol
We've had some odd arguments on PB in our time, but I never expected to be defending the notions that "George Orwell was not a moron" and "Shakespeare was actually quite bright"
Nor indeed the Beatles were better than your average pub band.
It is better to challenge one's own opinions rather than just hold them. Not a lot of point in thinking the Beatles must be good because everyone else thinks so.
Will be interesting to see where the two sides get to with this renegotiation. Th unsquareable circle is that with the UK GB diverged from EU standards a border must go somewhere. Its also clear that the border can't go between ROI and the EU, or ROI and NI, or NI and GB.
Happily there is a solution. EU and UK remain entirely aligned. Here is the compromise - the UK drops its demands to be treated as a 3rd country and recognises that it is both aligned and going to stay aligned on the big stuff. And the EU drops its demands for a hard border as the UK GB would be treated as an extension like NI is.
That way not only do we fix the Norniron FUBAR, we can reinstate the UK as a trading zone and have hassle free access to the EEA markets. Have an agreement not to go wandering away from the existing standards and an arbitration process in case we do.
This is ridiculous. If alignment has to happen then it needs to be alignment between both sides, not the one side following the other side's rules. What needs to happen is that the UK and the EU both accept that each other will have high product standards even if they slightly differ in the detail. They allow for each others products to have full equivalency in the island of Ireland and are not to be sold commercially in GB or mainland EU. A tiny amount of products will circulate beyond Ireland through informal mechanisms but it won't have a meaningful impact and is less important than the peace process.
You miss the point. I am parking all of the bullshit and looking at practicalities. We are not talking about one side following the other side's rules. Our rules are their rules are our rules. We just need to drop the "sovrinty" spin and recognise this.
As and when there is a divergence issue in the future an arbitration process can fix them so that both parties are happy. This is the same as with any trade deal with anyone.
"If alignment has to happen" - we are already aligned!
So you voted for Brexit because you thought us having a say in the EU was too much trouble even though you were quite happy to follow its rules?
Yes. My view was that we were not and never going to agree to the political project of a single currency and a single army etc. So we either choose when to move to the outer ring of the "twin track" Europe, or they get to decide.
When you sat "Follow its rules" you reveal that you have the mentality of a small child. When you agree a trade deal you agree to follow the rules of that deal. Jaguar has to make cars for the American market that follow its rules. It has no say in those rules. Same for Chinese purveyors of spyware smartphones selling into the EEA.
We had a permanent opt out from the Euro.
You think that at some point in the future, they would have kicked us out of the European Parliament and Council and said, "From now on, you get no votes on single market legislation"?
I'm confused. According to many Brexiteers part of the reason we had to leave was that the Parliament was undemocratic, that they bullied us etc etc. To read what you posted its as if it was democratic after all and we had a significant say in its affairs.
You're deflecting. I'm not asking about why other people voted for Brexit but about why you did, and because the position you've just outlined makes no sense. If you were happy with the single market, what was the benefit of giving up our position in the institutions?
Happy with the single market - the EEA - yes. Happy with the EU, no.
The EU is not the EEA. Your problem is that you think they are the same.
The EEA is just an extension of the EU single market. The sole legislature for EEA law is the EU.
To put it another way, if every member of the EU felt like you and decided to leave and join the EEA, they would need to recreate all the political institutions again to make it work.
That is not true.
The sole authority for non EU members of the EEA is the EFTA Court. That exists outside of the EU and there is no need for any of the other political institutions if one is an EFTA member of the EEA.
That misses the point entirely. The legislation that is transposed to the EEA members comes from the EU. Having an independent court is neither here nor there.
Without the EU, there would be nothing to transpose and no single market. The EFTA court would be redundant.
In which case it would just be EFTA. I see your point but it is rather pointless. Because the original claim was about being happy being in the EEA but not in the EU. Something that is perfectly possible.
It's only possible if not everyone does it and you accept being a satellite of the EU.
Hahaha that old myth.
Call it being a parasite on the back of the EU if you prefer. Either way it means delegating legislation to a body that you're not part of.
Same as trading with any market anywhere in the world. Want access for your products? You have to be compliant with their laws.
To say something like that is to misunderstand the difference between a free trade agreement and a single market.
I find the single currency a very interesting concept.
(i) If you share a currency you should logically share fiscal and monetary policy. Given that fiscal and monetary policy is at the heart of government this means an end to serious national autonomy.
(ii) It makes no sense whatsoever for countries who trade a lot together and have similar economies to each have their own silly little currency. That's the ultimate in pointless friction and red tape. It's nuts.
These, for me, are both true.
The latter statement is not true for me.
Different currencies don't introduce that much red tape. Indeed, these days - with contactless payments replacing cash, and with incredibly low cost transfers - it's pretty negligible.
Where firms have have issues (historically) is when they order from a company in country X, and then that country's currency appreciated, and what looked like a great deal now looks pretty awful. And while this is rarely a problem for big companies, that have treasury departments that can do hedging, it is an issue for smaller firms. Indeed, if I wasn't really busy, it would be very interesting to look at creating a business that did easy hedging for smaller companies.
I would be very interested to know if the Eurozone did boost inter-Eurozone trade. Did the single currency mean that Germans were more likely to buy from Italians and Spaniards from the Dutch?
Imagine there's only one currency. It isn't hard to do. No need for hedging or conversion. No FX desks too. Imagine all the traders doing something more worthwhile, you oo oo oo oo, you may say I'm a ...
Interesting question as to whether the single currency boosted trade and wealth creation in the EZ. If it didn't I see little point in it unless one believes it was a devious tool to advance a Federal Europe.
Replace Federal Europe with German exports and I think you're closer to the mark.
Yes, I've heard that theory a few times. A tool by which the mighty D could prosper via a permanently underpriced (for them) currency. Although apparently (Leon says) they didn't want it, the French did. So this boon to German exports would be a consequence of the Euro rather than its purpose. I'd say if the Euro wasn't done for streamlining trade & finance reasons, ie to make the Single Market really swing, it most likely was done for idealistic "no more war" binding nations together reasons. Or a mixture of the two.
That is mostly true. The question is whether Germany just got lucky with the low rate at which they shared the DM, or whether they saw the opportunity, and the others didn't realise, in their eagerness to have the Bundesbank on board
The motives for the euro were definitely idealistic - another step to a united Europe - but as with so many of these steps, it was botched, quite badly. Greece, for one, is permanently damaged as a result
But Greece wasn't the Euro's fault. It was the Euro being abused and acting in self-defence.
It was both. You need to read more history around the euro's creation. Like so many europhiles you're actually a little ignorant about the EU. However, I guess eurosceptics are cranky obsessives so they tend to know more..
ANYWAY it was well known that Greece was fudging the books to get into the euro but it was overlooked in the name of Ever Closer Union and the brilliant momentum of the EU, with so many members of its new currency!
The big countries also knew that EMU was a flawed and dangerous concept without actual total fiscal union to accompany it, but they carried on. Again because of Federalist idealism. The Project.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
I visited the museum where the David is, out of season, many years ago. Nice and empty, and you could take your time.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
Then she asked me if Michelangelo was gay.
She could probably have looked at some of his female nudes and asked the same question.
I found it interesting - the unbiased by "conventional wisdom" appreciation of a piece of art.
She also found some of Caravaggio to be disturbing - "was he a bit weird?"
Dan Bloom @danbloom1 · 3h Tory minister Nadine Dorries claims Universal Credit cut won't push a single person into poverty
I don't usually go for strong language, but this cut really is the single most revolting political act since the Tories won power in 2010. Dressed up as "reversing an uplift", whereas in fact inflation and living costs are spiralling very significantly higher than it was introduced ; economically idiotic, in extracting demand from the economy just at the moment it heads into the most uncertain period of last few years ; and crowning it all, morally dishonest, dressed up as "in favour of the workers of the workshy", when in fact very significant numbers affected will already be in work.
Discussing with two people I know serving on the management of Trussel, they expect foodbank use to explode again ; homelessness will also rise again, as was documented during the 2014-2015 cut ; and rates of mental illness will rise again.
I didn't think Johnson and others would be so backward, especially after Johnson's noises on keeping welfare "security " during his first budget, and that they take account of polled shifts of public opinion during the pandemic ; but no, back to the very moral and economic worst and dregs of the Osborne era.
I hope Johnson, Dorries, and others will have some of the wide-ranging results of this on their conscience some point, because they will deserve to.
Truly repulsive.
Maybe wait for the budget where I expect the issue and minimum wage to be addressed
Addressed how?
At a 75% combined real tax/taper to recoup £20 decrease someone working full time for 37.5 hours per week would need just over a £2.13 per hour pay rise just to break even.
Unless you address the taper, the vast majority of the increase in any wage rate is just going back to the Treasury anyway.
As I said lets wait and see
We aren't going to see an £11 hourly rate and I can't see the taper rate changing (for there is a lot of issues and problems hiding under that rock)
Off topic - Anyone here got any advice for my daughter please? 3rd year history student wants a career in HR. Only non scientist in the family so we are floundering re advice to give her. Cheers in advance.
@kjh Great career, stimulating, varied and well paid. Get her to look up CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development), and also to look at some of the internships that I am sure some of the bigger firms do
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
It's not exactly David Aaronovitch or Jolyon Maugham.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet, Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street. It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first, Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst. It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best. But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet. Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
It's not exactly David Aaronovitch or Jolyon Maugham.
It is clearly the scribblings of a halfwit, to be frank
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
I visited the museum where the David is, out of season, many years ago. Nice and empty, and you could take your time.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
Then she asked me if Michelangelo was gay.
She could probably have looked at some of his female nudes and asked the same question.
I found it interesting - the unbiased by "conventional wisdom" appreciation of a piece of art.
She also found some of Caravaggio to be disturbing - "was he a bit weird?"
The various beheadings are a lot more worrying in a world where religiously motivated beheadings are suddenly not an historical curiosity.
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
That is indeed golden, but here are the most relevant lines to today's world, from Henry VI Part 3:
"Tis better using France than trusting France; Let us be back'd with God, and with the seas, Which He hath given for fence impregnable, And with their helps only defend ourselves; In them, and in ourselves, our safety lies."
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
We were not frit, we were British and proud of it.
There was no fuel shortage, it had nothing to do with "Brexit", it was just panic buying
"Throughout the petrol supply crisis, deliveries to filling stations barely fell as massive levels of panic buying were the leading cause of fuel shortages, i analysis of fuel data reveals."
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Could he have written something as good as this though if he were alive today? -
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend Your days are numbered, being brought to an end To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line The French and the Germans may call themselves such So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane But don’t say you’re English ever again At Broadcasting House the word is taboo In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told They mustn’t teach children about England of old Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw The pupils don’t learn about them anymore How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons? When England lost lots of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, how can we be? Europe is miles away, over the sea We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud! Let’s tell our government and Brussels too We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Obviously not, but here's a pretty good also ran
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
It's not exactly David Aaronovitch or Jolyon Maugham.
It is clearly the scribblings of a halfwit, to be frank
Agreed.
I am two minutes away from gin time, so please ignore any further thoughts I choose to share with the class.
There was no fuel shortage, it had nothing to do with "Brexit", it was just panic buying
"Throughout the petrol supply crisis, deliveries to filling stations barely fell as massive levels of panic buying were the leading cause of fuel shortages, i analysis of fuel data reveals."
The Telegraph has an article about this, too. The slightly lower levels of fuel immediately prior were due to a change in fuel types, not a lack of deliveries.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
We were not frit, we were British and proud of it.
I see La Sturgeon is in the FT today (££), talking of indy, and airily saying "time is on my side" as she points to younger voters being more pro-independence, and hints at older NO-voters dying off
She maybe has a point, but these are not the words of a leader really pushing for a vote.
The article also hints at her being weaker than she was, politically
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
I visited the museum where the David is, out of season, many years ago. Nice and empty, and you could take your time.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
Then she asked me if Michelangelo was gay.
She could probably have looked at some of his female nudes and asked the same question.
I found it interesting - the unbiased by "conventional wisdom" appreciation of a piece of art.
She also found some of Caravaggio to be disturbing - "was he a bit weird?"
The various beheadings are a lot more worrying in a world where religiously motivated beheadings are suddenly not an historical curiosity.
She didn't get the same vibe off paintings of all the fun stuff that happened to martyrs etc by other painters. Somehow, she felt a resonance of his personality in the painting.
Which kind of makes sense - great artists paints his soul into the canvas, observer observes it.
There was no fuel shortage, it had nothing to do with "Brexit", it was just panic buying
"Throughout the petrol supply crisis, deliveries to filling stations barely fell as massive levels of panic buying were the leading cause of fuel shortages, i analysis of fuel data reveals."
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
We were not frit, we were British and proud of it.
I see La Sturgeon is in the FT today (££), talking of indy, and airily saying "time is on my side" as she points to younger voters being more pro-independence, and hints at older NO-voters dying off
She maybe has a point, but these are not the words of a leader really pushing for a vote.
The article also hints at her being weaker than she was, politically
She undoubtedly is and the likes of @malcolmg is one of the reasons why. She is being consistently attacked by the more rabid end of the independence movement and is finding it a deeply uncomfortable experience. I think if she had found in international sinecure she would have been off by now. As it is her government looks increasingly directionless, reluctant to do anything that would annoy any part of the population yet too scared to really push the idea of Indyref2.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
We were not frit, we were British and proud of it.
I'm confused, some of the proud English natio..er..patriots on here keep referring to Scots as bottlers because of the 2014 vote. Who are they referring to?
In any case I'd be wary of assuming the 55% were all clones of your good self.
I have enormous respect for the UK Supreme Court which when you see what’s happened to the US Supreme Court , we should be hugely relieved that judges aren’t politically appointed in the UK . It was very disturbing to see some within the Tory party threatening the court just because they made judgements the government didn’t like .
Still an English court deciding Scottish Law matters, all wrong and very colonial.
It is a UK court with a Scottish judge announcing their decision
One lickspittle Toom tabard does not make it right, it is an English court judging Scottish law. It further confirms that Scotland is being treated purely as a colony of England.
The decision is by Lord Reed who is, of course, both a Scot and the President of the Court. Amongst the judges who concur in his decision is one of his Deputy Presidents, Lord Hodge, another Scot and a rather brilliant one at that.
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
The irony of course being that if Scotland hadn't been too frit to vote Yes in 2014 then Lord Reed and Lord Hodge might be presiding over a Supreme Court of Scotland right now.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
We were not frit, we were British and proud of it.
I see La Sturgeon is in the FT today (££), talking of indy, and airily saying "time is on my side" as she points to younger voters being more pro-independence, and hints at older NO-voters dying off
She maybe has a point, but these are not the words of a leader really pushing for a vote.
The article also hints at her being weaker than she was, politically
Wendy Wood was saying that in the 1950s when she repeatedly delineated the centre of the border bridge at Berwick with large white letters 'Scotland'
I remember it well and that is nearly 70 years ago and still no independence
The Orwell article on nationalism that was shared earlier was *really* excellent. Everybody on here should read it - and probably reflect on how we're all guilty of some of the logical fallacies he identifies.
Orwell's problem, I'm afraid, is he just wasn't very bright. Lots of what he says is true, but in that essay he fails to detect in himself the exact thing he is on about. GKC bad, because Orwell is not a Catholic; Celtic nationalism bad but bloody hell look at this: "One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection." Scott Alexander at least recognises his own liability to outgroupism.
So true.
The writer of Animal Farm, of 1984, of The Road to Wigan Pier, of Down & Out in London and Paris, of Homage to Catalonia, was clearly a borderline idiot.
I doubt he could even tie his own shoelaces.
Not a cracking point. It is universally conceded that Tennyson was as dim as a Toc H lamp, for instance, without that affecting his status as a great poet. Orwell could say things unbelievably lucidly, but they weren't necessarily very complicated or interesting things. It's not an accident that what you list are o level rather than a level texts. I challenge you to point to a really complex argument put forward by him.
Profound truths may actually be quite simple.
Agreed absolutely. But the rare and excellent ability to pronounce them is not the same thing as intelligence. There's no particular reason that Shakespeare would be better than you or me at writing a Times leader or advancing a complex case in court.
lol
Personally, I think the ability to write, say, "Hamlet", "Othello", the Sonnets, "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Might's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet" is probably a sign of greater intelligence than the ability to "write a Times leader" or "advance a complex case in court"
Surely the problem is how we judge intelligence at all - people can write great plays, or advance complex cases in court, in supremely intelligent ways, whilst being complete and utter duffers in some other things that far less able people are able to grasp. Intelligence can be pretty narrowly focused, and so particularly for historical people how to judge general intellect?
But with Shakespeare we have the actual evidence. The writing. You can analyse writing and get an estimate for verbal IQ, using the scale of vocabulary, variance of syntax, and so on. Psychometricians do this all the time
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
Leonardo da Vinci had problems with long division.
Michelangelo had problems with women (depicting them I mean).
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
I visited the museum where the David is, out of season, many years ago. Nice and empty, and you could take your time.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
Then she asked me if Michelangelo was gay.
She could probably have looked at some of his female nudes and asked the same question.
I found it interesting - the unbiased by "conventional wisdom" appreciation of a piece of art.
She also found some of Caravaggio to be disturbing - "was he a bit weird?"
The various beheadings are a lot more worrying in a world where religiously motivated beheadings are suddenly not an historical curiosity.
She didn't get the same vibe off paintings of all the fun stuff that happened to martyrs etc by other painters. Somehow, she felt a resonance of his personality in the painting.
Which kind of makes sense - great artists paints his soul into the canvas, observer observes it.
F**K all that rubbish. Cr@p art made famous just because it is famous, but with no value beyond its fame. Like the rather poor painting 'Mona Lisa'.
Utterly disgusting to have the Saudis declared 'fit and proper'. 🤮
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
It's quite funny that people in a country whose capital and government have hoored themselves to oil sheiks and oligarchs are getting finicky about a football club
Anyone care to have a go at what disqualifies one from owning a Premiership Club?
Asking for a friend
All true, and yet I can't help feeling pleased for Toon supporters. A great and storied club, with brilliant fans. They deserve a bit of glory, after five decades
It will also be amusing to see the other mega-clubs panic
Comments
During the 1910s Hamilton's input dropped during his frequent trips to the Continent to visit the gambling tables of Monte Carlo, and for about 20 years nearly 35 other authors wrote stories for publication under the pen names 'Martin Clifford' and 'Frank Richards'; these included Edwy Searles Brooks (1889-1965), Hedley Percival Angelo O'Mant (1899-1955), William Edward Stanton Hope (1889-1961), Julius Herman (1894-1955) John Nix Pentelow (1872-1931) and George Richmond Samways (1895-1996), the latter writing nearly 100 Greyfriars stories among others. Hamilton disparagingly referred to this pool of substitute writers as "The Menagerie". The last substitute-written story appeared in The Magnet in 1931; all subsequent stories were solely written by Hamilton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hamilton_(writer)
"Often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon," William Shakespeare had an estimated IQ of 210 and is widely regarded as the greatest English-speaking writer and dramatist to have ever lived. "
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-40-smartest-people-of-all-time-2015-2?r=US&IR=T#15-william-shakespeare-26
"William Shakespeare, 190 IQ"
http://www.hmolpedia.com/page/Top_2000_minds_(full_list)
Of course, verbal intelligence is only half of overall IQ. Perhaps Shakespeare was innumerate, and unable to add 3 and 7? But we know he wasn't. He was an excellent businessman, made a lot of money, and retired as possibly the wealthiest man in Stratford (despite being the son of a humble glover)
He was smart
The European countries which have done best in the Euro, are those with flexible labour markets.
(It is notable that until the Schroder reforms of the early 2000s, Germany did not have a flexible labour market.)
Spain (and to a lesser extent Portugal) did implement labour market reforms in the wake of the Eurozone crisis. And both have recovered strongly.
There's a certain irony that if you want the Euro to work for you, you need Anglo Saxon economics policies.
Todfay on Amazon, the only new Frank Richards books in the first two pages of search hits are the two (excellent, btw) memoirs of the quite different old Welsh soldier.
Scots were massively enthusiastic colonialists. Since the Act of Union they have always been massively over represented in the British establishment and still are today. You also may want to look up a Scottish family called "The Stewarts". They ruled once England would you believe?!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16336588/france-swiped-five-million-covid-vaccine-doses-britain/
That's what Twitter is for today.
We've had some odd arguments on PB in our time, but I never expected to be defending the notions that "George Orwell was not a moron" and "Shakespeare was actually quite bright"
Personally, I think if Glasgow wants independence, I think it should be granted. In fact it would be a good thing if it was given independence even if it doesn't want it!
Nobody's perfect, to quote another work of art.
But nb Hamilton wrote 80%+ of one and two thirds of the other and millions of other words as well, so the "far too much for one man to write" argument is still wrong.
But as a RC priest - he was, wasn't he? - he'd have found the Latin tricky, no?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/07/exclusive-governments-switch-greener-fuel-major-factor-behind/
The article has a chart showing the fuel situation was very stable for the months prior.
I sincerely hope you regain your scattered wits soon, old chap
You'll be telling me next that Brunel was a more average engineer and Newton was quite good at maths and science.
My then girlfriend, who was interested in art, but had read nothing on the subject, stared at the David's arse for about 5 minutes.
Then she asked me if Michelangelo was gay.
At a 75% combined real tax/taper to recoup £20 decrease someone working full time for 37.5 hours per week would need just over a £2.13 per hour pay rise just to break even.
Unless you address the taper, the vast majority of the increase in any wage rate is just going back to the Treasury anyway.
"Goodbye to my England, so long my old friend
Your days are numbered, being brought to an end
To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s fine
But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line
The French and the Germans may call themselves such
So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch
You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane
But don’t say you’re English ever again
At Broadcasting House the word is taboo
In Brussels it’s scrapped, in Parliament too
Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told
They mustn’t teach children about England of old
Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw
The pupils don’t learn about them anymore
How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons?
When England lost lots of her very brave sons
We are not Europeans, how can we be?
Europe is miles away, over the sea
We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud
Stand up and be counted – shout it out loud!
Let’s tell our government and Brussels too
We’re proud of our heritage and the red white and blue
Fly the flag of St George or the Union Jack
Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!"
I'm no ra ra Brexiter, as all know, but this almost turned me.
Hilarious this meme of poor little Scotland being a colony or, by extension, the Scots being oppressed natives. They certainly don't act that way now, do they?
Europe is miles away, over the sea."
This being my favourite couplet if, gun to head, I had to pick one.
ANYWAY it was well known that Greece was fudging the books to get into the euro but it was overlooked in the name of Ever Closer Union and the brilliant momentum of the EU, with so many members of its new currency!
The big countries also knew that EMU was a flawed and dangerous concept without actual total fiscal union to accompany it, but they carried on. Again because of Federalist idealism. The Project.
Some initial reading:
https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2011/number/5/article/greece-and-the-euro-the-chronicle-of-an-expected-collapse.html
She also found some of Caravaggio to be disturbing - "was he a bit weird?"
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
To a certain extent Malcolm you are right. What this decision confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty, is not in the process of acquiring such sovereignty and that the scope of both its powers and that of the Scottish government are fixed by the Scotland Act as amended. Any who were deluded enough to pretend otherwise should be so no longer.
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.
The issue for malcolm is that Scots voted No last time so Scotland isn't an actual independent country as a result of that vote. The people making the ruling isn't the issue.
Brilliant
https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/05/theres-a-name-for-people-who-work-tuesday-wednesday-and-thursdays-15369656/
"Tis better using France than trusting France;
Let us be back'd with God, and with the seas,
Which He hath given for fence impregnable,
And with their helps only defend ourselves;
In them, and in ourselves, our safety lies."
"Throughout the petrol supply crisis, deliveries to filling stations barely fell as massive levels of panic buying were the leading cause of fuel shortages, i analysis of fuel data reveals."
https://inews.co.uk/news/fuel-shortage-figures-petrol-station-deliveries-panic-buying-crisis-explained-1237349
Who woulda thunk
I am two minutes away from gin time, so please ignore any further thoughts I choose to share with the class.
It's bad enough eating a pheasant with some shot left in it... A Rolls Royce would certainly hurt the old gnashers ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/07/exclusive-governments-switch-greener-fuel-major-factor-behind/
She maybe has a point, but these are not the words of a leader really pushing for a vote.
The article also hints at her being weaker than she was, politically
Which kind of makes sense - great artists paints his soul into the canvas, observer observes it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58826899
Crack open the sparkling water.
It will dwarf every other club in the world, in potential spending power
In any case I'd be wary of assuming the 55% were all clones of your good self.
But then City has the Qataris and they're not much better.
So far, we have
- Imprisonable offences - cool
- War crimes - cool
now we have
- Chopping up journalists - cool
- Light recreational genocide - cool
Anyone care to have a go at what disqualifies one from owning a Premiership Club?
Asking for a friend
I remember it well and that is nearly 70 years ago and still no independence
Ming the Reformer? Ming the Builder?
For me, the painting par excellence is one by a Brit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Philosopher_Lecturing_on_the_Orrery#/media/File:Wright_of_Derby,_The_Orrery.jpg
To a lesser extent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump#/media/File:An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_an_Air_Pump_by_Joseph_Wright_of_Derby,_1768.jpg
A moment in time; science meeting art. The start of the construction of the modern world.
(The fact Wright was from Derby is an unrelated coincidence...)
But I must admit the painting that has captivated me the most was in Southampton:
https://www.southamptoncityartgallery.com/object/sotag-19581/
I've got no idea what it affects me so.
He's merci-less.
It will also be amusing to see the other mega-clubs panic
Actually I was just quoting Principal Skinner.