Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Septuagenarians continue to dominate the Democratic nomination

1235

Comments

  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited December 2019
    Don't forget in Iowa the Democratic causcus is very complicated:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHkwNhsAd_8

    In the polling average of Iowa 4 candidates are getting above 15%, but most of them are just above that threshold.
    It means that in some local areas some of the major 4 will be bellow that and their support would be redistributed.

    Basically the one who has the most geographically even support above 15% has an advantage right now.
    Second prefferences are also very important.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    The courts have been making law since long before the Tory party existed.

    Any real Conservative would understand the importance of the rule of law.
  • nichomar said:

    Anyway all politics aside I will wish you all,a very merry Xmas and from a betting perspective a prosperous new year, am off to Tenerife tomorrow and then a seven day cruise on a Spanish cruise ship which incidentally has also asked all passengers to desist from discussing politics! Hopefully will be back after but hoping to break my addiction to Pb.com after the most exciting four years in UK politics I have ever known.

    It'll be difficult to break that addiction, enjoy your holiday.
  • Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    I have been doing a little research. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time since 1919 that Labour have not held a seat in Staffordshire and the first time ever that the Tories have held them all.

    Considering this is still an industrial and ex-mining County, it does go to show the collapse of traditional Labour support.

    Wikipedia has some helpful charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Staffordshire
    Thanks, although that shows the current not the historic situation.

    What’s striking about that is there’s only one constituency - Stoke Central - that even looks close. The rest are fairly safe Tory at the moment. And yet, it’s not long ago that the likes of Cannock and Newcastle under Lyme were considered safe for Labour.

    Although that thought should give certain Tories pause as well...
    If you scroll down there are more charts!
    Notts is another one that has seen big change. in 1997, Lab won all but Rushcliffe and now they only have the 3 in Nottingham left.

    Similarly in Derbyshire, they had them all in 1997 except Derbyshire Dales and now they only have Derby S and Chesterfield left.
    Notts is especially interesting because you can see the gradual retreat of Labour outside Nottingham over time. You would not notice the interruption of Labour’s decline in 1997 as you would by looking at Staffs, Glos or Worcestershire.
    Notts is also interesting if you compare to 1987. Back then, Lab held Bassetlaw, Mansfield and Ashfield but not the three Nottingham seats. Now even in this nadir when they are miles behind in Manfield etc they hold the three city seats very comfortably indeed..
    There's a lot of interest to be had in considering the seats which were marginal in 1997 which are now safe reasonably safe Lab even as the party's score of seats has halved. Hove, Bristol West, Edgbaston, Chester. But as far as I can think, only one seat which went Lab in 2019 but was Con in 1983: Canterbury. Anyone think of any others?
    Sheffield Hallam.
  • nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Another day, another gang of child sex abusers in a Yorkshire town:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-50838823

    Anybody watch the darts last night?

    how could so many working class male bigots have roared a young woman on to breaking a glass ceiling?

    Saw a clip of that on Sky earlier. What a reaction! Good for Fallon.

    They also got Phil 'The Power' Taylor on, and he was very fulsome in his praise for her, and what a positive move forward this was for the game.
    Why are we talking about pub game on PB?
    One nation Conservatism

    you've got at least 10 more years of it so better adapt.
    Soccer, cricket, F1, and rugby union are the only sports worth watching.

    If the Tories really want to hold places like Rother Valley then they should talk non stop about rugby union.
    you should try hurling
    Personally, I find cricket and F1 boring but Lewis Hamilton should win the 2020 title and if he does, perhaps the spoty.

    I don't disagree or dislike hurling but it's definitely a physical​ and tough (rough) sport.
    cricket isn't a sport its a sleeping pill substiute

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    I have been doing a little research. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time since 1919 that Labour have not held a seat in Staffordshire and the first time ever that the Tories have held them all.

    Considering this is still an industrial and ex-mining County, it does go to show the collapse of traditional Labour support.

    Wikipedia has some helpful charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Staffordshire
    Looking through the wiki pages, there are now 17 counties with only Conservative MPs.
    Astounding statistic.
    I agree. How could anyone watch cricket and not be riveted?
    Do they call it "test" cricket because it "tests" your patience?
    Says someone who finds obscure train journeys exciting!
    At least the train moves, unlike almost all the cricket players :lol:
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162
    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
  • M&S is better for Sunday roast.

    For the lazy amongst us they have lots of ready/instant joy in both carvery and vegetable/gravy options.

    We are regulars.
  • Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    The courts have been making law since long before the Tory party existed.

    Any real Conservative would understand the importance of the rule of law.
    I will wholeheartedly oppose anything that undermines the rule of law here.

    Not only just for our sakes either. Britain is still held in sufficiently high-esteem that such a move would ripple right round the world.
  • Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    I like Waitrose, as it keeps the riffraff out of Booths.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,861

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    I have been doing a little research. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time since 1919 that Labour have not held a seat in Staffordshire and the first time ever that the Tories have held them all.

    Considering this is still an industrial and ex-mining County, it does go to show the collapse of traditional Labour support.

    Wikipedia has some helpful charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Staffordshire
    Thanks, although that shows the current not the historic situation.

    What’s striking about that is there’s only one constituency - Stoke Central - that even looks close. The rest are fairly safe Tory at the moment. And yet, it’s not long ago that the likes of Cannock and Newcastle under Lyme were considered safe for Labour.

    Although that thought should give certain Tories pause as well...
    If you scroll down there are more charts!
    Notts is another one that has seen big change. in 1997, Lab won all but Rushcliffe and now they only have the 3 in Nottingham left.

    Similarly in Derbyshire, they had them all in 1997 except Derbyshire Dales and now they only have Derby S and Chesterfield left.
    Notts is especially interesting because you can see the gradual retreat of Labour outside Nottingham over time. You would not notice the interruption of Labour’s decline in 1997 as you would by looking at Staffs, Glos or Worcestershire.
    Notts is also interesting if you compare to 1987. Back then, Lab held Bassetlaw, Mansfield and Ashfield but not the three Nottingham seats. Now even in this nadir when they are miles behind in Manfield etc they hold the three city seats very comfortably indeed..
    There's a lot of interest to be had in considering the seats which were marginal in 1997 which are now safe reasonably safe Lab even as the party's score of seats has halved. Hove, Bristol West, Edgbaston, Chester. But as far as I can think, only one seat which went Lab in 2019 but was Con in 1983: Canterbury. Anyone think of any others?
    Sheffield Hallam.
    Sorry, confusing myself here! I meant Lab in 2019 but Con in 1997.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    I like Waitrose, as it keeps the riffraff out of Booths.
    What about those of us who shop in Iceland (the shop, not the country)?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,786

    Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    I like Waitrose, as it keeps the riffraff out of Booths.
    Where do they go head to head?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,765
    Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    Impossible to do a full shop at Aldi or Lidl in my opinion. And the shopping experience is often horrible... that's nothing to do with the other customers btw: simply the mess, the lack of organisation, the lack of open tills, the terrible self-service check-outs, the lack of self-scanning.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Another day, another gang of child sex abusers in a Yorkshire town:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-50838823

    Anybody watch the darts last night?

    how could so many working class male bigots have roared a young woman on to breaking a glass ceiling?

    Saw a clip of that on Sky earlier. What a reaction! Good for Fallon.

    They also got Phil 'The Power' Taylor on, and he was very fulsome in his praise for her, and what a positive move forward this was for the game.
    Why are we talking about pub game on PB?
    you've got at least 10 more years of it so better adapt.
    Soccer, cricket, F1, and rugby union are the only sports worth watching.

    If the Tories really want to hold places like Rother Valley then they should talk non stop about rugby union.
    you should try hurling
    Personally, I find cricket and F1 boring but Lewis Hamilton should win the 2020 title and if he does, perhaps the spoty.

    I don't disagree or dislike hurling but it's definitely a physical​ and tough (rough) sport.
    cricket isn't a sport its a sleeping pill substiute

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    I have been doing a little research. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time since 1919 that Labour have not held a seat in Staffordshire and the first time ever that the Tories have held them all.

    Considering this is still an industrial and ex-mining County, it does go to show the collapse of traditional Labour support.

    Wikipedia has some helpful charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Staffordshire
    Looking through the wiki pages, there are now 17 counties with only Conservative MPs.
    Astounding statistic.
    I agree. How could anyone watch cricket and not be riveted?
    Do they call it "test" cricket because it "tests" your patience?
    Says someone who finds obscure train journeys exciting!
    At least the train moves, unlike almost all the cricket players :lol:
    cricket isn’t postponed for leaves on the pitch!
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,786

    Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    Impossible to do a full shop at Aldi or Lidl in my opinion. And the shopping experience is often horrible... that's nothing to do with the other customers btw: simply the mess, the lack of organisation, the lack of open tills, the terrible self-service check-outs, the lack of self-scanning.
    Yeah, but for the middle classes who have fallen on hard times they're a godsend. Like foodbanks, really.

  • Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    Isn’t Booths only oop north, though?

    I do occasionally go to Fortnums for a treat.

    I agree on the value of Aldi or Lidl but it doesn’t quite match the shopping aesthetic of Waitrose, which is a cosy and comforting sensory experience.
  • nichomar said:

    Anyway all politics aside I will wish you all,a very merry Xmas and from a betting perspective a prosperous new year, am off to Tenerife tomorrow and then a seven day cruise on a Spanish cruise ship which incidentally has also asked all passengers to desist from discussing politics! Hopefully will be back after but hoping to break my addiction to Pb.com after the most exciting four years in UK politics I have ever known.

    Have a great holiday and cruise. Politics has been amazing and exhausting

    Christmas has come at the right moment

    Happy Xmas and New Year, and indeed to all posters as I take a more laid back approach to PB
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,861

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    I have been doing a little research. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time since 1919 that Labour have not held a seat in Staffordshire and the first time ever that the Tories have held them all.

    Considering this is still an industrial and ex-mining County, it does go to show the collapse of traditional Labour support.

    Wikipedia has some helpful charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Staffordshire
    Thanks, although that shows the current not the historic situation.

    What’s striking about that is there’s only one constituency - Stoke Central - that even looks close. The rest are fairly safe Tory at the moment. And yet, it’s not long ago that the likes of Cannock and Newcastle under Lyme were considered safe for Labour.

    Although that thought should give certain Tories pause as well...
    If you scroll down there are more charts!
    I was just testing, honestly *tries to look innocent and fails dismally*

    Thanks, these are very interesting indeed. Do you know if they do them for all counties? Northumberland and Cumbria would be an interesting set.
    I am indeed spoiling you.

    There should be links at the bottom for different regions. Thanks to the wikipedia editors who put them together!
    Thanks. No Labour MPs in Cumberland for the first time since 1910 is also pretty damning.
    The council of the historic county of Cumberland is making a comeback!
    Is it?! I've just Googled this and can find nothing about it. Do you have a link?
  • ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    I like Waitrose, as it keeps the riffraff out of Booths.
    What about those of us who shop in Iceland (the shop, not the country)?
    Well, I dunno, but Emily Thornberry certainly won’t touch your votes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    The courts have been making law since long before the Tory party existed.

    Any real Conservative would understand the importance of the rule of law.
    I will wholeheartedly oppose anything that undermines the rule of law here.

    Not only just for our sakes either. Britain is still held in sufficiently high-esteem that such a move would ripple right round the world.
    I really don't understand the view of @Philip_Thompson here. If a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government had prorogued Parliament to avoid awkward questions, I would expect the Supreme Court to step in and rule it illegal.

    There is a triangle here: judiciary, executive and legislature. It shouldn't be possible for the executive to suspend the legislature without the consent of the legislature. (This, after all, was what the Civil War was fought over.)
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Courts have always created law, via Common Law or Case Law.

    Hale and the judges ruling was not based upon any Act of Parliament and did not have royal assent. Case history and Common Law did not show their ruling in the past. They created new tests, new case law and then found the government's actions to breach the law they create.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    I like Waitrose, as it keeps the riffraff out of Booths.
    What about those of us who shop in Iceland (the shop, not the country)?
    Well, I dunno, but Emily Thornberry certainly won’t touch your votes.
    So we’re doubly blessed then?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited December 2019
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    I like Waitrose, as it keeps the riffraff out of Booths.
    What about those of us who shop in Iceland (the shop, not the country)?
    Well, I dunno, but Emily Thornberry certainly won’t touch your votes.
    So we’re doubly blessed then?
    Iceland has its uses, well overseas supermarkets which is Iceland/waitrose, for those niche items that brits abroad crave bu it is expensive.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    Cyclefree said:
    You were, you modest thing.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    Animal_pb said:

    Animal_pb said:

    I’m a middle-class Shire Tory.

    No dressing that up, unless it’s in a Barbour wax jacket, red trousers and brogues of course.

    In nature, bright red colouring is usually a "warning! toxic! avoid!" signal.

    Just sayin'.
    Like strawberries?
    Wild strawberries aren't bright red. Bright red strawberries aren't natural, we've farmed them into a form we wanted.
    They really are bright red - if wild strawberries are given a chance to ripen. We have a massive run of them in the garden. Unfortunately, there's a whole raft of critters that will plunder them. They are without equal as tiny flavour bombs.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Just got a selfie with Andrew Bridgen. Can the last 7 days get any better?!!!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Stammer is drifting out again. I've rebacked him a bit but still leaving some liability on him.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Iceland does an excellent green vegetable medly when in season. Tenderstem brocoli, peas and fine beans with a herby butter.

    Properly delicious.

    They also do good value wild Pacific salmon.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Courts have always created law, via Common Law or Case Law.

    Hale and the judges ruling was not based upon any Act of Parliament and did not have royal assent. Case history and Common Law did not show their ruling in the past. They created new tests, new case law and then found the government's actions to breach the law they create.
    Surely that’s how the (Common) law/courts works? The courts are first of all bound by (interpretation of) statute law as laid down by Parliament. If there is no statute then they refer to case law/precedent in the Common Law. And if there is none then they make a ruling and that becomes new case law.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Laws are laid down by the Crown (although for several centuries now Parliament has insisted on getting involved). But laws cannot cover every eventuality and there will be gaps, especially when new things come in or societal attitudes change. When this happens a judge may be asked to make a decision between two parties where there is no legal guidance or precedent. When they do that the decision creates a new precedent and later judges will likely follow it. This slow accumulation of extra-Parliamentary decisions is known as Common Law, as different to Parliamentary law (known as "Statute Law").

    Previous examples of judge decisions creating longstanding law include (from memory) insurable interest and consumer rights (Google the snail in a bottle of ginger beer).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    On the Democratic Nomination betting here, I think Biden is value. Buttigieg and Warren have damaged each other, and both are weaker candidates now than a month ago.

    Biden has also (finally) realised the importance of Iowa, and is spending his time in state on his "No Malarky" (yes, really) tour. Biden only needs a good placing in Iowa (i.e. 20-25% of the delegates) to stay relevant, given his strength in South Carolina. The polls have turned for him in Iowa, and he's now up there equaling Buttigieg and putting clear blue water between him and the second tier players. Should he win Iowa, he's pretty much a cert for the nomination. I think he should be a 40% chance, not a 25% one.

    Sanders feels overpriced here to me: he gets surprisingly few Warren second choices, and his organisation outside the big cities in Iowa is almost non-existent. He's not going to do well in South Carolina, and while he's doing OK in New Hampshire he's not shooting the lights out. I think he's a lower chance for the nomination than Buttigieg, perhaps only really a 5-7% shot.

    Buttigieg's decline in the betting looks overdone. He's got the best organisation in Iowa (especially in the rural areas), and I think he has to be favourite there. He's also in with a really good shout in New Hampshire. Being an enemy of the Twitterati (thanks to McKinsey) is not the same as being unpopular with regular voters, particularly in the early states: I think he should be a 20% shot.

    Warren looks too cheap too. She has the second best Iowa operation, and her message is popular with young, left wing Democrats. I think she benefits if either Sanders or Buttigieg stumbles. I'd be a buyer of her here. I think she is slightly more likely that Buttigieg to get the nomination.

    Bloomberg is definitely overpriced here. He's not popular with rank and file Democrats. He's not polling well in Super Tuesday states. He wouldn't be picked in the unlikely event of it being a brokered convention. He should be 2% (or less), not 9%.

    The same is true of Clinton. She's not going to be in the ballot in any of the states, so the only route to the nomination is one where it's a brokered convention, and she wants to be President, and the other nominees decide to step down in her favour. It's not likely to happen. 2% would be the right price for Ms Clinton.

    So, where does that leave us. I'd reckon the right probabilities are roughly:
    Biden     40
    Warren 22
    Buttigieg 20
    Sanders 6
    Klobuchar 4
    Clinton 2
    Bloomberg 2
    Yang 1
    Gabbard 1
    The Field 2
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162

    Cyclefree said:

    F

    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    Isn’t Booths only oop north, though?

    I do occasionally go to Fortnums for a treat.

    I agree on the value of Aldi or Lidl but it doesn’t quite match the shopping aesthetic of Waitrose, which is a cosy and comforting sensory experience.
    Booths is in the north, yes.

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Courts have always created law, via Common Law or Case Law.

    Hale and the judges ruling was not based upon any Act of Parliament and did not have royal assent. Case history and Common Law did not show their ruling in the past. They created new tests, new case law and then found the government's actions to breach the law they create.
    You’re just embarrassing yourself. If you are going to comment on legal cases, try first to understand how the law works.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Courts have always created law, via Common Law or Case Law.

    Hale and the judges ruling was not based upon any Act of Parliament and did not have royal assent. Case history and Common Law did not show their ruling in the past. They created new tests, new case law and then found the government's actions to breach the law they create.
    I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
  • nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Another day, another gang of child sex abusers in a Yorkshire town:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-50838823

    Anybody watch the darts last night?

    how could so many working class male bigots have roared a young woman on to breaking a glass ceiling?

    Why are we talking about pub game on PB?
    you've got at least 10 more years of it so better adapt.
    Soccer, cricket, F1, and rugby union are the only sports worth watching.

    If the Tories really want to hold places like Rother Valley then they should talk non stop about rugby union.
    you should try hurling
    Personally, I find cricket and F1 boring but Lewis Hamilton should win the 2020 title and if he does, perhaps the spoty.

    I don't disagree or dislike hurling but it's definitely a physical​ and tough (rough) sport.
    cricket isn't a sport its a sleeping pill substiute

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    I have been doing a little research. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time since 1919 that Labour have not held a seat in Staffordshire and the first time ever that the Tories have held them all.

    Considering this is still an industrial and ex-mining County, it does go to show the collapse of traditional Labour support.

    Wikipedia has some helpful charts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Staffordshire
    Looking through the wiki pages, there are now 17 counties with only Conservative MPs.
    Astounding statistic.
    I agree. How could anyone watch cricket and not be riveted?
    Do they call it "test" cricket because it "tests" your patience?
    Says someone who finds obscure train journeys exciting!
    At least the train moves, unlike almost all the cricket players :lol:
    cricket isn’t postponed for leaves on the pitch!
    Never heard of "rain stops play"? :lol:
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Laws are laid down by the Crown (although for several centuries now Parliament has insisted on getting involved). But laws cannot cover every eventuality and there will be gaps, especially when new things come in or societal attitudes change. When this happens a judge may be asked to make a decision between two parties where there is no legal guidance or precedent. When they do that the decision creates a new precedent and later judges will likely follow it. This slow accumulation of extra-Parliamentary decisions is known as Common Law, as different to Parliamentary law (known as "Statute Law").

    Previous examples of judge decisions creating longstanding law include (from memory) insurable interest and consumer rights (Google the snail in a bottle of ginger beer).
    Donoghue v Stevenson (the snail in ginger beer) was not about consumer rights because the person drinking the bottle had not bought it and so was not a consumer with a contractual claim but the foundation of the law of tort. Other judge made law includes equitable estoppel, judicial review and, for instance, the SC decision in 1991 on marital rape becoming a crime (this was later codified in the Sexual Offences Act). Prior to the Theft Act in 1968 it was the common law ie judges who determined what the law was. And so on and on.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Laws are laid down by the Crown (although for several centuries now Parliament has insisted on getting involved). But laws cannot cover every eventuality and there will be gaps, especially when new things come in or societal attitudes change. When this happens a judge may be asked to make a decision between two parties where there is no legal guidance or precedent. When they do that the decision creates a new precedent and later judges will likely follow it. This slow accumulation of extra-Parliamentary decisions is known as Common Law, as different to Parliamentary law (known as "Statute Law").

    Previous examples of judge decisions creating longstanding law include (from memory) insurable interest and consumer rights (Google the snail in a bottle of ginger beer).
    That's an excellent summary.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,505
    Brom said:

    Just got a selfie with Andrew Bridgen. Can the last 7 days get any better?!!!

    Whatever floats your boat.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    The courts have been making law since long before the Tory party existed.

    Any real Conservative would understand the importance of the rule of law.
    I will wholeheartedly oppose anything that undermines the rule of law here.

    Not only just for our sakes either. Britain is still held in sufficiently high-esteem that such a move would ripple right round the world.
    I really don't understand the view of @Philip_Thompson here. If a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government had prorogued Parliament to avoid awkward questions, I would expect the Supreme Court to step in and rule it illegal.

    There is a triangle here: judiciary, executive and legislature. It shouldn't be possible for the executive to suspend the legislature without the consent of the legislature. (This, after all, was what the Civil War was fought over.)
    I understand it perfectly. They won. Begun, the upfucking has...

    (cue the Imperial March)
  • Cyclefree said:

    F

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    Is there a Waitrose or an M&S close by? If so that is where I would expect to find much of the middle class.
    Upper middle class, yes.

    Waitrose is great but very pricey. Impossible to go in there for anything without walking out at least £30 poorer.
    Booths is even nicer and pricier.

    Most of the middle classes are these days to be found in Aldi and Lidl which do some really good stuff at very good prices.
    I normally buy toothpaste and toothbrushes from Boots.

    Oh, you said Booths :)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162

    Cyclefree said:
    You were, you modest thing.....
    I suspect that a fair amount of what is posted on PB, both below and above the law, is picked up in the MSM. They really ought to credit PB.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    Chris said:

    Is it just me or has Sainsbury’s gone downmarket?

    It used to be decidedly middle-class but is now brushing its clothes barely above the likes of Asda and Tesco. And even Morrisons arguably pips it in some areas now.

    Yuk.

    The only way to avoid definitely brushing shoulders with the lower orders is to have your groceries delivered. But for heaven's sake remember to select A-B for the class of the delivery driver, or who knows what you may have to put up with?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FF95JjCdaM
    LOL
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    2-1
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    Really, the prorogation case boils down to two questions:

    1. Does the Executive have the absolute power to suspend Parliament?

    and if not,

    2. What are the limits on that power?

    I would hope no-one on this board believes the Executive should be so all powerful. And therefore the only question we should be arguing about is what the limits are.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    Cyclefree said:

    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Laws are laid down by the Crown (although for several centuries now Parliament has insisted on getting involved). But laws cannot cover every eventuality and there will be gaps, especially when new things come in or societal attitudes change. When this happens a judge may be asked to make a decision between two parties where there is no legal guidance or precedent. When they do that the decision creates a new precedent and later judges will likely follow it. This slow accumulation of extra-Parliamentary decisions is known as Common Law, as different to Parliamentary law (known as "Statute Law").

    Previous examples of judge decisions creating longstanding law include (from memory) insurable interest and consumer rights (Google the snail in a bottle of ginger beer).
    Donoghue v Stevenson (the snail in ginger beer) was not about consumer rights because the person drinking the bottle had not bought it and so was not a consumer with a contractual claim but the foundation of the law of tort. Other judge made law includes equitable estoppel, judicial review and, for instance, the SC decision in 1991 on marital rape becoming a crime (this was later codified in the Sexual Offences Act). Prior to the Theft Act in 1968 it was the common law ie judges who determined what the law was. And so on and on.
    And today I have learned something. Thank you.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Laws are laid down by the Crown (although for several centuries now Parliament has insisted on getting involved). But laws cannot cover every eventuality and there will be gaps, especially when new things come in or societal attitudes change. When this happens a judge may be asked to make a decision between two parties where there is no legal guidance or precedent. When they do that the decision creates a new precedent and later judges will likely follow it. This slow accumulation of extra-Parliamentary decisions is known as Common Law, as different to Parliamentary law (known as "Statute Law").

    Previous examples of judge decisions creating longstanding law include (from memory) insurable interest and consumer rights (Google the snail in a bottle of ginger beer).
    That's an excellent summary.
    Thank you.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,735
    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    edited December 2019
    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    The courts have been making law since long before the Tory party existed.

    Any real Conservative would understand the importance of the rule of law.
    I will wholeheartedly oppose anything that undermines the rule of law here.

    Not only just for our sakes either. Britain is still held in sufficiently high-esteem that such a move would ripple right round the world.
    I really don't understand the view of @Philip_Thompson here. If a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government had prorogued Parliament to avoid awkward questions, I would expect the Supreme Court to step in and rule it illegal.

    There is a triangle here: judiciary, executive and legislature. It shouldn't be possible for the executive to suspend the legislature without the consent of the legislature. (This, after all, was what the Civil War was fought over.)
    No it wasn’t. It was fought over a number of causes, one of which was who had the right to raise taxes if Parliament was not sitting. It was also fought over the religious character of the Church of England and the nature of the King’s senior ministers.

    But until a few months ago, the right of the crown to prorogue Parliament had never so far as I know been questioned, and no time limits were set on it other than that Parliament had to meet annually. Indeed, until the late nineteenth century it was normally prorogued in December and met again in September.
  • Has Chris Williamson entered the leadership race - he is genuine true real Labour after all?
  • Brom said:

    Just got a selfie with Andrew Bridgen. Can the last 7 days get any better?!!!

    Whatever floats your boat.
    At least he's against the TV poll tax (he's on C4 News right now).
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,047

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    They should have not voted for 46 SNP MPs then.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506
    edited December 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?

    Courts have always created law, via Common Law or Case Law.

    Hale and the judges ruling was not based upon any Act of Parliament and did not have royal assent. Case history and Common Law did not show their ruling in the past. They created new tests, new case law and then found the government's actions to breach the law they create.
    You’re just embarrassing yourself. If you are going to comment on legal cases, try first to understand how the law works.
    Quite bit of confusion about what “case law “ is me thinks. The judges didn’t “create” case law and then rule the Govt in breach of it. The judgement WAS the new case law.

    The interesting/controversial principle arising from it, I guess, is that the Executive cannot be said to be exercising the Royal Prerogative simply on the narrow basis that Parliament has not passed a Vote of no confidence in them and widens the definition of them governing with the consent of Parliament. This potentially brings the Executive under the same constitutional restrictions as those enforced upon the Crown directly as a result of the Glorious revolution.

    But I’m only an amateur interpreter of Constitutional law, so what sounds good in my head may in fact be rubbish!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,724
    Emily Thornberry can get in touch with grassroots northern voters by holding a focus group in Booths cafe. Ilkley branch.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,505

    Brom said:

    Just got a selfie with Andrew Bridgen. Can the last 7 days get any better?!!!

    Whatever floats your boat.
    At least he's against the TV poll tax (he's on C4 News right now).
    Who? Brom or Bridgen?
  • For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785
    Just found this from 2001. See 23:49, John Fortune speaks for all of us on this board:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2l8oXuoW8E
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    I think you would prefer his conclusion:

    “ Even if there is some pain, we were being told by Leave voters that the sacrifice would be worth it to get out of Europe.
    Arguments about democracy and identity trumped those about economics. And so it may turn out to be with Scottish independence.”


    Hard to argue with that after the last five years.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    The courts have been making law since long before the Tory party existed.

    Any real Conservative would understand the importance of the rule of law.
    I will wholeheartedly oppose anything that undermines the rule of law here.

    Not only just for our sakes either. Britain is still held in sufficiently high-esteem that such a move would ripple right round the world.
    I really don't understand the view of @Philip_Thompson here. If a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government had prorogued Parliament to avoid awkward questions, I would expect the Supreme Court to step in and rule it illegal.

    There is a triangle here: judiciary, executive and legislature. It shouldn't be possible for the executive to suspend the legislature without the consent of the legislature. (This, after all, was what the Civil War was fought over.)
    I understand it perfectly. They won. Begun, the upfucking has...

    (cue the Imperial March)
    It's strange - I was trying to find the BBC coverage on election night, but all that seemed to be playing was an endless loop of The Empire Strikes Back. Weird!
  • rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    The courts have been making law since long before the Tory party existed.

    Any real Conservative would understand the importance of the rule of law.
    I will wholeheartedly oppose anything that undermines the rule of law here.

    Not only just for our sakes either. Britain is still held in sufficiently high-esteem that such a move would ripple right round the world.
    I really don't understand the view of @Philip_Thompson here. If a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government had prorogued Parliament to avoid awkward questions, I would expect the Supreme Court to step in and rule it illegal.

    There is a triangle here: judiciary, executive and legislature. It shouldn't be possible for the executive to suspend the legislature without the consent of the legislature. (This, after all, was what the Civil War was fought over.)
    Governments have in the past prorogued Parliament to avoid awkward questions. Major did it.

    I agree with you on the principle here - I am not disputing it. But case history until this case was on the government's side as the English Court found. The Supreme Courts ruling was new - I didn't say new was wrong now did I? But it was new.

    The simplest solution I see is to require a straight vote in Parliament to approve proroguation. If it was up to me I would support going similar to the pre-FTPA system where de facto the PM could simply call an election, but where the Parliament needed to approve a proroguation. If the executive wanted a new Parliament that could be sorted by the voters, but if it wanted shut without elections then Parliament must approve that.
  • HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:


    Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?

    The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.

    Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
    The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.

    It's touching that you still believe him.

    You may have missed a post rec
    Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats y hastened pressure for reunification.

    Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
    He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he or the latter.
    The median Northern Ireland voter votes Alliance now and they back the Union so long as a hard border with the Republic of Ireland is avoided, thus yet again Boris has saved Brexit and the Union
    He has put a border between the island of Ireland and Great Britain. The DUP has been betrayed. What do the DUP want? To maintain Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. Boris said he would do this but then created a border in the Irish Sea. The DUP wouldn't feel betrayed if he had saved the Union. He has set out a clear pathway to a united Ireland. So no, he hasn't saved the Union. Quite the opposite.
    Nope, utterly wrong yet again.

    The DUP are a minority party in Northern Ireland now representing just 8 out of 18 NI seats.

    The choice was thus either a hard border with the Republic of Ireland leading inevitably to Irish reunification with perhaps the DUP declaring UDI in Antrim or else what Boris has done keeping the UK together in the only way the majority of Northern Ireland voters would accept ie avoiding a hard border with the Republic of Ireland and thus also protecting the Good Friday Agreement.

    There is no longer a Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, that is fact, there is still in Scotland
    Unionist majority in Scotland:

    1983 88%
    1987 86%
    1992 78%
    1997 78%
    2001 79%
    2005 82%
    2010 79%
    2015 49%
    2017 63%
    2019 54%
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,850
    Forget Netflix or any other of the Pay tv services. The Labour leadership bunfight is going to be much more fun .
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    Governments have in the past prorogued Parliament to avoid awkward questions. Major did it.

    I agree with you on the principle here - I am not disputing it. But case history until this case was on the government's side as the English Court found. The Supreme Courts ruling was new - I didn't say new was wrong now did I? But it was new.

    The simplest solution I see is to require a straight vote in Parliament to approve proroguation. If it was up to me I would support going similar to the pre-FTPA system where de facto the PM could simply call an election, but where the Parliament needed to approve a proroguation. If the executive wanted a new Parliament that could be sorted by the voters, but if it wanted shut without elections then Parliament must approve that.

    They can already hold a vote to recess, so I’m not sure what your point is.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    ydoethur said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    I think you would prefer his conclusion:

    “ Even if there is some pain, we were being told by Leave voters that the sacrifice would be worth it to get out of Europe.
    Arguments about democracy and identity trumped those about economics. And so it may turn out to be with Scottish independence.”


    Hard to argue with that after the last five years.
    It is hard to argue that nothing significant has changed since the last IndyRef. UK voting to Leave the EU whilst Scotland voted to Remain is massive really. Did the SNP ask, or could they have asked, for a clause in the EU referendum bill that if the result was as it turned out to be, it would trigger another go for them?
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Brom said:

    Just got a selfie with Andrew Bridgen. Can the last 7 days get any better?!!!

    Whatever floats your boat.
    At least he's against the TV poll tax (he's on C4 News right now).
    Who? Brom or Bridgen?
    I suspect both of us :smiley:
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,735

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Crossover!

    RLB fav again
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,735
    EPG said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    They should have not voted for 46 SNP MPs then.
    Yep. But I think it was more about Boris and Brexit than a considered vote for independence, although the two things are not entirely unrelated.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,595
    edited December 2019

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    I think you would prefer his conclusion:

    “ Even if there is some pain, we were being told by Leave voters that the sacrifice would be worth it to get out of Europe.
    Arguments about democracy and identity trumped those about economics. And so it may turn out to be with Scottish independence.”


    Hard to argue with that after the last five years.
    It is hard to argue that nothing significant has changed since the last IndyRef. UK voting to Leave the EU whilst Scotland voted to Remain is massive really. Did the SNP ask, or could they have asked, for a clause in the EU referendum bill that if the result was as it turned out to be, it would trigger another go for them?
    They didn’t, but they could and arguably should have done. A referendum requiring a majority in all five geographical areas to leave the EU would have been of interest to Cameron given even without Scotland Gibraltar and Northern Ireland were always going to vote remain.

    It’s the kind of shameless vote rigging that Blair was thought to be considering over the Euro and that Callaghan had foisted on him in 1979. So it also had past form.
  • ydoethur said:

    Governments have in the past prorogued Parliament to avoid awkward questions. Major did it.

    I agree with you on the principle here - I am not disputing it. But case history until this case was on the government's side as the English Court found. The Supreme Courts ruling was new - I didn't say new was wrong now did I? But it was new.

    The simplest solution I see is to require a straight vote in Parliament to approve proroguation. If it was up to me I would support going similar to the pre-FTPA system where de facto the PM could simply call an election, but where the Parliament needed to approve a proroguation. If the executive wanted a new Parliament that could be sorted by the voters, but if it wanted shut without elections then Parliament must approve that.

    They can already hold a vote to recess, so I’m not sure what your point is.
    Recess requires a vote but proroguation doesn't. If proroguation required a vote (like recesses) then it would prevent this happening again.
  • rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    SunnyJim said:

    kle4 said:

    Lady Hale is worried, as she should be.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

    We saw HYUFDs immediate reaction to the prorogation ruling was that political appointment of judges was inevitable, and he clearly captures the tory mood on such matters. Boris is going to go for the courts in a big way - we know he is vindictive by nature.

    Perhaps it will give her pause for thought on her gloating.

    Yes, her gloating is so egregious the government deciding to undermine the courts is perfectly proportionate a response.
    If she wanted to get into politics and creating laws then maybe she should have stood for Parliament?
    Again missing the point about whether even if her judgement was wrong is this the correct response.
    It is a pretty inevitable response when judges start creating rather than enforcing laws.
    I know I am probably being dense here but how exactly did the SC 'create' a new law? Surely a new law has to be an Act of Parliament passed by both houses and and duly given royal assent?
    Courts have always created law, via Common Law or Case Law.

    Hale and the judges ruling was not based upon any Act of Parliament and did not have royal assent. Case history and Common Law did not show their ruling in the past. They created new tests, new case law and then found the government's actions to breach the law they create.
    I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
    Everything always is. It was a simplified answer to the question.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole continent must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Europe only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. Brexit is a reactionary dream from the past.
    :trollface:
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    ..
  • algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,475

    algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    Apart from it actually happening.
  • algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    What a shame you voted to stay in the U.K. which voted to leave the EU. Screwed the pooch with that one didn't you? You should have voted to leave when you had the chance.
  • algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    What a shame you voted to stay in the U.K. which voted to leave the EU. Screwed the pooch with that one didn't you? You should have voted to leave when you had the chance.
    They'll get another chance.
  • algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    What a shame you voted to stay in the U.K. which voted to leave the EU. Screwed the pooch with that one didn't you? You should have voted to leave when you had the chance.
    They'll be leaving soon enough, don't worry.
  • algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    What a shame you voted to stay in the U.K. which voted to leave the EU. Screwed the pooch with that one didn't you? You should have voted to leave when you had the chance.
    Uncharacteristically nasty post for you.

    I thought that victory might soften the edges, but Brexit really has brought out the very worst in people. The atmosphere is toxic. Reminds me of the 1980s.
  • algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit will be chaotic anyway. If the Dover-Calais border can be made to work then the three crossings in the Borders can, easily.
  • isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    I think you would prefer his conclusion:

    “ Even if there is some pain, we were being told by Leave voters that the sacrifice would be worth it to get out of Europe.
    Arguments about democracy and identity trumped those about economics. And so it may turn out to be with Scottish independence.”


    Hard to argue with that after the last five years.
    It is hard to argue that nothing significant has changed since the last IndyRef. UK voting to Leave the EU whilst Scotland voted to Remain is massive really. Did the SNP ask, or could they have asked, for a clause in the EU referendum bill that if the result was as it turned out to be, it would trigger another go for them?
    It should trigger another go anyway. It is the fair and honourable thing to do. Westminster - especially one now dominated by Brexiteers - standing in the way is a dishonest and illogical position to take. In the long term it just makes Scottish Independence more likely.
  • ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole continent must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Europe only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. Brexit is a reactionary dream from the past.
    :trollface:
    Changing someone's posting without making it obvious that is what you have done is a very poor show.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,850

    algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    What a shame you voted to stay in the U.K. which voted to leave the EU. Screwed the pooch with that one didn't you? You should have voted to leave when you had the chance.
    Uncharacteristically nasty post for you.

    I thought that victory might soften the edges, but Brexit really has brought out the very worst in people. The atmosphere is toxic. Reminds me of the 1980s.
    You are just pissed off that the "sainted" Nicola didn't get the overwhelming mandate she thought she would get. NO referendum… suck it up.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,632
    edited December 2019

    algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    What a shame you voted to stay in the U.K. which voted to leave the EU. Screwed the pooch with that one didn't you? You should have voted to leave when you had the chance.
    Uncharacteristically nasty post for you.

    I thought that victory might soften the edges, but Brexit really has brought out the very worst in people. The atmosphere is toxic. Reminds me of the 1980s.
    You mean lefties refusing to accept the democratic outcome of votes and choosing violence instead. Yes I suppose there are some similarities.

    Edit. But yes I agree, some of the postings directed at Scottish Independence advocates on here the last couple of days have been very poor. So much for humility.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole continent must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Europe only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. Brexit is a reactionary dream from the past.
    :trollface:
    Changing someone's posting without making it obvious that is what you have done is a very poor show.
    You think that wasn’t obvious? I thought it was more obvious than Emily Thornberry’s contempt for Labour voters!
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole continent must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Europe only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. Brexit is a reactionary dream from the past.
    :trollface:
    Changing someone's posting without making it obvious that is what you have done is a very poor show.
    You think that wasn’t obvious? I thought it was more obvious than Emily Thornberry’s contempt for Labour voters!
    No it wasn't, at least not dropping into the conversation blind. It was only because it was so out of character that I went and checked back
  • algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    What a shame you voted to stay in the U.K. which voted to leave the EU. Screwed the pooch with that one didn't you? You should have voted to leave when you had the chance.
    Uncharacteristically nasty post for you.

    I thought that victory might soften the edges, but Brexit really has brought out the very worst in people. The atmosphere is toxic. Reminds me of the 1980s.
    I didn't mean to be nasty, I was quite serious. What was nasty, the "screwed the pooch" phrase - I think that your [collective Scottish] vote to stay in the UK was a mistake, do you disagree with me there? If you don't disagree, why are you offended?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    algarkirk said:

    For those interested in the Scottish question there is a devastating analysis of the economics of independence by the BBC's economics editor Douglas Fraser on the Beeb website. There is no way Scots will vote Indy if it hurts their pensions and savings.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50822431

    The key lines are here:

    Five years ago, Alex Salmond and the 'yes' campaign could portray independence as requiring very little change, at least of the type that would be disruptive or threatening to people's finances.
    We were reassured that the currency would remain the same, the border would be open, and Scotland and England would share regulation of finance and much else besides.
    That's not so easy to argue after Brexit. The SNP's new currency is already a more complex offer: use sterling, but without any joint controls, get ready for Holyrood to create a Scottish currency, and from there, decide if it's in the country's interests to join the euro.
    That's harder to sell on the doorstep, particularly one owned by a resident with a mortgage, pension and savings all in sterling.

    Let me guess your conclusion: the analysis is so devastating it's not worth even considering another indy ref.
    Not sure about that. In my view Brexit and a real border between England and Scotland in the event of IndyRef would be a good platform for a unionist defence during a referendum. But the arguments about the currency and the deficit would be clinchers because of the real implications for savings and pensions. Don't really see how the Nats could win in those circumstances TBH.

    Agree. The whole island must be either in or out of the EU, or it will be chaotic, and Britain only makes sense in a post tribal world as a single state. SNP is a reactionary dream from the past.
    Brexit is the reactionary dream.
    What a shame you voted to stay in the U.K. which voted to leave the EU. Screwed the pooch with that one didn't you? You should have voted to leave when you had the chance.
    Uncharacteristically nasty post for you.

    I thought that victory might soften the edges, but Brexit really has brought out the very worst in people. The atmosphere is toxic. Reminds me of the 1980s.
    You are just pissed off that the "sainted" Nicola didn't get the overwhelming mandate she thought she would get. NO referendum… suck it up.
    80% of the seats equals no mandate.

    You. Couldn't. Make. It. Up.
  • Sorry.



    Not sorry.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    edited December 2019
    On a serious point, almost every argument for Scottish independence is also an argument for Britain to leave the EU. Let’s take control of our destiny and not have greedy foreigners who don’t get us doing it - check. We can join with other, bigger markets and sell into them - check. We need to sort out our own finances and being wrapped in this comfort blanket masks our problems - check. We’re a proud nation with a long history and should stand on our own feet - check. There might be some economic damage, but it’s not as bad as people say it will be - check.

    Similarly, of course, the arguments against can be readily compared. Let’s not cut off our biggest market. The disruption won’t be worth it. The economics doesn’t stack up. Small nations need to be in big trading blocks to make themselves count these days.

    About the only really significant difference is over currency. Which is hardly the most vital of questions, to be honest. If Montenegro could get round it, I’m sure Scotland could manage somehow.

    It has therefore always baffled me how great a correlation there is between Eurosceptics and Unionists, and between ScotNats and Europhiles (yes, I know there are exceptions including several on this board). The inconsistency of their arguments is beyond daft.

    Ultimately I think what both groups in both arguments are trying to hide is that these are marginal decisions. Neither the UK nor Scotland will face Armageddon should they leave the EU or UK, and equally neither will find it’s actually a solution to the problems they face (as Ireland found it was not). So there is an overwhelming tendency to exaggerate, divide, obfuscate and conceal even from themselves the reality of the situation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,758
    Interesting how hostile BBC HYS is at the moment toward Labour and remain right now. I think leave is going to move into the lead in the next lot of polls. And locals look immediately poor for Labour right now
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    Sorry.



    Not sorry.

    He’s flopped in every respect?
  • Alistair said:

    You are just pissed off that the "sainted" Nicola didn't get the overwhelming mandate she thought she would get. NO referendum… suck it up.

    80% of the seats equals no mandate.

    You. Couldn't. Make. It. Up.
    There were 650 seats up for election - are you claiming Sturgeon won 520 of them? I didn't think she got even a tenth of that.

    7% of the seats equals no mandate.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660


    It has therefore always baffled me how great a correlation there is between Eurosceptics and Unionists, and between ScotNats and Europhiles (yes, I know there are exceptions including several on this board). The inconsistency of their arguments is beyond daft.

    According to post Euro Ref polling the average SNP voter was more likely to be a Brexiter than the average member of the Scottish public.

    The SNP lost a big chunk of Brexiter voter between 2015 and 2017. I wonder if they got them back in 2019?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963

    Alistair said:

    You are just pissed off that the "sainted" Nicola didn't get the overwhelming mandate she thought she would get. NO referendum… suck it up.

    80% of the seats equals no mandate.

    You. Couldn't. Make. It. Up.
    There were 650 seats up for election - are you claiming Sturgeon won 520 of them? I didn't think she got even a tenth of that.

    7% of the seats equals no mandate.
    Just a thought - didn’t the SNP get a comparable vote share per candidate than the Tories, but a higher proportion of seats?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,963
    edited December 2019
    Alistair said:

    According to post Euro Ref polling the average SNP voter was more likely to be a Brexiter than the average member of the Scottish public.

    The SNP lost a big chunk of Brexiter voter between 2015 and 2017. I wonder if they got them back in 2019?

    So why, with a few exceptions, does the party hierarchy not reflect this?

    Also, that suggests one reason why the Tories struggled in Scotland - Brexiteers who want independence were hardly likely to vote for them!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,177
    Emily Thornberry trying to lead a peasants' revolt?

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1207396244416585728

    Unlike past bad royal adivisors, Milne and Murphy haven't yet had their heads mounted on pikes.
  • ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    You are just pissed off that the "sainted" Nicola didn't get the overwhelming mandate she thought she would get. NO referendum… suck it up.

    80% of the seats equals no mandate.

    You. Couldn't. Make. It. Up.
    There were 650 seats up for election - are you claiming Sturgeon won 520 of them? I didn't think she got even a tenth of that.

    7% of the seats equals no mandate.
    Just a thought - didn’t the SNP get a comparable vote share per candidate than the Tories, but a higher proportion of seats?
    Depends how you view it but the SNP got a lower vote share in Scotland than the Tories got in England, but a much higher proportion of seats.

    In Scotland the SNP got 45.0% of the votes and 81.4% of the seats.
    In England the Tories got 47.2% of the votes and 64.7% of the seats.
This discussion has been closed.