TimT said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

It is appalling.

I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.

You are quite woke. Very woke for a Tory.

Only @TOPPING comes close.

I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.

Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.

The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.

It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).

But if you want to throw it back in my face.

Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.

To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.

As always it's case by case.

You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.

But other cases are less clear.

But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.

To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).

Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.

Nigelb said:

ThomasNashe said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Veep betting: Susan Rice is now clear 2nd fav.

My viewpoint on selecting a Veep candidate is who will annoy Donald most...

The AOC?

Or, perhaps....

https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1253474772702429189

Northern_Al said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.

Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.

LadyG said:

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

It is appalling.

I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.

You are quite woke. Very woke for a Tory.

Only @TOPPING comes close.

I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.

Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.

The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.

It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).

But if you want to throw it back in my face.

Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.

To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.

As always it's case by case.

You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.

But other cases are less clear.

But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.

To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).

Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.

As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?

All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.

Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

Stocky said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

ThomasNashe said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Veep betting: Susan Rice is now clear 2nd fav.

My viewpoint on selecting a Veep candidate is who will annoy Donald most...

The AOC?

Or, perhaps....

https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1253474772702429189

OK, perhaps slightly under qualified.

But imagine the VP debate.

Philip_Thompson said:

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

It is appalling.

I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.

You are quite woke. Very woke for a Tory.

Only @TOPPING comes close.

I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.

Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.

The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.

It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).

But if you want to throw it back in my face.

Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.

To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.

As always it's case by case.

You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.

But other cases are less clear.

But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.

To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).

Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.

For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.

Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.

A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

It is appalling.

I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.

You are quite woke. Very woke for a Tory.

Only @TOPPING comes close.

I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.

Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.

The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.

It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).

But if you want to throw it back in my face.

Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.

To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.

As always it's case by case.

You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.

But other cases are less clear.

But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.

To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).

Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.

For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.

Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.

A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.

One thing Ive never understood about cultural appropriation is what people whose parents come from different cultures are supposed to do/allowed to do?

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

It is appalling.

I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.

You are quite woke. Very woke for a Tory.

Only @TOPPING comes close.

I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.

Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.

The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.

It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).

But if you want to throw it back in my face.

Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.

To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.

As always it's case by case.

You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.

But other cases are less clear.

But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.

To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).

Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.

For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.

Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.

A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.

One thing Ive never understood about cultural appropriation is what people whose parents come from different cultures are supposed to do/allowed to do?

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

LadyG said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/kacnutt/status/1278363966541004800?s=20

Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.

An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.

The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.

Yes.

Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?

Answer - would be interested to learn it.

Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.

If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...

You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.

The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.

The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.

The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.

And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.

The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).

The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).

I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.

Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.

No it wasn’t. Here are the exact words from the SNP manifesto:

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

Now, a few points to note:

1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.

2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.

3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’

So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.

The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’

And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.

But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.

If it is legal, whether it's under Scots alw or not, it is not a wildcat refertendum. And a political party manifesto is not an act of constitutional law.

But some interesting thoughts re strategies. Yet what makes you think Mr Johnson would fold? Why should he? He could block the court case, and change the law meanwhile, as his predecessor did with the Brexit legislation.

Because ultimately Johnson does what is best for Johnson. And getting rid of a recalcitrant Scotland makes it much easier boh for him to pose as a champion of democracy and to hold power at Westminster.

That’s to leave aside the fact that refusing it under such circumstances could - and should - be considered a breach of Scotland’s right to self-determination.

Thanks for that - and yet, would Mr Johnson want to pose as the worst PM since Lord North? The one who destroyed the UK?

kle4 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.

And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

900 + posts on the Lib Dem leadership race thread.

Never let it be said that PB focuses on the big picture!

But I though you claimed yourself to be a Liberal, Charles ?

Why the disdain ?

stodge said:

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

900 + posts on the Lib Dem leadership race thread.

Never let it be said that PB focuses on the big picture!

But I though you claimed yourself to be a Liberal, Charles ?

Why the disdain ?

His contempt for the Liberal Democrats has been well advertised down the years on this forum.

LadyG said:

Northern_Al said:

BluestBlue said:

Northern_Al said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.

Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.

It's sweet that you think only one or two people object to this complete fucking lunacy.

Your style is different from Lady G's, as can be seen from your sentence.

I think most people object to this "lunacy", including me. Where we differ is that I think this lunacy represents the views of a very small, though vocal, minority of people.

They are no more representative of the political left than Tommy Robinson is of the right.

I agree with you. This is a tiny minority.

But this revolution is being driven, in part, by the extremists, at the moment - or so it seems to me. So the views of a small number of unbalanced people are quite important. Unfortunately

Luckyguy1983 said:

LadyG said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kle4 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.

And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?

It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.

Eloquently put.

Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.

Luckyguy1983 said:

LadyG said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kle4 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.

And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?

It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.

Eloquently put.

Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.

Theuniondivvie said:

BluestBlue said:

Stocky said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.

The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.

It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.

The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.

LadyG said:

TimT said:

LadyG said:

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

It is appalling.

I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.

You are quite woke. Very woke for a Tory.

Only @TOPPING comes close.

I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.

Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.

The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.

It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).

But if you want to throw it back in my face.

Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.

To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.

As always it's case by case.

You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.

But other cases are less clear.

But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.

To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).

Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.

As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?

All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.

Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?

Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.

But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.

Interesting. Thankyou

I note that Biden is wobbly on statue toppling. One minute he says George Washington must stay, the next that he can go. Perhaps he reflects Middle America's ambivalence

IshmaelZ said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

It is appalling.

I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.

You are quite woke. Very woke for a Tory.

Only @TOPPING comes close.

I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.

Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.

The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.

It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).

But if you want to throw it back in my face.

Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.

To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.

As always it's case by case.

You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.

But other cases are less clear.

But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.

To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).

Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.

For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.

Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.

A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.

One thing Ive never understood about cultural appropriation is what people whose parents come from different cultures are supposed to do/allowed to do?

And how university students manage to complain about it. A university is a machine for cultural appropriation. Without it Oxford would teach nothing but druidic astronomy, and herb lore.

Theuniondivvie said:

BluestBlue said:

Stocky said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.

The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.

It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.

The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.

LadyG said:

Certainly no sign of the Culture War dying down yet.

Mount Rushmore....

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1278387954440904704?s=20

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

LadyG said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/kacnutt/status/1278363966541004800?s=20

Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.

An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.

The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.

Yes.

Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?

Answer - would be interested to learn it.

Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.

If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...

You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.

The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.

The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.

The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.

And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.

The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).

The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).

I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.

Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.

No it wasn’t. Here are the exact words from the SNP manifesto:

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

Now, a few points to note:

1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.

2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.

3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’

So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.

The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’

And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.

But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.

If it is legal, whether it's under Scots alw or not, it is not a wildcat refertendum. And a political party manifesto is not an act of constitutional law.

But some interesting thoughts re strategies. Yet what makes you think Mr Johnson would fold? Why should he? He could block the court case, and change the law meanwhile, as his predecessor did with the Brexit legislation.

Because ultimately Johnson does what is best for Johnson. And getting rid of a recalcitrant Scotland makes it much easier boh for him to pose as a champion of democracy and to hold power at Westminster.

That’s to leave aside the fact that refusing it under such circumstances could - and should - be considered a breach of Scotland’s right to self-determination.

Thanks for that - and yet, would Mr Johnson want to pose as the worst PM since Lord North? The one who destroyed the UK?

How often do I have to remind people that Portland, Goderich, Aberdeen, Chamberlain and Brown all post-date North?

Luckyguy1983 said:

LadyG said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kle4 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.

And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?

It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.

Eloquently put.

Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.

Nigelb said:

On the one hand, he looks about 102; on the other...

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1278399239920418816

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Certainly no sign of the Culture War dying down yet.

Mount Rushmore....

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1278387954440904704?s=20

It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.

LadyG said:

Northern_Al said:

LadyG said:

Northern_Al said:

BluestBlue said:

Northern_Al said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.

Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.

It's sweet that you think only one or two people object to this complete fucking lunacy.

Your style is different from Lady G's, as can be seen from your sentence.

I think most people object to this "lunacy", including me. Where we differ is that I think this lunacy represents the views of a very small, though vocal, minority of people.

They are no more representative of the political left than Tommy Robinson is of the right.

I agree with you. This is a tiny minority.

But this revolution is being driven, in part, by the extremists, at the moment - or so it seems to me. So the views of a small number of unbalanced people are quite important. Unfortunately

What revolution? There is none. Just some people out for trouble, and a much large number of people wanting to make the world a better place. The troublemakers won't win.

When the extremists are on the other side, nobody thinks a revolution is imminent. When the National Front went around "Paki-bashing" in the 1970s and early 80s, and subsequently the BNP, EDL and now the hilariously-named Democratic Lads Football Alliance displayed their racism and hate, was that a sign of an imminent revolution or the end of civilisation? No, it's only the left-wing loonies that could bring the whole lot tumbling down, of course.

It's all nonsense, there won't be radical change, but hopefully black Americans might get a better deal than they get now and the culture of the USA police will improve. And of course, Trump will go.

Actually, you're right. Revolution is the wrong word.

Rupture is a better word.

My concern isn't for statues, anyway, my concern is the closing down of Free Speech, something Americans have protected admirably for centuries. I fear the Rupture, in its earnest and understandable zeal for justice, might irretrievably damage the cause of Free Speech.

We shall see.

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Certainly no sign of the Culture War dying down yet.

Mount Rushmore....

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1278387954440904704?s=20

It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.

Stone Mountain GA is a bigger rock carving. Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) and Generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was finished in 1972. That is well within my lifetime. A lot of these monuments went up within living memory.

Theuniondivvie said:

Omnium said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BluestBlue said:

Stocky said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.

The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.

It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.

The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.

I guess he'll pay his tax.

The loutish violence of the left isn't apocryphal. You should probably stop arsing about.

Get back to me when your promotion from reactionary rando to PB arsing about moderator comes through.

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Certainly no sign of the Culture War dying down yet.

Mount Rushmore....

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1278387954440904704?s=20

It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.

Stone Mountain GA is a bigger rock carving. Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) and Generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was finished in 1972. That is well within my lifetime. A lot of these monuments went up within living memory.

Foxy said:

West Ham saving our bacon

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

LadyG said:

Pulpstar said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

Christ.

It is so far beyond parody it circles the universe and gives parody a seeing-to from behind

Its this sort of thing that makes a Trump win conceivable.

How is it that the two options that Americans get to choose between are Trump and Biden. It's like a forced choice between syphilis and gonorrhoea.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Foxy said:

West Ham saving our bacon

Frustrating for me, I want to see the spanners get relegated.

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

900 + posts on the Lib Dem leadership race thread.

Never let it be said that PB focuses on the big picture!

But I though you claimed yourself to be a Liberal, Charles ?

Why the disdain ?

I’m a Liberal Unionist not a LibDem.

But even if I was a LibDem I’d still admit that there a few things at the moment of greater geopolitical significance than the next leader of the 4th largest party on the U.K.

CatMan said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BluestBlue said:

Stocky said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.

The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.

It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.

The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.

Yes, it really did happen.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cambridge-university-student-burn-20-note-homeless-man-abuse-privilege-ronald-coyne-a7924806.html

He at least felt regret. It might have been because he was caught mind you.

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

ThomasNashe said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Veep betting: Susan Rice is now clear 2nd fav.

My viewpoint on selecting a Veep candidate is who will annoy Donald most...

The AOC?

Or, perhaps....

https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1253474772702429189

OK, perhaps slightly under qualified.

But imagine the VP debate.

The blast of ultraviolet light turned out to be a genuine medical treatment too.

Really? Was there any doubt?

Photodynamic therapy is well known for head and neck cancer, melanoma and carcinoma as well as acne and rosacea

No_Offence_Alan said:

CatMan said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BluestBlue said:

Stocky said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.

The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.

It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.

The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.

Yes, it really did happen.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cambridge-university-student-burn-20-note-homeless-man-abuse-privilege-ronald-coyne-a7924806.html

He at least felt regret. It might have been because he was caught mind you.

I've heard of a football player who used to start fights in night clubs by , pre smoking ban, lighting a cigar with a £20 note.

NEW THREAD

Stocky said:

LadyG said:

Eventually Americans will, surely, tire of these awful people

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1278226800317919234?s=20

I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.