politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly there’s the prospect of a vaccine, perhaps even by th
Options
Comments
-
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:0 -
Who pays for the mechanics of Indyref2 in this case, since it's a reserved matter?RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
If it goes ahead, how do they deal with a result that's 90% in favor on a 40% turnout, since everyone opposed declines to participate?1 -
Sorry Alistair, my comment doesn't make sense because it should have been a reply to your one where you said you couldn't sit through it all.kjh said:
Don't blame you.Alistair said:
How very interesting. I will look this up forthwithkjh said:
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.Philip_Thompson said:
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.kjh said:
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.kjh said:
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:HYUFD said:
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.Philip_Thompson said:
Wrong.HYUFD said:
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
No its not.HYUFD said:
Banning indyref2 for a generation is UnionistRochdalePioneers said:
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.ClippP said:
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?eek said:
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.Mexicanpete said:
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.eek said:I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following:
If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
If it helps I can visualise the scene. It was just her and fairly informal and I got the impression she was surrounded by journalists that she was responding to, but not in shot. Fast forward?
What makes me confident is that I was unaware of the quote before so I am not subject to having read 'False News'. This was out of the blue for me.
I'm sorry I started this now. It was just a joke comment for HYUFD, but I bloody well want to find it now, if only to prove I am not going mad. So I will be probably sitting thru' all the episodes.0 -
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?4 -
It makes so much sense.Theuniondivvie said:For those who have once again been sucked into the HYUFD vortex of subjective and often ill informed opinion masquerading as analysis, I feel you should really take note of this recent snapshot of him in his home environment.
0 -
Unlike the English, the Scottish people ARE sovereign. Ultimately they could boot out Liz and her representatives the same way they treated James VII.0
-
Presumably if they want to prosecute her there is nothing the UK govt can do to stop them as a lady jailed in Iran due to our PM might point out.Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.1 -
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.0 -
If you can identify an equivalent case then I'll accept your point.OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:0 -
Yup, a conspiracy theory way too far. No way Oxford/AZ is letting that news out unless they are pretty bloody confident it's going to work.Nigelb said:
I don’t think the commercial interest will be all that massive for a company the size of Astra Zeneca. They’ll be producing it at a relatively low price, and most of the manufacturing is contracted out to other companies.Mysticrose said:I don't much like the idea of scientists leaking information to the media. It makes me suspicious. Science operates through the crucible of empiricism not tabloid journalism.
So I'm taking this vaccine 'news,' in which Astra Zeneca have a massive commercial interest, with a healthy degree of scepticism for now.
And they’ve nothing to gain from hyping something that doesn’t work.
And it will be at least a couple more months before they know for sure anyway.
0 -
I absolutely agree there should be another referendum, unfortunately, but I couldn't give two shits for what Thatcher thought about it regardless, nor would her view if not ironic invalidate anyone today taking a contrary view.Carnyx said:https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/854632078092185600?lang=en
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.0 -
There's not an equivalent case because stripping someone of their citizenship is a highly unusual and we are about to see perhaps illegal act.tlg86 said:
If you can identify an equivalent case then I'll accept your point.OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:0 -
I seem to remember it was the Scots who formed the bulk of the Jacobite rebellion to restore James VIIth to the throne alongside Irish CatholicsTres said:Unlike the English, the Scottish people ARE sovereign. Ultimately they could boot out Liz and her representatives the same way they treated James VII.
0 -
Further question - does she have a valid passport? Because if not, she can’t leave Syria. She would have to apply to the British Consul for temporary travel documents, and there isn’t one in Syria at the moment...Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
I agree with you incidentally, in an ideal world it would make more sense for her to be tried in Syria. The snag is that Syria has no functioning justice system.0 -
I meant where someone wasn't stripped of their citizenship for doing what she did.TOPPING said:
There's not an equivalent case because stripping someone of their citizenship is a highly unusual and we are about to see perhaps illegal act.tlg86 said:
If you can identify an equivalent case then I'll accept your point.OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:0 -
Yes, we do know that. Refugee camps are packed with people who were associated with Syrian rebel groups. They don't want trivial pawns from foreign countries like Begum in Syria at all let alone clogging up their judicial system and have been perfectly clear on that.Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Much as I dislike Assad, I totally understand why that's the Syrian position.0 -
I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?1 -
May not always be her decision, she seems to be happy to never have independence nowadays. SNP will not survive another mandate going to waste. There will be a new party that really seeks independence.Burgessian said:
The main justification for IndyRef2 (given that we have already had IndyRef1) is Brexit and that Scotland voted to Remain.HYUFD said:
Catalonia's government held a referendum on independence from Spain, the Yes side won, Spain tried to block it then ignored the result of the poll which Unionists had boycotted. Catalonia's government then declared UDI, Spain's government ignored it and temporarily imposed direct rule and ordered the arrest of nationalist leaders.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
Sturgeon has seen that and has therefore correctly said she will only hold an indyref2 if it is legal and has Westminster consent and that she will not declare UDI.
Plus Holyrood is a creation of Westminster, the original Scottish Parliament dissolved itself into Westminster in 1707
A dubious referendum would lead to Spain, and probably other EU members, vetoing the accession of an independent Scotland to membership of the EU.
So, as Sturgeon herself has acknowledged, without a Section 30 order from Westminster, there can be no IndyRef2.
Hard to believe the dummies at Labour have not spotted their only hope for the future.0 -
Defenestration by ones own side doesn't suggest being particularly good at either governing or politics.Fishing said:
She towers over anyone since though, and almost everyone before. She was good at, and interested in, governing, but also good at winning elections. So I think what she said is still relevant, even if it is not Gospel.Foxy said:
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Thatcher belongs to an era 3 decades or more ago.0 -
I had thought the discussion was based on the legal position because of your use of the word "legally". Turns out you weren't talking about the legal position at all, rather the political one.RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?0 -
No idea - the law has been employed with increasing frequency since 2014 (google), when four people were stripped of their citizenship.tlg86 said:
I meant where someone wasn't stripped of their citizenship for doing what she did.TOPPING said:
There's not an equivalent case because stripping someone of their citizenship is a highly unusual and we are about to see perhaps illegal act.tlg86 said:
If you can identify an equivalent case then I'll accept your point.OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:
But to return to the point, she was a child when she committed those offences. That requires different treatment. IMO.0 -
Malc, it has been explained to you and Stuart, patiently and at great length, with relevant citations, that sovereign powers are reserved to Westminster. That includes the power to hold another referendum on independence. Any attempt to hold it without that sanction might be both invalid - as in, having no standing - and unlawful, insofar as it would be an improper use of government funds.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
In any case since Westminster would under recent Supreme Court rulings have to pass a bill dissolving the union, as Holyrood doesn’t have that competency, the point is moot.
I know some lunatic fringe elements like Cherry disagree. Sturgeon is far too wily to be trapped like that. In any case, the longer Westminster is seen to be blocking a referendum the better her chances of winning one. Privately, she’s probably very happy indeed with the current situation.
That’s entirely separate from the question of whether it should happen.1 -
I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.0 -
You're the first person to give an actual source for the quote. The complete lack of source on that quote has always marked it out as deeply suspicious.kjh said:
Oh no, someone else I might be sending on a wild goose chase because I imagined something.Alistair said:
How very interesting. I will look this up forthwithkjh said:
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.Philip_Thompson said:
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.kjh said:
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.kjh said:
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:HYUFD said:
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.Philip_Thompson said:
Wrong.HYUFD said:
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
No its not.HYUFD said:
Banning indyref2 for a generation is UnionistRochdalePioneers said:
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.ClippP said:
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?eek said:
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.Mexicanpete said:
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.eek said:I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following:
If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
But now.. a source!0 -
Precisely.ydoethur said:
Malc, it has been explained to you and Stuart, patiently and at great length, with relevant citations, that sovereign powers are reserved to Westminster. That includes the power to hold another referendum on independence. Any attempt to hold it without that sanction might be both invalid - as in, having no standing - and unlawful, insofar as it would be an improper use of government funds.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
In any case since Westminster would under recent Supreme Court rulings have to pass a bill dissolving the union, as Holyrood doesn’t have that competency, the point is moot.
I know some lunatic fringe elements like Cherry disagree. Sturgeon is far too wily to be trapped like that. In any case, the longer Westminster is seen to be blocking a referendum the better her chances of winning one. Privately, she’s probably very happy indeed with the current situation.
That’s entirely separate from the question of whether it should happen.
Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5:
The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(a)the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b)the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
...2 -
Yes. A teenager being groomed by an older man deserves some sympathy, though clearly needs supervision.TOPPING said:
No idea - the law has been employed with increasing frequency since 2014 (google), when four people were stripped of their citizenship.tlg86 said:
I meant where someone wasn't stripped of their citizenship for doing what she did.TOPPING said:
There's not an equivalent case because stripping someone of their citizenship is a highly unusual and we are about to see perhaps illegal act.tlg86 said:
If you can identify an equivalent case then I'll accept your point.OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:
But to return to the point, she was a child when she committed those offences. That requires different treatment. IMO.0 -
Plenty of right wing white terrorists get dealt with by the courts, but the government has never tried to strip them of their citizenship, so the issue doesn't arise.tlg86 said:
If you can identify an equivalent case then I'll accept your point.OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:0 -
She was a child.Luckyguy1983 said:
I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.0 -
Legally Westminster can dissolve Holyrood and impose direct rule. And then pass a law for Scotland that bans Whisky. My point was and remains thus: having been elected on a mandate and having received the backing of the people the Scottish government has the power to seek to dissolve the Scottish Act of Union.RobD said:
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
It is not Catalonia seeing to assign itself powers laws and status that it never had. It is one law. Legally applicable in Scotland not England. That the democratic mandate of the Scottish Parliament wants to repeal. Yes, Westminster legally can tell them to go swivel and send it General Wade. They won't though...0 -
The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.1
-
I'm not necessarily a fan of linking the two. UBI so explicitly from investment money rather than day to day tax and spend feels slightly odd on first impression.noneoftheabove said:
What have we lent £30-40bn? Assume the top end and its all paid back, safe withdrawal rate of 3% gives £1.2bn or £20 per year each.RochdalePioneers said:Still watching last night's LibDems hustings.
Davey's UBI proposal. Companies who owe £ to the treasury from Covid loans pay it back into a sovereign wealth fund which then gets invested to pay for UBI.
Not a good start! And Im a fan of a sovereign wealth fund and UBI!0 -
David Hicks and Anna Chapman appears to be the only white people on the list, although Hicks was a Muslim and a truly peculiar case:OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2013-02-26/medieval-exile-the-42-britons-stripped-of-their-citizenship0 -
It doesn't legally speaking, which was my point.RochdalePioneers said:
Legally Westminster can dissolve Holyrood and impose direct rule. And then pass a law for Scotland that bans Whisky. My point was and remains thus: having been elected on a mandate and having received the backing of the people the Scottish government has the power to seek to dissolve the Scottish Act of Union.RobD said:
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
It is not Catalonia seeing to assign itself powers laws and status that it never had. It is one law. Legally applicable in Scotland not England. That the democratic mandate of the Scottish Parliament wants to repeal. Yes, Westminster legally can tell them to go swivel and send it General Wade. They won't though...0 -
-
Russian bots use Reddit? Utterly damning news!Scott_xP said:1 -
Obviously Scotland pays for it out of its budget and when did any vote depend on turnout , apart from the 1978 rigged Westminster independence vote where they counted the dead as NO. Did the Tories get more than 50% of those that voted never mind look at turnout. You colonial English Nationalist unionists do not like democracy. Keep polishing those jackboots.Sandpit said:
Who pays for the mechanics of Indyref2 in this case, since it's a reserved matter?RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
If it goes ahead, how do they deal with a result that's 90% in favor on a 40% turnout, since everyone opposed declines to participate?0 -
I was drawing against the false comparison of Scotland and Catalonia. I know that the absolute power rests in Westminster on this specific issue. Would be a fun stand off though - "I don't care who or what you vote for we will ignore you. Vote Conservative"RobD said:
I had thought the discussion was based on the legal position because of your use of the word "legally". Turns out you weren't talking about the legal position at all, rather the political one.RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?0 -
They have a point, don't they? If you want to distract people from something, you tend not to talk about what you are trying to distract them from.Scott_xP said:0 -
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
0 -
Does it - anyone sane will say that they will let the law of the land make the decision.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
It's going to be hard to remove someone who doesn't have the right to live in the country they will need to send her back to though..0 -
It's not that unusual to remove citizenship - it's varied over time but there's often a few dozen a year.TOPPING said:
There's not an equivalent case because stripping someone of their citizenship is a highly unusual and we are about to see perhaps illegal act.tlg86 said:
If you can identify an equivalent case then I'll accept your point.OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:
The issue here is not the stripping of citizenship but the leaving stateless, where (and this is in the legislation) the Home Secretary must be satisfied the person is able to obtain citizenship elsewhere. Given Bangladesh argue that she's not eligible and that she won't be given citizenship, that's pretty problematic.2 -
I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.Luckyguy1983 said:
I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.1 -
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.RobD said:
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?0 -
No, this was in your opening comment:RochdalePioneers said:
I was drawing against the false comparison of Scotland and Catalonia. I know that the absolute power rests in Westminster on this specific issue. Would be a fun stand off though - "I don't care who or what you vote for we will ignore you. Vote Conservative"RobD said:
I had thought the discussion was based on the legal position because of your use of the word "legally". Turns out you weren't talking about the legal position at all, rather the political one.RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?
Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union....0 -
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.malcolmg said:
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.RobD said:
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?2 -
UBI is one of those great ideas that works in theory but not in practice.RochdalePioneers said:Still watching last night's LibDems hustings.
Davey's UBI proposal. Companies who owe £ to the treasury from Covid loans pay it back into a sovereign wealth fund which then gets invested to pay for UBI.
First half a dozen questions:
1. Who would be eligible for UBI - UK citizens, EU citizens, residents, tourists, asylum seekers?
2. How much? Current government welfare spending is c. £300bn, that's only five grand per person. Many welfare recipients get much more than this already, so why would they be in favour?
3. How would income tax rates change to claw back UBI from "the rich"? How much extra tax would this group pay?
4. Would it be paid to children in full, or at a different rate?
5. How would it interface with the existing benefits system, with specific attention to housing benefits which pay for many 'poor' people to live in expensive places?
6. How many redundancies are expected to be made from the current bureaucracy of DWP and other government agencies?0 -
Realistically you'd need to stick something closer to 5% on all tax rates to fund it to any meaningful degree.RochdalePioneers said:Still watching last night's LibDems hustings.
Davey's UBI proposal. Companies who owe £ to the treasury from Covid loans pay it back into a sovereign wealth fund which then gets invested to pay for UBI.
And address that it would be a massive incentive for people to come to the UK to claim asylum.0 -
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
0 -
You do realise this is sending me absolutely bonkers don't you. I have just scanned all 5 episodes of the panels you see when you run along the time line to see if I can recognise the scene. No luck.Alistair said:
You're the first person to give an actual source for the quote. The complete lack of source on that quote has always marked it out as deeply suspicious.kjh said:
Oh no, someone else I might be sending on a wild goose chase because I imagined something.Alistair said:
How very interesting. I will look this up forthwithkjh said:
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.Philip_Thompson said:
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.kjh said:
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.kjh said:
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:HYUFD said:
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.Philip_Thompson said:
Wrong.HYUFD said:
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
No its not.HYUFD said:
Banning indyref2 for a generation is UnionistRochdalePioneers said:
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.ClippP said:
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.Mexicanpete said:
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?eek said:
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.Mexicanpete said:
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.eek said:I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following:
If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
But now.. a source!
And what is so frustrating is I was completely unaware of the quote prior to this.
I only posted it to gently tease HYUFD. I wish I hadn't now as my life is disappearing in front of me.
What is worse it is possible I have imagined something that people have been debating that I am previously apparently (consciously anyway) unaware of.
What else is going on in my head that isn't real (or maybe is)?1 -
RP, like too many people on here you are misunderstanding the basis of the British system of government. In America, power derived from the people. On behalf of the people, the states have ceded some of that power to a federal unit.RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?
Power In this country, by contrast, derives from the sovereign. The Sovereign has delegated some of those powers to Parliament, to govern on their behalf.
Therefore the Scottish Parliament didn’t ‘transfer its powers to Westminster,’ nor can it unilaterally take hem back, because they are powers granted at the behest of the sovereign. It relinquished its powers, which were then passed to a theoretically newly constituted body at the behest of the sovereign.
Yes, I know that’s now mere form, but it’s an important form. It means that unlike a state in the USA or the EU, where powers not transferred to the centre are retained, any powers not transferred from the centre are retained by the centre.
So whether Holyrood likes it or not, a vote by it to ‘repeal the union’ is not valid.2 -
'Denis' may have the bitter memes, but we've got 'his' * seat - Labour in a nutshell.bigjohnowls said:
*Obviously a Skinner fan's posting, not the man himself!0 -
some of them will probably be on the side of Begum given how much they dislike BritainOnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
0 -
What's she hoping to achieve here, a recognition that the price of PPE went up massively in the midst of a global pandemic?Scott_xP said:0 -
The idea that England can keep Scotland in the union against Scots' will is for the birds.
It's a voluntary union of equals.
0 -
Agreed, but from a legal point of view they are stuck with us.Anabobazina said:The idea that England can keep Scotland in the union against Scots' will is for the birds.
It's a voluntary union of equals.
0 -
your supposed imagination of what is and is not legal is neither here nor there Rob. I can imagine I am the Pope it does not make it real or legal.RobD said:
I had thought the discussion was based on the legal position because of your use of the word "legally". Turns out you weren't talking about the legal position at all, rather the political one.RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?0 -
And against the British people . As always.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
0 -
I assume you are similarly imagining the Scottish Parliament's legal authority in this matter?malcolmg said:
your supposed imagination of what is and is not legal is neither here nor there Rob. I can imagine I am the Pope it does not make it real or legal.RobD said:
I had thought the discussion was based on the legal position because of your use of the word "legally". Turns out you weren't talking about the legal position at all, rather the political one.RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?1 -
I am talking about the real risks of compressing multi-year trials and approvals programmes into a few months, for vaccines that will be deployed on unprecedented scales and timeframes, and in which governments are heavily invested ahead of trial and approval. These risks are being flagged up by experts in the field, which I assume neither you nor I am. I linked a couple of articles on this upthread. I don't think any of us think that vaccines can't be found for Covid-19. The questions are entirely about their workability, which after all is the topic of this header.MaxPB said:
Serious question - have you ever been diagnosed with anhedonia? We finally get some pretty good news about a vaccine for this virus which is destroying lives and the economy and all you can see are negatives for the country. Not that we potentially have 30m doses of a vaccine that has a solid chance of working by the end of September, or that there is a t-cell immune response which means it could give long lasting immunity, or that the phase 1/2 safety trials have been successful?FF43 said:
The two big risks I see are firstly that governments are gambling on specific vaccines by buying massive numbers of doses ahead of trial or approval. There will be huge pressure to approve these vaccines on possibly inconclusive trial data. They will then apply this vaccine on entire populations in short order. They have one chance to get this right. If there are any adverse effects at all, they will show up after the population has been vaccinated and will be in large absolute numbers, even if the proportion of affected patients is small.
The second risk is that if people get a whiff of any short-cuts being made to the safety regime, they will refuse to vaccinate and the programme will fail, even if the vaccine is actually safe.
All you can see is a possible gamble that might go wrong. It's a little bit odd.
These issues and risks apply to all governments and all potential vaccines. Curious to note you and @RobD view vaccine development in nationalist terms. Interesting essay on this phenomenon by George Orwell: Notes on Nationalism0 -
The majority of the British people know so little of the case they base their judgment on poor reporting, hearsay and prejudice. Typical of so many such issues which play into the hands of right wing populists.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
0 -
Those interviews she gave - as an adult - didn't exactly show her as a someone who was horrified by what she had got involved with.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.Luckyguy1983 said:
I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.2 -
The conclusion I draw from this discussion is that
To go back to my original point which Rob is artfully sidestepping:RobD said:
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.malcolmg said:
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.RobD said:
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
"Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament."
I did not say that the Scottish government legally owns the continuation of the Union. I said that legally Scotland is an equal partner. Which it is - two separate Acts of Union in what remains two separate legal systems. Westminster *can* refuse a democratic request from the Scottish government to repeal the Scottish Act and say "its not a devolved power". That is true. But we know that it would not, at least not for long.
Or is the argument that despite two equal Acts of Union cast in two separate legal systems that Scotland is as relevant as Wales or Yorkshire or Sealand?0 -
I suspect you are right but the issue is really one for constitutional lawyers to decide when things get pushed to the final breaking point.ydoethur said:
RP, like too many people on here you are misunderstanding the basis of the British system of government. In America, power derived from the people. On behalf of the people, the states have ceded some of that power to a federal unit.RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?
Power In this country, by contrast, derives from the sovereign. The Sovereign has delegated some of those powers to Parliament, to govern on their behalf.
Therefore the Scottish Parliament didn’t ‘transfer its powers to Westminster,’ nor can it unilaterally take hem back, because they are powers granted at the behest of the sovereign. It relinquished its powers, which were then passed to a theoretically newly constituted body at the behest of the sovereign.
Yes, I know that’s now mere form, but it’s an important form. It means that unlike a state in the USA or the EU, where powers not transferred to the centre are retained, any powers not transferred from the centre are retained by the centre.
So whether Holyrood likes it or not, a vote by it to ‘repeal the union’ is not valid.0 -
Legally Scotland as a sovereign entity ceased to exist. It can't be an equal partner if it no longer exists.RochdalePioneers said:The conclusion I draw from this discussion is that
To go back to my original point which Rob is artfully sidestepping:RobD said:
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.malcolmg said:
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.RobD said:
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
"Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament."
I did not say that the Scottish government legally owns the continuation of the Union. I said that legally Scotland is an equal partner. Which it is - two separate Acts of Union in what remains two separate legal systems. Westminster *can* refuse a democratic request from the Scottish government to repeal the Scottish Act and say "its not a devolved power". That is true. But we know that it would not, at least not for long.
Or is the argument that despite two equal Acts of Union cast in two separate legal systems that Scotland is as relevant as Wales or Yorkshire or Sealand?2 -
That would in itself be a refreshing change from its attitude under Corbyn.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
1 -
Ydoethur , imaginary legal rights from barrack room lawyers on here do not make it right. I think you talk bollox on the legal front. Until it is tested in court we are both talking bollox. However in a democracy it is hard to see the current English dictatorship being in the right in any shape or form.ydoethur said:
Malc, it has been explained to you and Stuart, patiently and at great length, with relevant citations, that sovereign powers are reserved to Westminster. That includes the power to hold another referendum on independence. Any attempt to hold it without that sanction might be both invalid - as in, having no standing - and unlawful, insofar as it would be an improper use of government funds.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
In any case since Westminster would under recent Supreme Court rulings have to pass a bill dissolving the union, as Holyrood doesn’t have that competency, the point is moot.
I know some lunatic fringe elements like Cherry disagree. Sturgeon is far too wily to be trapped like that. In any case, the longer Westminster is seen to be blocking a referendum the better her chances of winning one. Privately, she’s probably very happy indeed with the current situation.
That’s entirely separate from the question of whether it should happen.0 -
That does not supercede the union treaty as it is international law , it is bollox.RobD said:
Precisely.ydoethur said:
Malc, it has been explained to you and Stuart, patiently and at great length, with relevant citations, that sovereign powers are reserved to Westminster. That includes the power to hold another referendum on independence. Any attempt to hold it without that sanction might be both invalid - as in, having no standing - and unlawful, insofar as it would be an improper use of government funds.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
In any case since Westminster would under recent Supreme Court rulings have to pass a bill dissolving the union, as Holyrood doesn’t have that competency, the point is moot.
I know some lunatic fringe elements like Cherry disagree. Sturgeon is far too wily to be trapped like that. In any case, the longer Westminster is seen to be blocking a referendum the better her chances of winning one. Privately, she’s probably very happy indeed with the current situation.
That’s entirely separate from the question of whether it should happen.
Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5:
The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(a)the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b)the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
...0 -
None of the signatories of that treaty exist anymore.malcolmg said:
That does not supercede the union treaty as it is international law , it is bollox.RobD said:
Precisely.ydoethur said:
Malc, it has been explained to you and Stuart, patiently and at great length, with relevant citations, that sovereign powers are reserved to Westminster. That includes the power to hold another referendum on independence. Any attempt to hold it without that sanction might be both invalid - as in, having no standing - and unlawful, insofar as it would be an improper use of government funds.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
In any case since Westminster would under recent Supreme Court rulings have to pass a bill dissolving the union, as Holyrood doesn’t have that competency, the point is moot.
I know some lunatic fringe elements like Cherry disagree. Sturgeon is far too wily to be trapped like that. In any case, the longer Westminster is seen to be blocking a referendum the better her chances of winning one. Privately, she’s probably very happy indeed with the current situation.
That’s entirely separate from the question of whether it should happen.
Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5:
The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(a)the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b)the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
...0 -
Yawn.BluestBlue said:
And against the British people . As always.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
0 -
The majority tends to take a pretty dim view of those who run away to wage war against us. That probably seems old-fashioned to some trendy liberals, I'm sure...nichomar said:
The majority of the British people know so little of the case they base their judgment on poor reporting, hearsay and prejudice. Typical of so many such issues which play into the hands of right wing populists.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
0 -
Being on the side of the rule of law is indistinguishable from being on the side of the British people, given we invented the f***ing rule of law, and it underpins our whole democracy.BluestBlue said:
And against the British people . As always.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
2 -
No need. Boris and the Tory majority at Westminster will refuse indyref2 and ignore a UDI but he does not need to anyway as Sturgeon has correctly said she will not hold indyref2 without Westminster consent and will not declare UDI which means as long as Boris remains PM and Sturgeon remains First Minister there will not be any indyref2 (at least for another generation)RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?0 -
It was a Daily Mail decision from Sajid Javid as I recall.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
It's not that unusual to remove citizenship - it's varied over time but there's often a few dozen a year.TOPPING said:
There's not an equivalent case because stripping someone of their citizenship is a highly unusual and we are about to see perhaps illegal act.tlg86 said:
If you can identify an equivalent case then I'll accept your point.OnlyLivingBoy said:
How many white skinheads have the government stripped of their citizenship?tlg86 said:
The issue here is not the stripping of citizenship but the leaving stateless, where (and this is in the legislation) the Home Secretary must be satisfied the person is able to obtain citizenship elsewhere. Given Bangladesh argue that she's not eligible and that she won't be given citizenship, that's pretty problematic.0 -
Yes, hopefully with Corbyn gone Labour can establish support for the rule of law as a clear point of differentiation from the Tories.ydoethur said:
That would in itself be a refreshing change from its attitude under Corbyn.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
0 -
MAlc, I can’t help it that the facts run counter to your wishes. They remain facts. And the fact you have nothing with which to actually argue against them suggests you know it too.malcolmg said:
Ydoethur , imaginary legal rights from barrack room lawyers on here do not make it right. I think you talk bollox on the legal front. Until it is tested in court we are both talking bollox. However in a democracy it is hard to see the current English dictatorship being in the right in any shape or form.ydoethur said:
Malc, it has been explained to you and Stuart, patiently and at great length, with relevant citations, that sovereign powers are reserved to Westminster. That includes the power to hold another referendum on independence. Any attempt to hold it without that sanction might be both invalid - as in, having no standing - and unlawful, insofar as it would be an improper use of government funds.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
In any case since Westminster would under recent Supreme Court rulings have to pass a bill dissolving the union, as Holyrood doesn’t have that competency, the point is moot.
I know some lunatic fringe elements like Cherry disagree. Sturgeon is far too wily to be trapped like that. In any case, the longer Westminster is seen to be blocking a referendum the better her chances of winning one. Privately, she’s probably very happy indeed with the current situation.
That’s entirely separate from the question of whether it should happen.
Dura lex, sed lex.1 -
There is no English dictatorship, Westminster includes Scottish MPs as well as English MPsmalcolmg said:
Ydoethur , imaginary legal rights from barrack room lawyers on here do not make it right. I think you talk bollox on the legal front. Until it is tested in court we are both talking bollox. However in a democracy it is hard to see the current English dictatorship being in the right in any shape or form.ydoethur said:
Malc, it has been explained to you and Stuart, patiently and at great length, with relevant citations, that sovereign powers are reserved to Westminster. That includes the power to hold another referendum on independence. Any attempt to hold it without that sanction might be both invalid - as in, having no standing - and unlawful, insofar as it would be an improper use of government funds.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
In any case since Westminster would under recent Supreme Court rulings have to pass a bill dissolving the union, as Holyrood doesn’t have that competency, the point is moot.
I know some lunatic fringe elements like Cherry disagree. Sturgeon is far too wily to be trapped like that. In any case, the longer Westminster is seen to be blocking a referendum the better her chances of winning one. Privately, she’s probably very happy indeed with the current situation.
That’s entirely separate from the question of whether it should happen.0 -
I very much doubt it would stand up to any legal scrutiny – have you studied every relevant legal paper since the foundation of the union in both Scots and English Law?RobD said:Anabobazina said:The idea that England can keep Scotland in the union against Scots' will is for the birds.
It's a voluntary union of equals.
Agreed, but from a legal point of view they are stuck with us.0 -
So you know what the SNP: manifesto for next year says?HYUFD said:
No need. Boris and the Tory majority at Westminster will refuse indyref2 and ignore a UDI but he does not need to anyway as Sturgeon has correctly said she will not hold indyref2 without Westminster consent and will not declare UDI which means as long as Boris remains PM and Sturgeon remains First Minister there will not be any indyref2 (at least for another generation)RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?0 -
When the law is abused to let those who have joined our enemies come back as if nothing had ever happened? I don't know who benefits from that law, but it's certainly not the British public.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Being on the side of the rule of law is indistinguishable from being on the side of the British people, given we invented the f***ing rule of law, and it underpins our whole democracy.BluestBlue said:
And against the British people . As always.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
I very much hope Starmer chooses to nail himself to this particular cross. He is a human-rights lawyer, after all, so he should be full-throated in her defence...0 -
Legally Scotland no longer exists?RobD said:
Legally Scotland as a sovereign entity ceased to exist. It can't be an equal partner if it no longer exists.RochdalePioneers said:The conclusion I draw from this discussion is that
To go back to my original point which Rob is artfully sidestepping:RobD said:
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.malcolmg said:
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.RobD said:
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
"Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament."
I did not say that the Scottish government legally owns the continuation of the Union. I said that legally Scotland is an equal partner. Which it is - two separate Acts of Union in what remains two separate legal systems. Westminster *can* refuse a democratic request from the Scottish government to repeal the Scottish Act and say "its not a devolved power". That is true. But we know that it would not, at least not for long.
Or is the argument that despite two equal Acts of Union cast in two separate legal systems that Scotland is as relevant as Wales or Yorkshire or Sealand?
Er, no.0 -
Yes, tricky issue for Starmer to navigate. He's smart though.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
If he says Begum belongs in jail, that hopefully threads the needle of sounding tough, whilst also actually upholding the law. Might be his best bet.1 -
If a former DPP isn’t committed to the rule of law, it’s time we packed up and went home anyway.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes, hopefully with Corbyn gone Labour can establish support for the rule of law as a clear point of differentiation from the Tories.ydoethur said:
That would in itself be a refreshing change from its attitude under Corbyn.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
1 -
Just on a point of order, wasn't she fighting* against the Assad regime, who we have also been fighting against?BluestBlue said:
The majority tends to take a pretty dim view of those who run away to wage war against us. That probably seems old-fashioned to some trendy liberals, I'm sure...nichomar said:
The majority of the British people know so little of the case they base their judgment on poor reporting, hearsay and prejudice. Typical of so many such issues which play into the hands of right wing populists.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
* Technically getting raped not fighting. Minor details for our tabloid legal scholars.0 -
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/hs8g2i/russians_tried_to_influence_uk_election/
Russians tried to influence the election, by trying to help Labour0 -
As he knows nothing about northern England, I have to assume his knowledge of Scotland is even less than thateek said:
So you know what the SNP: manifesto for next year says?HYUFD said:
No need. Boris and the Tory majority at Westminster will refuse indyref2 and ignore a UDI but he does not need to anyway as Sturgeon has correctly said she will not hold indyref2 without Westminster consent and will not declare UDI which means as long as Boris remains PM and Sturgeon remains First Minister there will not be any indyref2 (at least for another generation)RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?0 -
Legally the Kingdom of Scotland no longer exists.Anabobazina said:
Legally Scotland no longer exists?RobD said:
Legally Scotland as a sovereign entity ceased to exist. It can't be an equal partner if it no longer exists.RochdalePioneers said:The conclusion I draw from this discussion is that
To go back to my original point which Rob is artfully sidestepping:RobD said:
The Act of Union 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English parliament and created the GB parliament. The UK parliament (successor to GB) then passed the Scotland Act 1998.malcolmg said:
where does it say that and which court decreed it. If you can show me the section of the union treaty signed in Scotland that states that I will be impressed.RobD said:
There is no legal right for the Scottish parliament to dissolve the union. And before you bite my head off, I'm not arguing whether or not it could, I'm just talking legally here.malcolmg said:
Why would it not be legal,please explainRobD said:
We're talking legally, aren't we? You did preface your statement with the word legally after all.RochdalePioneers said:
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?RobD said:Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
"Legally, Scotland is an Equal Partner in the Union. Two sovereign nations - England and Scotland - independently chose to form a Union. It is not for England to dictate to Scotland how it chooses to continue in the Union. Scotland is not a legal supplicant in the way that Wales is, where power is only given by choice of England or the UK parliament."
I did not say that the Scottish government legally owns the continuation of the Union. I said that legally Scotland is an equal partner. Which it is - two separate Acts of Union in what remains two separate legal systems. Westminster *can* refuse a democratic request from the Scottish government to repeal the Scottish Act and say "its not a devolved power". That is true. But we know that it would not, at least not for long.
Or is the argument that despite two equal Acts of Union cast in two separate legal systems that Scotland is as relevant as Wales or Yorkshire or Sealand?
Er, no.
Politically Scotland exists.0 -
Are you going to pretend that IS wasn't waging war on us? Don't talk shit.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Just on a point of order, wasn't she fighting* against the Assad regime, who we have also been fighting against?BluestBlue said:
The majority tends to take a pretty dim view of those who run away to wage war against us. That probably seems old-fashioned to some trendy liberals, I'm sure...nichomar said:
The majority of the British people know so little of the case they base their judgment on poor reporting, hearsay and prejudice. Typical of so many such issues which play into the hands of right wing populists.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
* Technically getting raped not fighting. Minor details for our tabloid legal scholars.0 -
Rule of Law. Sound Money. Free Trade. Pro Business.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes, hopefully with Corbyn gone Labour can establish support for the rule of law as a clear point of differentiation from the Tories.ydoethur said:
That would in itself be a refreshing change from its attitude under Corbyn.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully Labour will be on the side of the rule of law.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
versus
The Conservatives.2 -
I am merely questioning what role she actually played in this conflict.BluestBlue said:
Are you going to pretend that IS wasn't waging war on us? Don't talk shit.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Just on a point of order, wasn't she fighting* against the Assad regime, who we have also been fighting against?BluestBlue said:
The majority tends to take a pretty dim view of those who run away to wage war against us. That probably seems old-fashioned to some trendy liberals, I'm sure...nichomar said:
The majority of the British people know so little of the case they base their judgment on poor reporting, hearsay and prejudice. Typical of so many such issues which play into the hands of right wing populists.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
* Technically getting raped not fighting. Minor details for our tabloid legal scholars.0 -
THat could be spun as prejudging a trial and therefore a most unwise line to take.rkrkrk said:
Yes, tricky issue for Starmer to navigate. He's smart though.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
If he says Begum belongs in jail, that hopefully threads the needle of sounding tough, whilst also actually upholding the law. Might be his best bet.
If he said she should face criminal charges and due process like everyone else, however...0 -
If true they weren't very good at it.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/hs8g2i/russians_tried_to_influence_uk_election/
Russians tried to influence the election, by trying to help Labour
Did they give a helping hand to the LDs as well then?0 -
We will apply for a section 30 order to hold another referendum on independence.eek said:
So you know what the SNP: manifesto for next year says?HYUFD said:
No need. Boris and the Tory majority at Westminster will refuse indyref2 and ignore a UDI but he does not need to anyway as Sturgeon has correctly said she will not hold indyref2 without Westminster consent and will not declare UDI which means as long as Boris remains PM and Sturgeon remains First Minister there will not be any indyref2 (at least for another generation)RochdalePioneers said:I am a unionist. I don't want Scotland or NI to leave like the Tories do. But it is laughable to claim that should the democratically elected government in Scotland want to repeal its Act of Union that Westminster could simply refuse and thats the issue dealt with.
Some have raised Catalonia but it is entirely different - it would be like Yorkshire declaring independence from England. There is no Catalan law that Madrid would have to pass. It did not legally enter into a Spanish union. Scotland however is not English (like Wales).
Democracy is by consent. "Vote SNP and we will hold SindyRef2" delivering a large majority in Holyrood is democratic consent. A vote to repeal the union is democratic consent. Whether Westminster likes it or not. Yes the powers of the old Scottish Parliament were passed to Westminster. And many were then handed back to Holyrood. "We the Scottish government by democratic mandate granted by the people of Scotland demand the repeal of the Scottish 1706 Act of Union" cannot be met by "no" from English MPs. Unless you really do want UDI. Again, is the plan to send the army in?
The Unionists are obsessed with schools, hospitals, policing, trade and social problems because they have nothing to say on the one issue that has dogged Scotland for 314 years.1 -
Maybe that would have been different if she had been brought back to the UK and entered a deradicalisation programme rather than watching her baby die in a refugee camp.tlg86 said:
Those interviews she gave - as an adult - didn't exactly show her as a someone who was horrified by what she had got involved with.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.Luckyguy1983 said:
I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.Luckyguy1983 said:TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.
Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.TOPPING said:
Fuck's sake she is a child.ydoethur said:
I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.Sandpit said:
Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.
I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.0 -
Duh! It is not a "liberal" position to believe in the rule of law you numpty. You, like many of the numbskull populists who have taken over the Conservative Party have not got the first clue about being conservative. The rule of law is (was?) at the very heart of being conservative. Twisting the law to the braying of the mob is what populists, nationalists and fascists do. Oh hang on.....BluestBlue said:
Indeed. One can be pretty confident that the majority of the British public experiences none of the indulgent soft-headedness towards this case that is apparently the default 'liberal' position. Quite the opposite.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
2 -
I don't think Starmer would have any problem being on the side of the rule of law and against criminals. He was, after all, the Director of Public Prosecutions.Pulpstar said:The Begum situation is pretty good for the Tories. Presents Labour with the perfect elephant trap to fall into on the "Whose side are you on" question.
1 -
Well, we don’t know how bad things would have been without their help, of course. Labour sub 100?kjh said:
If true they weren't very good at it.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/hs8g2i/russians_tried_to_influence_uk_election/
Russians tried to influence the election, by trying to help Labour
Did they give a helping hand to the LDs as well then?0
This discussion has been closed.