We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
The worry must be that, if it’s not happening elsewhere, that your students will be disadvantaged by such a standardised response towards a potential employer?
Yep. Particularly in smaller employers who might not have come across it and understand it as a refusal to reference.
I'll be letting my students know I can't give them a useful reference and hope they have other options
Medical references have shifted similarly, to the point of being useless and are only looked at after interview. I think this is in the interest of fairness and prevent patronage. It had the opposite effect though in that departments are reluctant to make permanent appointments of people they don't know. At best the unknown candidates get locums or 1 year contracts.
Some on here were asking here about age profile of death from covid.
Useful graphic here:
Colin Angus @VictimOfMaths I've been thinking about the age distribution of COVID deaths this morning.
Really clear evidence in this plot of the vaccine rollout shifting the age profile of deaths away from the older, more vulnerable groups, who were jabbed first.
Fantastic stuff. What I'd be really interested to see is the age profile of the deaths of the double jabbed (plus three weeks or whatever). I guess we might never get to see that.
Secret.
I can't see any reason why the age profile of deaths within 1,000,000 double vaxxed would be particularly different to 1,000,000 unvaccinated ? Just at a much lower level, it could well be slightly older if anything - remember vaccines work by stimulating the bodies' own immune system which gets worse as you get older.
Surely the average age of death among the double jabbed is a fair bit older. The reason for the skew to the younger ages is that vaccine take up declines down the ages.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
We know why they won't explain it.
We do?! Why is it?
Sincere question
My question to you is also sincere.
Please answer it.
What question?
See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.
Thoughts based on your experience?
It's just a buzzword. If anything is wrong with the world - esp if you're a woman - then it's "the patriarchy". In the 60s it would have been "the system". Smash the system! Ten years ago "the man". Stick it to the man!
In 5 years it will be replaced by something else
BTW it's not just young women who use it, I have a couple of middle aged female lefty friends who use it, quite unselfconsciously
A minor but striking feature of the patriarchy is the condescending male assumption that when a woman says "the patriarchy" it's a meaningless buzzword that she has given little thought to.
It's not condescending at all, I actually find it quite delightful when young women use this long word, bothering their pretty little heads with all those syllables. It's sexy
I was going to write it that way. Serves me right leaving you a graceful out. Live and learn. 🙂
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
"I think that between France and Africa, it must be a love story. Our country has been present on the continent both through triangular trade, conflicts from the early 19th century and then colonial wars."
The minds considers boggling before accepting how utterly inadequate a response that would be.
That said this story is a year old, any reason why it has come to life again?
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
The worry must be that, if it’s not happening elsewhere, that your students will be disadvantaged by such a standardised response towards a potential employer?
Yep. Particularly in smaller employers who might not have come across it and understand it as a refusal to reference.
I'll be letting my students know I can't give them a useful reference and hope they have other options
Medical references have shifted similarly, to the point of being useless and are only looked at after interview. I think this is in the interest of fairness and prevent patronage. It had the opposite effect though in that departments are reluctant to make permanent appointments of people they don't know. At best the unknown candidates get locums or 1 year contracts.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
52% voted for Brexit in 2016, they got Brexit.
However regardless constitutionally Westminster is sovereign across the UK both for EU referendums and indyrefs, without Westminster approval nothing can get passed. Indyref1 in 2014 was only legal because of Westminster and UK government approval. See also how it took from 2016 to 2019 to implement the Brexit vote because of Westminster opposition.
Yes, I agree. In case you hadn’t noticed.
I am also saying your argument about vote shares is both wrong and irrelevant.
The first rule of history, which I would have thought Warwick would have taught you, is not to use bad arguments that are easily punctured to try and reinforce good ones. Far from reinforcing them, they damage them by making the whole package look less credible, as Carnyx has (rightly) pointed out to you.
Legally and constitutionally it would not matter if the SNP got 100% of the vote at a Holyrood election or 0% is my point, Westminster could still refuse an indyref2 and refuse to implement the result of any indyref2 held without its consent.
Practically and politically however the fact the SNP and Greens got less than 50% in May rather than 60%+ simply makes it easier for this Tory UK government to refuse indyref2 as it will. That is all
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
No. If we were going to make Scotland a colony we would also expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster and scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule over Scotland by the UK government
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
That's very interesting. In my new job, the one to which I successfully applied, they didn't ask for references at all.
This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.
Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.
I’m hoping that, by the next time I apply for a CISO position, the lack of any social media profiles will be seen as a positive.
All the advice I've had in recent weeks - from experts in the industry - is that you need to massively up your profile on social media and LinkedIn these days to win work. That's how it's done.
I'm having a real problem processing that and working out how to respond, particularly since I increasingly detest social media and what show-offs most people are on LinkedIn.
Doesn't this count as social media? In which case you're rocking. You have a real presence on here. Just attach some of your keynote posts to work proposals and see what happens.
Lol. A Tory Brexiteer and anti-Woke activist? I'd last 5 minutes mate.
Weirdly, I consider this blog a private club of 30-40 like-minded obsessives, even though I know it's ultimately very public.
Well your bizarre world view aside you come over as a decent, serious minded bloke, so I think you fret too much about this sort of thing. I had to hide my politics for most of my career. Or rather that was line of least resistance.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Well said.
Scotland has taxation with representation, unlike the American colonies in 1776
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
No. If we were going to make Scotland a colony we would also expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster and scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule over Scotland by the UK government
I don’t think Plan C is for public discussion yet.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Terrific effort. I'd have missed the putt. Can't putt for toffee. I have a 12 handicap long game and a 36 short game.
I'm the other way round
Ah ha. Ryder Cup pairing then. Me and you. Take down the best the Yanks can throw at us.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Sounds more like an eagle unless I've missed a shot. Drive. 7 wood. Putt. ?
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
I haven't seen this in my institution, but it is the sort of nonsense that the HR department might well dream up. I would expect our head of department to veto it.
If they did somehow introduce that policy I would not follow it. I'm entitled to my opinions, and to express them. I might have to give my reference on non-headed paper, though. I don't think anyone would get, for example, a senior academic job without proper "opinion" references. And what would they expect for students who apply for security clearance? That needs often extensive interviews with the applicant's supervisor.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
"I think that between France and Africa, it must be a love story. Our country has been present on the continent both through triangular trade, conflicts from the early 19th century and then colonial wars."
The minds considers boggling before accepting how utterly inadequate a response that would be.
That said this story is a year old, any reason why it has come to life again?
williamglenn and I were doing some French-bashing, just for larks, then I noticed that Algeria has just phased out French as a second language, moving to English, starting with science in their universities. Quite a big thing. Announced today, in part
So I did a bit of digging and noticed this discourse has been going on for some time, how Macron's "pivot to Africa" has been a calamitous failure, raising hackles from the Maghreb south, and has actually diminished French power and influence across the continent
Part of it, as you say, is his inconceivably clumsy language in these mad interviews
Boris may be a buffoon at times, but I cannot imagine him going to New Delhi and saying "India must be in love with Britain" because "Britain occasionally and honourably allowed white Englishmen to take their young female Indian servants to bed"
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Well, except that it was cooked up by a lot of posh blokes on both sides, probably at the New Club in Edinburgh, and there's a disturbingly subversive tendency these days to think that deals done by the boyars ostensibly in the name of the serfs, need revisiting. Commie nonsense of course, but there you are.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
No. If we were going to make Scotland a colony we would also expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster and scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule over Scotland by the UK government
That was a party election broadcast by the Conservative Party.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Sounds more like an eagle unless I've missed a shot. Drive. 7 wood. Putt. ?
Yes I think he missed his chip out. Typical Stocky. You have to watch him.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
"I think that between France and Africa, it must be a love story. Our country has been present on the continent both through triangular trade, conflicts from the early 19th century and then colonial wars."
The minds considers boggling before accepting how utterly inadequate a response that would be.
That said this story is a year old, any reason why it has come to life again?
Many Africans got rich out of the slave trade. Perhaps he's referring to them?
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
I haven't seen this in my institution, but it is the sort of nonsense that the HR department might well dream up. I would expect our head of department to veto it.
If they did somehow introduce that policy I would not follow it. I'm entitled to my opinions, and to express them. I might have to give my reference on non-headed paper, though. I don't think anyone would get, for example, a senior academic job without proper "opinion" references. And what would they expect for students who apply for security clearance? That needs often extensive interviews with the applicant's supervisor.
--AS
There was an incident in Staffordshire recently where a school decided to provide references confirming only whether the members of staff had safeguarding or disciplinary incidents against them.
That wasn’t to do with GDPR, it was because the Principal had forced everyone to sign non-disclosure agreements about a ginormous breach of contract he had accidentally perpetrated, only to find he then couldn’t say anything in a reference.
The plot thickened somewhat when it was found he had made false statements in some of these references, even though he had barely said anything.
Which means that no school in Staffordshire is accepting his references and his staff are rather stuck.
All in all, a proper car crash but nothing to do with GDPR.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
I often wonder whether the SNP's strategic approach, having decided that they're unlikely to convince over 50% of Scots to vote to end the union, is to try to irritate enough English and Welsh people that over 50% of Brits vote to end the union.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
I often wonder whether the SNP's strategic approach, having decided that they're unlikely to convince over 50% of Scots to vote to end the union, is to try to irritate enough English and Welsh people that over 50% of Brits vote to end the union.
I think that would be to mistake bad manners for strategy.
'Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude'
I'd point out you could argue that R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland shows the judges on SCOTUK are willing to partake in a constitutional crisis by adhering to the law.
Miller was an excellent judgement - basically just said Parliament is in charge, which is correct. I'm sure if they'd wanted to they could have crafted something along the lines of the outrageous Marbury vs Maddison which gave SCOTUS more power than God to SCOTUK. It's to their credit that they didn't.
It was fantastic.
The hearing part was great, especially when they handed Ronan Lavery QC his testicles.
'Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude'
I'd point out you could argue that R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland shows the judges on SCOTUK are willing to partake in a constitutional crisis by adhering to the law.
Miller was an excellent judgement - basically just said Parliament is in charge, which is correct. I'm sure if they'd wanted to they could have crafted something along the lines of the outrageous Marbury vs Maddison which gave SCOTUS more power than God to SCOTUK. It's to their credit that they didn't.
It was fantastic.
The hearing part was great, especially when they handed Ronan Lavery QC his testicles.
Did they pay the iron price or the gold price for them?
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
That's incorrect, I've already had counsel's view on this.
Ultimately this boils down to the Scotland Act 1998* and the Scottish government acting ultra vires.
*Note it has been amended subsequently, but that's where the interpretation will be.
Interesting, especially that you have had counsel's view on this. I t wouldn't surprise me if the SA 1998 was worded with this in mind.
We've flagged up Scotland as one of things that might upend the applecart, it has huge implications for this industry.
Another thing might be fun to argue.
Does circa 1.3 million votes in 2021 outweigh 2,000,000 votes in 2014?
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
"I think that between France and Africa, it must be a love story. Our country has been present on the continent both through triangular trade, conflicts from the early 19th century and then colonial wars."
The minds considers boggling before accepting how utterly inadequate a response that would be.
That said this story is a year old, any reason why it has come to life again?
williamglenn and I were doing some French-bashing, just for larks, then I noticed that Algeria has just phased out French as a second language, moving to English, starting with science in their universities. Quite a big thing. Announced today, in part
So I did a bit of digging and noticed this discourse has been going on for some time, how Macron's "pivot to Africa" has been a calamitous failure, raising hackles from the Maghreb south, and has actually diminished French power and influence across the continent
Part of it, as you say, is his inconceivably clumsy language in these mad interviews
Boris may be a buffoon at times, but I cannot imagine him going to New Delhi and saying "India must be in love with Britain" because "Britain occasionally and honourably allowed white Englishmen to take their young female Indian servants to bed"
Johnson did recite a racist bit of Kipling insulting the Buddha while visiting the most important pagoda in Yangon, and write a poem suggesting the President of Turkey was bestiary with a goat, amongst other "quips".
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
No. If we were going to make Scotland a colony we would also expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster and scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule over Scotland by the UK government
That was a party election broadcast by the Conservative Party.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Which actually makes anglophone East Africa much more interesting, linguistically. Broadly, in say Tanzania or Kenya everyone you are ever likely to speak to speaks perfect English and perfect Swahili, on top of a Bantu related mother tongue. Swahili itself is monstrously difficult what with prefixes, infixes and suffixes, and is actually an Arabic/bantu creole. Hence four is nne, a good bantu word, whereas 40 is arobaini = Arabic arbeen, because no native bantu speaker would have any use for a number that big.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
"I think that between France and Africa, it must be a love story. Our country has been present on the continent both through triangular trade, conflicts from the early 19th century and then colonial wars."
The minds considers boggling before accepting how utterly inadequate a response that would be.
That said this story is a year old, any reason why it has come to life again?
williamglenn and I were doing some French-bashing, just for larks, then I noticed that Algeria has just phased out French as a second language, moving to English, starting with science in their universities. Quite a big thing. Announced today, in part
So I did a bit of digging and noticed this discourse has been going on for some time, how Macron's "pivot to Africa" has been a calamitous failure, raising hackles from the Maghreb south, and has actually diminished French power and influence across the continent
Part of it, as you say, is his inconceivably clumsy language in these mad interviews
Boris may be a buffoon at times, but I cannot imagine him going to New Delhi and saying "India must be in love with Britain" because "Britain occasionally and honourably allowed white Englishmen to take their young female Indian servants to bed"
Johnson did recite a racist bit of Kipling insulting the Buddha while visiting the most important pagoda in Yangon, and write a poem suggesting the President of Turkey was bestiary with a goat, amongst other "quips".
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Not sure that your final statement is true
Total English speakers in Africa: 130m
Total French speakers in Africa: 115m
The disparity will grow as the Francophonie shrinks
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Which actually makes anglophone East Africa much more interesting, linguistically. Broadly, in say Tanzania or Kenya everyone you are ever likely to speak to speaks perfect English and perfect Swahili, on top of a Bantu related mother tongue. Swahili itself is monstrously difficult what with prefixes, infixes and suffixes, and is actually an Arabic/bantu creole. Hence four is nne, a good bantu word, whereas 40 is arobaini = Arabic arbeen, because no native bantu speaker would have any use for a number that big.
It depends who you mix with, but yes in the tourist or business places people will speak English. When running clinics in Malawi, I would speak Chichewa with the patients, and English with the staff, but the Mozambican patients (the border was only a few miles) spoke Portuguese.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
It's probably better for Sturgeon politically that Boris denies her request. Zero chance of losing a referendum in that case. Sturgeon losing a second one, post Brexit would probably finish the Nats politically, it'd certainly finish Strugeon's career. Denying the request is a good way to build support for Scottish independence mind.
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
I haven't seen this in my institution, but it is the sort of nonsense that the HR department might well dream up. I would expect our head of department to veto it.
If they did somehow introduce that policy I would not follow it. I'm entitled to my opinions, and to express them. I might have to give my reference on non-headed paper, though. I don't think anyone would get, for example, a senior academic job without proper "opinion" references. And what would they expect for students who apply for security clearance? That needs often extensive interviews with the applicant's supervisor.
--AS
There was an incident in Staffordshire recently where a school decided to provide references confirming only whether the members of staff had safeguarding or disciplinary incidents against them.
That wasn’t to do with GDPR, it was because the Principal had forced everyone to sign non-disclosure agreements about a ginormous breach of contract he had accidentally perpetrated, only to find he then couldn’t say anything in a reference.
The plot thickened somewhat when it was found he had made false statements in some of these references, even though he had barely said anything.
Which means that no school in Staffordshire is accepting his references and his staff are rather stuck.
All in all, a proper car crash but nothing to do with GDPR.
Never been a fan of references- they are a bit of employer patronage in my view - Also very random in that you rarely get to choose your boss and hence likely to get a spectrum of references for the same work depending on the boss. They are pretty patronising in a literal sense and I think the law has correctly evolved to make it only safe for employers to give the basic facts . If a new employer cannot have a robust recruitment procedure to establish charatcer and experience then they need to change that not rely on references . A victorian relic when they were used by employers to control staff rigidly.
Also most people leave jobs because they are not happy with the job and by extension probably with the boss directly or indirectly.Why should the boss therefore be the best judge of you?
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Not sure that your final statement is true
Total English speakers in Africa: 130m
Total French speakers in Africa: 115m
The disparity will grow as the Francophonie shrinks
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
"I think that between France and Africa, it must be a love story. Our country has been present on the continent both through triangular trade, conflicts from the early 19th century and then colonial wars."
The minds considers boggling before accepting how utterly inadequate a response that would be.
That said this story is a year old, any reason why it has come to life again?
williamglenn and I were doing some French-bashing, just for larks, then I noticed that Algeria has just phased out French as a second language, moving to English, starting with science in their universities. Quite a big thing. Announced today, in part
So I did a bit of digging and noticed this discourse has been going on for some time, how Macron's "pivot to Africa" has been a calamitous failure, raising hackles from the Maghreb south, and has actually diminished French power and influence across the continent
Part of it, as you say, is his inconceivably clumsy language in these mad interviews
Boris may be a buffoon at times, but I cannot imagine him going to New Delhi and saying "India must be in love with Britain" because "Britain occasionally and honourably allowed white Englishmen to take their young female Indian servants to bed"
Johnson did recite a racist bit of Kipling insulting the Buddha while visiting the most important pagoda in Yangon, and write a poem suggesting the President of Turkey was bestiary with a goat, amongst other "quips".
Perhaps not Johnson's finest moment, but it is still small potatoes in comparison to the French president saying "Every African must be in love with France because sometimes we ALLOWED you Africans to crossbreed with us"
Macron's literal words, not some off colour poem. Incroyable
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
It's probably better for Sturgeon politically that Boris denies her request. Zero chance of losing a referendum in that case. Sturgeon losing a second one, post Brexit would probably finish the Nats politically, it'd certainly finish Strugeon's career. Denying the request is a good way to build support for Scottish independence mind.
I doubt it would make much difference.
Only 40% of Scots want indyref2 before the next UK general election in 2024 and they are all convinced Nationalists and SNP voters anyway
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Not sure that your final statement is true
Total English speakers in Africa: 130m
Total French speakers in Africa: 115m
The disparity will grow as the Francophonie shrinks
The difference is whether as first or second language.
English is a widely spoken first or at least parallel language. South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, parts of Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana: that's a lot of people, right there
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Not sure that your final statement is true
Total English speakers in Africa: 130m
Total French speakers in Africa: 115m
The disparity will grow as the Francophonie shrinks
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Sounds more like an eagle unless I've missed a shot. Drive. 7 wood. Putt. ?
Yes I think he missed his chip out. Typical Stocky. You have to watch him.
One of those opponents who hacks it down the rough out of sight and eventually pops up on the green to can a 25 footer and claim a par? I couldn't legitimately complain about that, as that was my style too.
There's nothing worse than hitting a good shot without an audience, though. If nobody was watching, did it even happen?
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
Without wishing to side with Hyufd on all points, I’m not sure the three geriatric Socialists representing approximately 30% of Labour’s vote will make that much of a difference.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
No. If we were going to make Scotland a colony we would also expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster and scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule over Scotland by the UK government
I don’t think Plan C is for public discussion yet.
On the contrary, Mr Johnson has already been talking about it to his backbenchers as I recall.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Sounds more like an eagle unless I've missed a shot. Drive. 7 wood. Putt. ?
Yes I think he missed his chip out. Typical Stocky. You have to watch him.
One of those opponents who hacks it down the rough out of sight and eventually pops up on the green to can a 25 footer an claim a par? I couldn't legitimately complain about that, as that was my style too.
There's nothing worse than hitting a good shot without an audience, though. If nobody was watching, did it even happen?
Although in golf nobody really cares about others shots - they are too focused on their own game - An example of that in pro golf was when a young professional Fuzzy Zoeller was paired with Jack Nicklaus in his prime - He was so nervous he had a realy bad round and felt he had to say sorry to Jack at the end - When he did so Jack Nicklaus looked bemused and asked him what he scored as he had no idea as he was focused on his onw game
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Away and play with this - it will go round and round in circles.
Off topic, why are natural gas prices being quoted in pence per Therm. What sort of antiquated unit is that?
Let's use kWh or kJ. Even MMBTU would be better.
Nah - Therms sound nice and cosy and warm (literally nearly) , KWH or KJ sound soulless without the advantage of making it any easier to mentally picture the amount (unlike say metres can ) .
Also like the fact that oil is measured in barrels !
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
No. If we were going to make Scotland a colony we would also expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster and scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule over Scotland by the UK government
"The regional governors now have direct control of their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station."
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
"I think that between France and Africa, it must be a love story. Our country has been present on the continent both through triangular trade, conflicts from the early 19th century and then colonial wars."
The minds considers boggling before accepting how utterly inadequate a response that would be.
That said this story is a year old, any reason why it has come to life again?
williamglenn and I were doing some French-bashing, just for larks, then I noticed that Algeria has just phased out French as a second language, moving to English, starting with science in their universities. Quite a big thing. Announced today, in part
So I did a bit of digging and noticed this discourse has been going on for some time, how Macron's "pivot to Africa" has been a calamitous failure, raising hackles from the Maghreb south, and has actually diminished French power and influence across the continent
Part of it, as you say, is his inconceivably clumsy language in these mad interviews
Boris may be a buffoon at times, but I cannot imagine him going to New Delhi and saying "India must be in love with Britain" because "Britain occasionally and honourably allowed white Englishmen to take their young female Indian servants to bed"
Johnson did recite a racist bit of Kipling insulting the Buddha while visiting the most important pagoda in Yangon, and write a poem suggesting the President of Turkey was bestiary with a goat, amongst other "quips".
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
No. If we were going to make Scotland a colony we would also expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster and scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule over Scotland by the UK government
"The regional governors now have direct control of their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station."
We've already sent Gove up one to terrorise the locals.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Not sure that your final statement is true
Total English speakers in Africa: 130m
Total French speakers in Africa: 115m
The disparity will grow as the Francophonie shrinks
The difference is whether as first or second language.
So is Macron also proudly acclaiming France's snuffing out of a multitude of African languages?
No, but like a lot of history it happened. European Colonialism changed the world, and to a modern eye much wouldn't be acceptable today. Recognising this as a fact is neutral. Being proud or ashamed of it are emotional responses to that fact.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
No. If we were going to make Scotland a colony we would also expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster and scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule over Scotland by the UK government
"The regional governors now have direct control of their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station."
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
It's probably better for Sturgeon politically that Boris denies her request. Zero chance of losing a referendum in that case. Sturgeon losing a second one, post Brexit would probably finish the Nats politically, it'd certainly finish Strugeon's career. Denying the request is a good way to build support for Scottish independence mind.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Not sure that your final statement is true
Total English speakers in Africa: 130m Total French speakers in Africa: 115m
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
Only one vote? A depressingly low turnout given the electorate.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
It is true though, it was possible to assimilate as a French man as an African, culturally, linguistically and politically. The 4 communes of Senegal were represented in the Assembly from the 19th century.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
Not sure that your final statement is true
Total English speakers in Africa: 130m
Total French speakers in Africa: 115m
The disparity will grow as the Francophonie shrinks
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
Still doesn't make sense, unless Epping primary children breed like, erm, rabbits.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
The word Macron uses is métissage. In this context probably best translated as mixed- race. Can also mean multicultural as well as interbreeding.
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
More on this. French Wikipedia gives Barack Obama as example of métissage. Strictly you could say he's crossbred, but it's not the way you would put it, I think.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
Still doesn't make sense, unless Epping primary children breed like, erm, rabbits.
Yeah, it does. They should occur at most once a decade, which is more than, say, once per century.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
Only one vote? A depressingly low turnout given the electorate.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
The slippery slope fallacy doesn't help you here. Clearly you, or your street, could not function as an independent country. You'd be a menace to those around you and such nanostates are not really what anyone is advocating. Clearly Scotland-sized countries are viable. There are many that are smaller.
If you want me to draw a line to say where in between the cutoff is, I honestly don't know. You have a go. But it's not really what's being talked about.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Depends what you mean by Westminster. If you mean legislation by the HoC, fine. If you mean executive acts of the S o S for Scotland, them's judicially reviewable. I don't see how a request for an indyref would be answered by an Act of Parliament. It would be an executive refusal.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
Still doesn't make sense, unless Epping primary children breed like, erm, rabbits.
Yeah, it does. They should occur at most once a decade, which is more than, say, once per century.
Not in the HYUFD context. He is always rabbiting (sic) on about generations. That is, the years bit of the ratio. He was saying just now at most once a decade - ie no longer a cycle than 10 years. Like 0.1 cm is a shorter wavelength than 3 cm.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
Still doesn't make sense, unless Epping primary children breed like, erm, rabbits.
Yeah, it does. They should occur at most once a decade, which is more than, say, once per century.
Not in the HYUFD context. He is always rabbiting (sic) on about generations. That is, the years bit of the ratio. He was saying just now at most once a decade - ie no longer a cycle than 10 years. Like 0.1 cm is a shorter wavelength than 3 cm.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
The word Macron uses is métissage. In this context probably best translated as mixed- race. Can also mean multicultural as well as interbreeding.
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
"métissage" in English métissage {m}EN miscegenation crossbreeding crossing interbreeding
métissé
adjective
of mixed race having ancestors (especially parents) from two or more different human races.
French to English: more detail... métissage: miscegenation; mixture of races Wiktionary: métissage → interbreeding, crossbreeding, crossing, miscegenation
The ability of twattish Remoaners like you to bend over backwards and forgive an EU politician a ridiculously stupid and insulting remark is always remarkable. If Boris said the equivalent you'd herniate yourself in your confected outrage
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
The slippery slope fallacy doesn't help you here. Clearly you, or your street, could not function as an independent country. You'd be a menace to those around you and such nanostates are not really what anyone is advocating. Clearly Scotland-sized countries are viable. There are many that are smaller.
If you want me to draw a line to say where in between the cutoff is, I honestly don't know. You have a go. But it's not really what's being talked about.
There are 24 nations in the world with populations under 50,000 ie smaller than most UK cities and 8 with populations under 10,000 ie smaller even than most UK market towns
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Well I don't believe it is the sovereign right of a nation in a Union to try and achieve independence every few years.
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
Oh, now you are agreeing we should have them more often than 10 years? You are really going on a journey.
No, I said they should not be allowed more than once a decade ie certainly not more often than every 10 years
You said "at most once a decade".
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Isn't he referring to the frequency? "at most once a decade" makes sense in that context.
Still doesn't make sense, unless Epping primary children breed like, erm, rabbits.
Yeah, it does. They should occur at most once a decade, which is more than, say, once per century.
Not in the HYUFD context. He is always rabbiting (sic) on about generations. That is, the years bit of the ratio. He was saying just now at most once a decade - ie no longer a cycle than 10 years. Like 0.1 cm is a shorter wavelength than 3 cm.
But he didn't mention generations at all here.
So? Who cares? He's only mentioned it 3,341 times. It's his default option.
And in any case, I really do worry what is happening in Epping schools under his supervision (or at least that of his colleagues) if he thinks 10 years is a generation. Not that I am complaining; he's improving.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
The day the UK PM (As is his legal right*) denies a request from the Scottish FM elected on a manifesto to ask the question of independence is the day Scotland exists not in a union with, but as a colony of England.
This is a legal exaggeration, but a political truth.
It is neither. It is political, legal and constitutional nonsense.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Interesting that you use the word "consensual". How does a country withdraw consent? You appear to think that is may only do so if the other party/ies also agree. But that isn't what consent means. Consent means being able to say "we've changed our minds". If you don't agree with that as a right, fine, but don't talk about consent.
It is consensual. The British parliament - including its Scots MPs - consented to give Scotland an independence referendum as recently as 2014. Now the SNP and other separatists need to persuade the British parliament to consent, once again. And I am sure it will happen, just not for a good few years.
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
You keep talking about the constitution, but I'm not disputing that point. I say that it's on a political level that things look bad. You either believe in the principle that it should be the sovereign right of a nation to achieve independence through a peaceful democratic process of its own choosing, or you don't.
The every six months, 15 years, generation, all this stuff is just rhetoric. The public should judge whether it is too soon or the time is right.
I don't see how any democrat could think cross on a calendar should have more weight than a cross on a ballot paper.
Why do you think this principle is not generally applied in modern democracies?
Because many people have a quaint attachment to the idea of their country as immutable.
Do you think Orkney and Shetland or other parts of 'Scotland' should be given the chance to remain part of the UK in the event of a vote for independence?
If they chose that. And since I don't live there, why would I stand in their way? I wouldn't recommend it being part of the same campaign, for practical reasons.
What about Cornwall? Or Sussex? Or the land of the Jutes? Or the Isle of Ely? Or Deira? Or the village of Sweffling? Or me?
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
The slippery slope fallacy doesn't help you here. Clearly you, or your street, could not function as an independent country. You'd be a menace to those around you and such nanostates are not really what anyone is advocating. Clearly Scotland-sized countries are viable. There are many that are smaller.
If you want me to draw a line to say where in between the cutoff is, I honestly don't know. You have a go. But it's not really what's being talked about.
Tisn't a size cut off, it's an historical fact - you are a country by heredity or you aren't, same way as you are an Earl by heredity or you aren't - the parallel is exact, though it may not be palatable to the more sansculotte nationalists (all of them). Orkney n Shetland just about make it as a country, 1472 being fairly recent in the scheme of things.
Yes but FG and FF still have combined 10% more than SF and FG and FF are the current Irish coalition government. Ireland also has pure PR STV not FPTP so SF cannot benefit from a split vote amongst its opponents
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
What comes across from the interview is Macron has a real interest in Africa that is rare, to being unique amongst Western leaders.
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
He has a real interest in Africa, such that he boasts of the French *allowing* inter-racial sex with Africans?
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
The word Macron uses is métissage. In this context probably best translated as mixed- race. Can also mean multicultural as well as interbreeding.
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
More on this. French Wikipedia gives Barack Obama as example of métissage. Strictly you could say he's crossbred, but it's not the way you would put it, I think.
Mulatto? Quadroon? High-yaller?
And how, metaphorically or literally, does France have Africa "in its blood" than any other European nation which pillaged the continent?
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Depends what you mean by Westminster. If you mean legislation by the HoC, fine. If you mean executive acts of the S o S for Scotland, them's judicially reviewable. I don't see how a request for an indyref would be answered by an Act of Parliament. It would be an executive refusal.
It would be under the Scotland Act 1998 that it would be refused as going beyond Holyrood's powers as set out by Westminster
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
You really are a subversive. It's bums on seats that count. MI6 needs to be told about you.
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
It is bums on Westminster seats that matters yes, it would not matter if every MSP was SNP, Westminster could legally and constitutionally still refuse indyref2.
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Depends what you mean by Westminster. If you mean legislation by the HoC, fine. If you mean executive acts of the S o S for Scotland, them's judicially reviewable. I don't see how a request for an indyref would be answered by an Act of Parliament. It would be an executive refusal.
Quite. As a matter of interest, though, why not an Act of Parliament?
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
It will be interesting to see if the Tories get a Conferene bounce. Perhaps this will be the year that no party gets any such thing. Perhaps they are now "over" as a thing
That said, it is clear which is the bouncier party, after their conference, and their leader's speech
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
Note the important caveat at the bottom. They weren't forced to watch the whole thing.
And I think the Kool Aid swings both ways.
Scott has absolutely drank the FBPE Kool Aid as have others. I expect Boris will be quite happy to take 51% agreeing with him, even if Scott's Kool Aid gang disagree with him.
Comments
"I think that between France and Africa, it must be a love story. Our country has been present on the continent both through triangular trade, conflicts from the early 19th century and then colonial wars."
The minds considers boggling before accepting how utterly inadequate a response that would be.
That said this story is a year old, any reason why it has come to life again?
With apologies to Kurt from The Sound of Music.
Scotland entered a consensual union with England, where it was agreed that ultimate political power, and the sovereignty of the united British people, would be expressed at Westminster - where the Scots would be equally represented by their elected MPs, just like the English, Welsh and so forth
Have the Scots MPs been kicked out of Westminster? Is Scotland governed as a colony, with no democratic say in the British parliament in London, as, say India was, or Nigeria? Or the Solomon Islands?
No, the Scots MPs are still there, representing Scots.
If the question of a new Scottish referendum arises, it must be put to the House of Commons, and all the MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide, as one sovereign nation, and one democracy. Then the PM can deliver their democratic verdict to Holyrood
If the ruling party in Holyrood wants another plebiscite, it has to persuade all the British people (including Scots) as represented by their MPs at Westminster. Which is only fair, as a secession would seriously affect all Britons.
Scotland has taxation with representation, unlike the American colonies in 1776
If they did somehow introduce that policy I would not follow it. I'm entitled to my opinions, and to express them. I might have to give my reference on non-headed paper, though. I don't think anyone would get, for example, a senior academic job without proper "opinion" references. And what would they expect for students who apply for security clearance? That needs often extensive interviews with the applicant's supervisor.
--AS
So I did a bit of digging and noticed this discourse has been going on for some time, how Macron's "pivot to Africa" has been a calamitous failure, raising hackles from the Maghreb south, and has actually diminished French power and influence across the continent
Part of it, as you say, is his inconceivably clumsy language in these mad interviews
Boris may be a buffoon at times, but I cannot imagine him going to New Delhi and saying "India must be in love with Britain" because "Britain occasionally and honourably allowed white Englishmen to take their young female Indian servants to bed"
That wasn’t to do with GDPR, it was because the Principal had forced everyone to sign non-disclosure agreements about a ginormous breach of contract he had accidentally perpetrated, only to find he then couldn’t say anything in a reference.
The plot thickened somewhat when it was found he had made false statements in some of these references, even though he had barely said anything.
Which means that no school in Staffordshire is accepting his references and his staff are rather stuck.
All in all, a proper car crash but nothing to do with GDPR.
Of course this was not applied much in practice, and nineteenth century French Colonialism was in practice as racist as in other European colonies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_(French_colonialism)
The Portuguese pursued a similar policy. In practice the legacy of this assimilation policy compared to British Indirect rule is that in Francophone and Lusaphone Africa the ordinary people speak French or Portuguese, while in Anglophone Africa that is much less common, with English as a second language if spoken at all.
The hearing part was great, especially when they handed Ronan Lavery QC his testicles.
Another thing might be fun to argue.
Does circa 1.3 million votes in 2021 outweigh 2,000,000 votes in 2014?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/boris-johnson-caught-on-camera-reciting-kipling-in-myanmar-temple
The idea the British PM must grant a vote to the Scottish government every time they ask for one is constitutional idiocy. If that is the legal state of affairs, then Sturgeon could ask for one every six months, until she wins
No nation can allow that kind of turmoil. Once in a generation is about right, which is why it was mentioned by everyone. Come back after 2030. 15 years minimum
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/10/3/22707555/5-suspects-released-without-charges-deadly-shootout-austin
https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/people-politics/englands-last-duel/
Madness then, madness now.
Texas increasingly seems to be becoming a parody of its nineteenth century self.
Total English speakers in Africa: 130m
Total French speakers in Africa: 115m
The disparity will grow as the Francophonie shrinks
https://www.jumpspeak.com/blog/most-spoken-language-in-africa
Reminds me of this Alan Partridge scene when he explains to Sonia what Cockney is:
https://partridge.cloud/scene/?id=iZbqqdICb4YM
Also most people leave jobs because they are not happy with the job and by extension probably with the boss directly or indirectly.Why should the boss therefore be the best judge of you?
Macron's literal words, not some off colour poem. Incroyable
Only 40% of Scots want indyref2 before the next UK general election in 2024 and they are all convinced Nationalists and SNP voters anyway
https://www.scotsman.com/regions/poll-scots-dont-want-indyref2-next-five-years-1420821
Don't know whether any of it makes sense, as I have no knowledge of the politics of the continent. I suspect some of it might and some of it probably doesn't.
It's a point of view. But, either way, it REALLY hasn't worked
https://www.theafricareport.com/73566/in-africa-frances-image-takes-a-hit-but-turkey-qatar-and-the-uaes-are-on-the-up/
https://www.theafricareport.com/52774/does-macron-understand-how-much-influence-france-has-lost-in-africa-achille-mbembe/
Independence referendums should be granted at most once a decade and ideally longer otherwise they are too unstable
There's nothing worse than hitting a good shot without an audience, though. If nobody was watching, did it even happen?
And you are forgetting, deliberately as always, the portion of Slab voters who are pro-indfy,
(Yes, this is a joke.)
Of course not every SNP voter is pro independence either
Let's use kWh or kJ. Even MMBTU would be better.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265345466806?hash=item3dc7d281b6:g:1c0AAOSwwcRhXFcl
Also like the fact that oil is measured in barrels !
I recommend English as a Foreign Language as a qualification to which you should aspire.
Maybe I, Leon of this Ilk, should have a vote whether I want to be independent of London, and thereby pay no more tax. And if somehow I contrive to vote against my own desire for independence, losing my referendum by one vote, my own, then I will then demand ANOTHER vote, so that I, Leon of thsIlk, can have another vote on whether I, Leon of this blah blah fucking blah
Westminster decides. It is the only sane route. Nationalist Scots need to persuade the entire British people, via their MPs, at Westminster, that an independence referendum is needed. It is not like this is impossible, you did it just 7 years ago
The point he's making, I think, is that France uniquely amongst colonisers has Africa in its blood. Maybe patronising, but not really what you are suggesting.
More on this. French Wikipedia gives Barack Obama as example of métissage. Strictly you could say he's crossbred, but it's not the way you would put it, I think.
métissage {m}EN
miscegenation crossbreeding crossing interbreeding
métissé
adjective
of mixed race having ancestors (especially parents) from two or more different human races.
French to English: more detail...
métissage:
miscegenation; mixture of races
Wiktionary:
métissage → interbreeding, crossbreeding, crossing, miscegenation
The ability of twattish Remoaners like you to bend over backwards and forgive an EU politician a ridiculously stupid and insulting remark is always remarkable. If Boris said the equivalent you'd herniate yourself in your confected outrage
Sinn Féin: 32%
Fine Gael: 22%
Fianna Fáil: 20%
https://twitter.com/PatLeahyIT/status/1445826534682464262
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
And in any case, I really do worry what is happening in Epping schools under his supervision (or at least that of his colleagues) if he thinks 10 years is a generation. Not that I am complaining; he's improving.
Boris Johnson speech rated less highly than Keir Starmer’s, said voters shown videos by Sky pollster
Yes it’s an artificial exercise - who knows how many people actually are aware of conference speeches, sorry politicos! - but nevertheless an interesting one
Opinium results: https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1445844907382480898 https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1445846836925902849/photo/1
And how, metaphorically or literally, does France have Africa "in its blood" than any other European nation which pillaged the continent?
That said, it is clear which is the bouncier party, after their conference, and their leader's speech
Scott has absolutely drank the FBPE Kool Aid as have others. I expect Boris will be quite happy to take 51% agreeing with him, even if Scott's Kool Aid gang disagree with him.