The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
I favour changing from FPTP but this I think is daft. I cannot see a large chunk of labour MPs supporting it and a major constitutional change without a referendum just sits wrong. Also implies they think they wouldn’t win.
I have mixed feelings.
On the one hand, all precedent is that the election process gives the mandate to do this (if one of the parties involved had it in their manifesto, that's fine). Referendums have been held when the winning party's manifesto had an explicit undertaking for a referendum in it (Brexit referendum, Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums in 1997, 1975 Euro referendum), or when a major change was proposed that had not been in the winning party (or parties) manifesto(es) (AV referendum, 2014 Scottish referendum, Good Friday referendum).
So either there was a mandate for a referendum but not the change itself (the first lot), or there was a need to get a mandate for a change that wasn't in anyone's manifesto.
We've had a whole suite of constitutional changes over the last 190 years that were actioned without a referendum: 1832 Reform Act, 1867 Reform Act (which doubled the number who could vote), 1884 Reform Act (more than doubling again and establishing the 1-member constituency as the baseline), 1918 Representation of the People Act (enfranchising women and very nearly establishing PR (STV rejected in favour of AV; AV rejected in favour of STV, so FPTP go it on default), 1928 Representation of the People Act equalising the franchise), abolishing plural voting and the STV university constituencies in 1948.
However, the lack of a referendum would be used to condemn it and could well have success.
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
Just imagine the headline about the company you work for taking hospitality tickets at Silverstone, after thousands of your company’s customers lose money with some crypto shite promoted by the company from which you took hospitality.
No surprise as it would mean the LDs would almost always be in government and the Tories and Labour would almost never get a majority.
As an LD I'm surprised (though only slightly) -- it feels to me like it would be a bit of an overreach to go for PR for Wrstminster this soon after the loss of the AV referendum. OTOH I guess this is the opening position in a hypothetical coalition negotiation rather than necessarily where the party expects or is willing to end up at...
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
You have absolutely no capacity for imagination do you?
That’s not really fair. The idea that England would send tanks to quell the Nats in Scotland requires a fairly fervent imagination.
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
It’s easy if you have a helicopter transfer.
(There used to be more aircraft movements at Silverstone than Heathrow, on the Sunday).
I've been terrified of flying in helicopters after my last trip.
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
Just imagine the headline about the company you work for taking hospitality tickets at Silverstone, after thousands of your company’s customers lose money with some crypto shite promoted by the company from which you took hospitality.
This was offered to me in a personal capacity.
But as @DecrepiterJohnL has pointed out Caesar's wife needs to be above reproach.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
You have absolutely no capacity for imagination do you?
That’s not really fair. The idea that England would send tanks to quell the Nats in Scotland requires a fairly fervent imagination.
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
If the pilot does everything right in the critical half-second or so then you get to fall like a sycamore seed, which is slightly less awful.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
You have absolutely no capacity for imagination do you?
That’s not really fair. The idea that England would send tanks to quell the Nats in Scotland requires a fairly fervent imagination.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
It’s easy if you have a helicopter transfer.
(There used to be more aircraft movements at Silverstone than Heathrow, on the Sunday).
I've been terrified of flying in helicopters after my last trip.
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
In an aeroplane, the pilot picks the field. In a helicopter, the field picks the aircraft.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because you thought they'd like clean cut Mormons.
Are Mormons circumcised?
I believe it refers to their tonsorial treatment at the anterior end. But what is strange is: HYUFD said that yesterday (re the nice young Mormons) and got pasted for it, and yet seems to have forgotten (or learnt his lesson).
What puzzles me about that cash donation is the thinking of the Qatari sheikh. Why would he want to give the money in cash, which is, among other things, less convenient? (Someone has to gather all those bills.) A bribe seems implausible since it was so public.
He always carries that amount in "pocket change", and the gift was spontaneous? That seems nutty, too, but I haven't been able to come up with any more reasonable explanation.
I guess Labour will need confidence and supply if they are minority administration from SNP then, as they aint gonna agree to PR without a referendum surely?
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
Just imagine the headline about the company you work for taking hospitality tickets at Silverstone, after thousands of your company’s customers lose money with some crypto shite promoted by the company from which you took hospitality.
This was offered to me in a personal capacity.
But as @DecrepiterJohnL has pointed out Caesar's wife needs to be above reproach.
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
Just imagine the headline about the company you work for taking hospitality tickets at Silverstone, after thousands of your company’s customers lose money with some crypto shite promoted by the company from which you took hospitality.
This was offered to me in a personal capacity.
But as @DecrepiterJohnL has pointed out Caesar's wife needs to be above reproach.
Oh, a personal capacity, for the ethics guy at the bank to be offered tickets. That makes it just fine.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
What puzzles me about that cash donation is the thinking of the Qatari sheikh. Why would he want to give the money in cash, which is, among other things, less convenient? (Someone has to gather all those bills.) A bribe seems implausible since it was so public.
He always carries that amount in "pocket change", and the gift was spontaneous? That seems nutty, too, but I haven't been able to come up with any more reasonable explanation.
One of us suggested IIRC something along the lines of it making it clear who was top dog (and not Mr J in this case, either).
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
It’s easy if you have a helicopter transfer.
(There used to be more aircraft movements at Silverstone than Heathrow, on the Sunday).
I've been terrified of flying in helicopters after my last trip.
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
All helicopter pilots say that. I’ve heard it a few times. Think it amuses them
What puzzles me about that cash donation is the thinking of the Qatari sheikh. Why would he want to give the money in cash, which is, among other things, less convenient? (Someone has to gather all those bills.) A bribe seems implausible since it was so public.
He always carries that amount in "pocket change", and the gift was spontaneous? That seems nutty, too, but I haven't been able to come up with any more reasonable explanation.
The difficulty of the Prince in dealing with the cash, is the whole point of the Qataris doing it that way. They’re laughing at him.
I guess Labour will need confidence and supply if they are minority administration from SNP then, as they aint gonna agree to PR without a referendum surely?
I think they'd have enough rebels over the issue to ensure it either fails or has a referendum attached. Drakeford is only getting away with it in Wales because he is magicking up 36 new AMs/jobs for the boys
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was. And still more Protestants remained in the northern bit.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Brenda from Bristol will love him if he forces an immediate revote
Say LibDems gain ten seats. Is Davey really going to risk throwing them away so quickly by voting down a Labour minority government for PR without a referendum?
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Brenda from Bristol will love him if he forces an immediate revote
Say LibDems gain ten seats. Is Davey really going to risk throwing them away so quickly by voting down a Labour minority government for PR without a referendum?
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
See the Government of Ireland Act 1914. Sadly suspended due to 'other activities'.
Had the war not happened then Ireland would've had its own government much earlier!
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Tyrone and Fermanagh had Catholic majorities in the 1911 Census.
US Senate Democratic - incumbent Michael Bennett unopposed
Republican - moderate (relatively speaking) & Denver businessman Joe O'Dea 55% v 1/6 rioter & state legislator Ron Hanks 45%
CO Secretary of State Democratic = incumbent Jena Griswold unopposed Republican - former county clerk Pam Anderson 43% v Oz native Mike O'Donnell 29% v Mesa County Clerk Tina Peter 28%, she faces criminal charges re: tampering with voting equipment in 2020 aftermath
Clearly NOT a good day for Putinists in the Centennial State; in turn means that GOP may (emphasis on conditional) have a hope here in the general
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
That’s the thing - moving to a different country requires some consideration however if you cannot move to a different part of “your own” country because they do not now recognise gay marriage, after it being recognised in the country’s laws previously, then:
1. That’s really shit. 2. Is it still “one country?
I guess you are going to point out differences in certain rules in the constituent parts of the UK but if part of the UK outlawed gay marriage after it had been allowed in the rUK then that would be similarly terrible.
As I said - if parts of the country are so different in laws and culture then maybe it’s no longer one country.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Tyrone and Fermanagh had Catholic majorities in the 1911 Census.
Young men killed fighting for the Crown in World War I?
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
It’s easy if you have a helicopter transfer.
(There used to be more aircraft movements at Silverstone than Heathrow, on the Sunday).
I've been terrified of flying in helicopters after my last trip.
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
All helicopter pilots say that. I’ve heard it a few times. Think it amuses them
My one helicopter ride involved an emergency landing. Hairy couple of minutes.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Tyrone and Fermanagh had Catholic majorities in the 1911 Census.
No Protestant majority county joined the Free State
What puzzles me about that cash donation is the thinking of the Qatari sheikh. Why would he want to give the money in cash, which is, among other things, less convenient? (Someone has to gather all those bills.) A bribe seems implausible since it was so public.
He always carries that amount in "pocket change", and the gift was spontaneous? That seems nutty, too, but I haven't been able to come up with any more reasonable explanation.
For the lolz.
Getting the future King of the UK to debase himself to accept a briefcase of cash in person? Hilarious.
Bonus points if he held it back slightly, forcing Charles to reach for it to show his eagerness to get his hands on that filthy lucre.
When is anyone in power going to realise the energy sanctions as designed are undermining our security position rather than improving it? We should be announcing secondary energy sanctions with immediate effect on any country still buying Russian crude.
At the moment, global crack spreads are so high the consequences of this folly haven’t been felt. But wait until they crash (which they will as global growth contracts), and see then how European refiners cope against competition from imports from Indian, Chinese and Middle Eastern refiners who are paying $35/bbl less for their raw material input.
Nayara is just a Russian refinery using Russian oil that happens to be located in India. We are being mugged off.
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
It’s easy if you have a helicopter transfer.
(There used to be more aircraft movements at Silverstone than Heathrow, on the Sunday).
I've been terrified of flying in helicopters after my last trip.
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
All helicopter pilots say that. I’ve heard it a few times. Think it amuses them
My one helicopter ride involved an emergency landing. Hairy couple of minutes.
Had the Queen and other assorted Royals buzz my office the last few days, can't be that dangerous.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
That’s the thing - moving to a different country requires some consideration however if you cannot move to a different part of “your own” country because they do not now recognise gay marriage, after it being recognised in the country’s laws previously, then:
1. That’s really shit. 2. Is it still “one country?
I guess you are going to point out differences in certain rules in the constituent parts of the UK but if part of the UK outlawed gay marriage after it had been allowed in the rUK then that would be similarly terrible.
As I said - if parts of the country are so different in laws and culture then maybe it’s no longer one country.
Northern Ireland did not have gay marriage until 2020, Scotland did not legalise homosexuality until 1981
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
The theocrats on the Court are really getting into the whole legislating thing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaggieBlackhawk/status/1542147095750213633 Against hundreds of years of congressional action, against solid #SCOTUS precedent, and hundreds of years of history, the Supreme Court held today that states have jurisdiction over certain crimes in Indian Country by judicial fiat. A devastating result for our democracy.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Tyrone and Fermanagh had Catholic majorities in the 1911 Census.
No Protestant majority county joined the Free State
You said: "only THE [repeat, THE] Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922".
Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic majorities. They should have been given to the Free State.
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
It’s easy if you have a helicopter transfer.
(There used to be more aircraft movements at Silverstone than Heathrow, on the Sunday).
I've been terrified of flying in helicopters after my last trip.
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
All helicopter pilots say that. I’ve heard it a few times. Think it amuses them
My one helicopter ride involved an emergency landing. Hairy couple of minutes.
Had the Queen and other assorted Royals buzz my office the last few days, can't be that dangerous.
Francis Gary Powers famously survived having his U-2 spy plane shot down from the stratosphere (or thereabout) only to die when the TV-news chopper he was flying crashed in (or near) Los Angeles.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
yep and sometimes you have to in the real world, but to actually promote the appeasement of terrorists and not compromise one iota to peaceful democrat forces that you disagree with is a recipe for more terrorism.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
In any case, what does Roman Catholicism have to do with the price of M&S socks? You brought it into the discussion suddenly.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
The theocrats on the Court are really getting into the whole legislating thing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaggieBlackhawk/status/1542147095750213633 Against hundreds of years of congressional action, against solid #SCOTUS precedent, and hundreds of years of history, the Supreme Court held today that states have jurisdiction over certain crimes in Indian Country by judicial fiat. A devastating result for our democracy.
They really are taking this 'only branch of government getting anything done' business quite far, aren't they?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
What puzzles me about that cash donation is the thinking of the Qatari sheikh. Why would he want to give the money in cash, which is, among other things, less convenient? (Someone has to gather all those bills.) A bribe seems implausible since it was so public.
He always carries that amount in "pocket change", and the gift was spontaneous? That seems nutty, too, but I haven't been able to come up with any more reasonable explanation.
For the lolz.
Getting the future King of the UK to debase himself to accept a briefcase of cash in person? Hilarious.
Bonus points if he held it back slightly, forcing Charles to reach for it to show his eagerness to get his hands on that filthy lucre.
Obvious reason for suitcase full of cash, is for one or (most likely) both parties in transaction to avoid paper trail.
And just how "public" was this particular transaction anyway? BEFORE it was publicized that is?
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Tyrone and Fermanagh had Catholic majorities in the 1911 Census.
No Protestant majority county joined the Free State
You said: "only THE [repeat, THE] Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922".
Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic majorities. They should have been given to the Free State.
I stand to be corrected but I think the border districts voted for Ulster which meant that those 'further inland' were disregarded.
Her win in the US open looks ever more remarkable. Not sure she will win another major.
A repeat win for Emma Raducanu in the US Open is still on the cards. Course form, and the confidence it brings, counts for a lot. Look at Matt Fitzpatrick who has just won the US Open golf after being the only player previously to have won a tournament at Brookline.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
Eh, it'll work itself out. If she cannot recover to a position where she might challenge for titles then the endorsements will dry up soon enough.
I think it harsh to suggest she's the next Anna Kournikova, as even without various top seeds her win in the US was still remarkable as an achievement, but she'd have been very unusual to not get a bit carried away with it all.
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
It’s easy if you have a helicopter transfer.
(There used to be more aircraft movements at Silverstone than Heathrow, on the Sunday).
I've been terrified of flying in helicopters after my last trip.
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
All helicopter pilots say that. I’ve heard it a few times. Think it amuses them
My one helicopter ride involved an emergency landing. Hairy couple of minutes.
I’ve done many. Often they are wonderful. Like magic
Couple of iffy ones tho. The worst was a joyride for my lovely young wife into the Grand Canyon on a muggy desert day. The pilot was bored and lazy (and kept ogling my wife). The thermals were intense. And we were both coming off Xanax, so prone to wild emotions and paranoia
Not a great mix. We went gambling in Vegas to cleanse the mood
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
It used to be the justification for a war to protect slavery, same old, same old.
I see one or two getting a bit over-excited about a little LD kite-flying.
Electoral reform seems to be one of those issues, like membership of the EU or Scotland's place in the UK, where simply making it a manifesto commitment in the event of winning a majority isn't enough.
It's one of those questions which seemingly transcends the normal legislative process and needs a second level of electoral approval. The LDs know this - Labour knows it too - so this is a question of staking out some lines in the sand if you like.
Given our recent experience with referenda, it's probably unwise to push another one forward at this time - we are still talking about votes which occurred in 2014 and 2016 on here (if not more widely).
A more sensible approach might be to have STV for local elections only as a first step - the unique linkage between MPs and their "constituency" makes the notion of STV for Westminster a much harder sell but given the relatively low turnouts in local elections (some of which are already conducted under various proportional systems) it's easier to argue this is a small step which doesn't really require a referendum.
The other side of this is to see where Labour stands on electoral reform and other possible areas of political reform such as decentralisation of powers from Westminster/Whitehall to existing local authorities and, given the Blair experience, whether they are prepared to walk the walk as much as talk the talk on this.
The theocrats on the Court are really getting into the whole legislating thing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaggieBlackhawk/status/1542147095750213633 Against hundreds of years of congressional action, against solid #SCOTUS precedent, and hundreds of years of history, the Supreme Court held today that states have jurisdiction over certain crimes in Indian Country by judicial fiat. A devastating result for our democracy.
They really are taking this 'only branch of government getting anything done' business quite far, aren't they?
It may not be originalist, but it's certainly original.
I don't see how anyone with an iota if understanding of US constitutional law defends this with a straight face. But I guess the five nuts have spent a lifetime practising.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
If you can do regressive things at the state level, you can do progressive things too. Maybe more states rights would shift American politics as a whole in the other direction.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Tyrone and Fermanagh had Catholic majorities in the 1911 Census.
No Protestant majority county joined the Free State
You said: "only THE [repeat, THE] Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922".
Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic majorities. They should have been given to the Free State.
I stand to be corrected but I think the border districts voted for Ulster which meant that those 'further inland' were disregarded.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
Eh, it'll work itself out. If she cannot recover to a position where she might challenge for titles then the endorsements will dry up soon enough.
I think it harsh to suggest she's the next Anna Kournikova, as even without various top seeds her win in the US was still remarkable as an achievement, but she'd have been very unusual to not get a bit carried away with it all.
Her win was a Leicester City moment. A glorious overachievement, but one to be remembered for.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
"States rights" seems to be the PC term for facilitating bigotry and misogyny in America.
Always has been.
HYUFD has never had a problem with the exercise of arbitrary power by conservatives, I think.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
One outstanding achievement is exactly one more than most people. Emily Bronte only wrote one book. Just happened to be the best one ever.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
In any case, what does Roman Catholicism have to do with the price of M&S socks? You brought it into the discussion suddenly.
We are discussing Ireland Mr C! You'd be surprised at the issues which could be considered!
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
@HYUFD (because this vanilla crap is messing up replies.
You have missed the point I was making by referencing when NI and Scotland changed laws.
My point was about part of one country changing laws for their part of the country reversing progress which leaves people - in this case gay married couples - in a tricky position.
So if Scotland now reversed its legalisation of homosexuality now that people within the UK have a right to expect their marriage to be recognised north of the border as in wales or England then this is not really acceptable - it’s a backwards step.
If you are “American” then I would think you would expect that in any part of your own country, the country you have pledged allegiance to every day at school, would respect your marriage rights and not have a part of it suddenly take a time machine and make it impossible for you to live there freely - in your own country.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
That’s the thing - moving to a different country requires some consideration however if you cannot move to a different part of “your own” country because they do not now recognise gay marriage, after it being recognised in the country’s laws previously, then:
1. That’s really shit. 2. Is it still “one country?
I guess you are going to point out differences in certain rules in the constituent parts of the UK but if part of the UK outlawed gay marriage after it had been allowed in the rUK then that would be similarly terrible.
As I said - if parts of the country are so different in laws and culture then maybe it’s no longer one country.
In fact, for about 15 years, gay sex was legal in England but not in Scotland. And for about 40 years I think, abortion was legal in England but not in Northern Ireland.
So we have plenty of examples of this here, and there is nothing inherently wrong with different provinces taking different positions on these matters. Indeed what is the point of having different jurisdictions if they can't have different laws?
What is indefensible is when people promote states rights on some issues, like gun control, and oppose them on others, like abortion. Or vice versa.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
In any case, what does Roman Catholicism have to do with the price of M&S socks? You brought it into the discussion suddenly.
We are discussing Ireland Mr C! You'd be surprised at the issues which could be considered!
Indeed, but the relevance to Scotland is zero - even when Mr HYUFD expressed concern some weeks back about the great numbers of RCs in Scotland (apparently because the Episcopalians haven't been the Established Kirk since 1690) it wasn't in the context of the terrorist threat therefrom.
Why the hate for Emma Rad? She’s still young, clever, charming, gifted and beautiful
Ah, I get it
No hate from me, just disappointment. She looked so good at Flushing Meadow that there was a sense of a potential great of the game on our hands. She may still be, but the last 9 months have not gone to plan. She can’t help being attractive and the rewards for success may indeed have turned her head, but she has genuine talent. She may need to get stronger physically, and it may be that grass is not her natural surface. If so, no great loss as it’s only 4 weeks of the season.
I’m sure we will be regaled with tales tmorrow, of who Little Miss One-Hit-Wonder was wearing on court today.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
I can’t decide if she was just very very lucky last year, or if this year she has had too many problems with injuries and not settling on a coaching team. She looked like what she is on court -a youngster out of her depth. Also under powered for grass against a big hitter.
She was very lucky last year, as many of the top seeds fell away early and she got to the final.
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
Wearing that jewellery on court on Monday was bizarre and pretty telling about where her head is. Fair enough if she has decided to milk her 15 mins for all its worth but it seems a shame.
How much was she paid to wear that? A lot, I imagine. All she had to do was wear it
She might have made the sensible calculation that she’s not big and powerful enough to have a long successful grand slam career, especially as it involves soul destroying levels of commitment to a sport, to the exclusion of all else
Instead she can swan around for 2-3 seasons, make $10m, then take up her offer at Cambridge. Not a bad option
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
It took the Irish War of Independence for Catholic Ireland to be independent.
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
That would surprise the many non-RCs in Ireland! In any case Ireland was not made independent - only some of it was.
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Only the Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922 and it took a War from 1919 to 1921 for it to happen, not even the 1918 general election where SF won a majority in Ireland
Tyrone and Fermanagh had Catholic majorities in the 1911 Census.
No Protestant majority county joined the Free State
You said: "only THE [repeat, THE] Roman Catholic majority counties joined the Irish Free State in 1922".
Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic majorities. They should have been given to the Free State.
I stand to be corrected but I think the border districts voted for Ulster which meant that those 'further inland' were disregarded.
Nobody ever got to vote one way or the other "for Ulster" if by that you mean "Northern Ireland" which included (and still does) only 6 out of 9 counties of historic Ulster.
Why the hate for Emma Rad? She’s still young, clever, charming, gifted and beautiful
Ah, I get it
No hate from me, but I am glad she is out just because women's tennis is so boring and now I don't have to watch any more. Doesn't really make it against Murray trying to cope with serves from a 6'10"er.
Comments
On the one hand, all precedent is that the election process gives the mandate to do this (if one of the parties involved had it in their manifesto, that's fine). Referendums have been held when the winning party's manifesto had an explicit undertaking for a referendum in it (Brexit referendum, Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums in 1997, 1975 Euro referendum), or when a major change was proposed that had not been in the winning party (or parties) manifesto(es) (AV referendum, 2014 Scottish referendum, Good Friday referendum).
So either there was a mandate for a referendum but not the change itself (the first lot), or there was a need to get a mandate for a change that wasn't in anyone's manifesto.
We've had a whole suite of constitutional changes over the last 190 years that were actioned without a referendum: 1832 Reform Act, 1867 Reform Act (which doubled the number who could vote), 1884 Reform Act (more than doubling again and establishing the 1-member constituency as the baseline), 1918 Representation of the People Act (enfranchising women and very nearly establishing PR (STV rejected in favour of AV; AV rejected in favour of STV, so FPTP go it on default), 1928 Representation of the People Act equalising the franchise), abolishing plural voting and the STV university constituencies in 1948.
However, the lack of a referendum would be used to condemn it and could well have success.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/why-brexit-could-end-up-costing-the-tories-their-rural-vote-1713430?ito=twitter_share_article-top
Pilot was like 'Planes are safer, if something goes wrong on a plane, you've got a few options, when something goes wrong on a helicopter, then you're fucked, you fall like a stone'
But as @DecrepiterJohnL has pointed out Caesar's wife needs to be above reproach.
Democratic for Governor
> JB Pritzker 91% v who cares?
Republican for Governor
> Far-right state senator Darren Bailey 58% v crypto-shill Jesse Sullivan v 16%moderate mayor Richard Irwin 15%
SSI - Pretty clear how this one is likely to play out in the general
Democrat for US Senator
> Incumbent Tammy Duckworth unopposed
Republican for US Senator
> Perennial candidate Kathy Salvi 30% v social conservative Peggy Hubbard 26% v Matt Dubiel 13%
SSI - Ditto
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
@JohnRentoul
·
9m
This makes no sense: Davey has already ruled out propping up a Tory govt so he can’t demand anything
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1542180081853931521
He always carries that amount in "pocket change", and the gift was spontaneous? That seems nutty, too, but I haven't been able to come up with any more reasonable explanation.
Excellent.
As it happens the yanks have been replaced by Brits the last day or so. A Tui cruise in the bay
Scotland however has devolution and rejected Independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
@_SeanOGrady
·
4m
Replying to
@JohnRentoul
Another Swinson foul-up in the making. Extraordinary vanity
https://twitter.com/_SeanOGrady/status/1542182192390066179
Drakeford is only getting away with it in Wales because he is magicking up 36 new AMs/jobs for the boys
I'm looking forward to you arguing that the reason Scotland can't but a bit of Ireland can is because they spell whisky differently.
Had the war not happened then Ireland would've had its own government much earlier!
US Senate
Democratic - incumbent Michael Bennett unopposed
Republican - moderate (relatively speaking) & Denver businessman Joe O'Dea 55% v 1/6 rioter & state legislator Ron Hanks 45%
CO Secretary of State
Democratic = incumbent Jena Griswold unopposed
Republican - former county clerk Pam Anderson 43% v Oz native Mike O'Donnell 29% v Mesa County Clerk Tina Peter 28%, she faces criminal charges re: tampering with voting equipment in 2020 aftermath
Clearly NOT a good day for Putinists in the Centennial State; in turn means that GOP may (emphasis on conditional) have a hope here in the general
1. That’s really shit.
2. Is it still “one country?
I guess you are going to point out differences in certain rules in the constituent parts of the UK but if part of the UK outlawed gay marriage after it had been allowed in the rUK then that would be similarly terrible.
As I said - if parts of the country are so different in laws and culture then maybe it’s no longer one country.
I expect the Lords to throw it out if presented to them. The Parliament Act would not apply as not a manifesto policy.
Oh, you paid her a million bucks and she got knocked out in the second round…
Getting the future King of the UK to debase himself to accept a briefcase of cash in person? Hilarious.
Bonus points if he held it back slightly, forcing Charles to reach for it to show his eagerness to get his hands on that filthy lucre.
When is anyone in power going to realise the energy sanctions as designed are undermining our security position rather than improving it? We should be announcing secondary energy sanctions with immediate effect on any country still buying Russian crude.
At the moment, global crack spreads are so high the consequences of this folly haven’t been felt. But wait until they crash (which they will as global growth contracts), and see then how European refiners cope against competition from imports from Indian, Chinese and Middle Eastern refiners who are paying $35/bbl less for their raw
material input.
Nayara is just a Russian refinery using Russian oil that happens to be located in India. We are being mugged off.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaggieBlackhawk/status/1542147095750213633
Against hundreds of years of congressional action, against solid #SCOTUS precedent, and hundreds of years of history, the Supreme Court held today that states have jurisdiction over certain crimes in Indian Country by judicial fiat. A devastating result for our democracy.
Fermanagh and Tyrone had Catholic majorities. They should have been given to the Free State.
https://mobile.twitter.com/john_sipher/status/1542132829567467521
Next up, court jesters ?
The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected.
One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
And just how "public" was this particular transaction anyway? BEFORE it was publicized that is?
Since then, she’s let a little fame go to her head - firing multiple coaches and taking loads of sponsorships, prioritising celebrity over tennis. To say she’s the next Anna Kournikova, is a little harsh on the Russian-American.
I think it harsh to suggest she's the next Anna Kournikova, as even without various top seeds her win in the US was still remarkable as an achievement, but she'd have been very unusual to not get a bit carried away with it all.
Couple of iffy ones tho. The worst was a joyride for my lovely young wife into the Grand Canyon on a muggy desert day. The pilot was bored and lazy (and kept ogling my wife). The thermals were intense. And we were both coming off Xanax, so prone to wild emotions and paranoia
Not a great mix. We went gambling in Vegas to cleanse the mood
I see one or two getting a bit over-excited about a little LD kite-flying.
Electoral reform seems to be one of those issues, like membership of the EU or Scotland's place in the UK, where simply making it a manifesto commitment in the event of winning a majority isn't enough.
It's one of those questions which seemingly transcends the normal legislative process and needs a second level of electoral approval. The LDs know this - Labour knows it too - so this is a question of staking out some lines in the sand if you like.
Given our recent experience with referenda, it's probably unwise to push another one forward at this time - we are still talking about votes which occurred in 2014 and 2016 on here (if not more widely).
A more sensible approach might be to have STV for local elections only as a first step - the unique linkage between MPs and their "constituency" makes the notion of STV for Westminster a much harder sell but given the relatively low turnouts in local elections (some of which are already conducted under various proportional systems) it's easier to argue this is a small step which doesn't really require a referendum.
The other side of this is to see where Labour stands on electoral reform and other possible areas of political reform such as decentralisation of powers from Westminster/Whitehall to existing local authorities and, given the Blair experience, whether they are prepared to walk the walk as much as talk the talk on this.
I don't see how anyone with an iota if understanding of US constitutional law defends this with a straight face.
But I guess the five nuts have spent a lifetime practising.
HYUFD has never had a problem with the exercise of arbitrary power by conservatives, I think.
Ah, I get it
You have missed the point I was making by referencing when NI and Scotland changed laws.
My point was about part of one country changing laws for their part of the country reversing progress which leaves people - in this case gay married couples - in a tricky position.
So if Scotland now reversed its legalisation of homosexuality now that people within the UK have a right to expect their marriage to be recognised north of the border as in wales or England then this is not really acceptable - it’s a backwards step.
If you are “American” then I would think you would expect that in any part of your own country, the country you have pledged allegiance to every day at school, would respect your marriage rights and not have a part of it suddenly take a time machine and make it impossible for you to live there freely - in your own country.
So we have plenty of examples of this here, and there is nothing inherently wrong with different provinces taking different positions on these matters. Indeed what is the point of having different jurisdictions if they can't have different laws?
What is indefensible is when people promote states rights on some issues, like gun control, and oppose them on others, like abortion. Or vice versa.
But Partition was on a County by County basis.</blockquote
I refer you to my comments on Ireland elsewhere! Rules don't necessarily apply or certainly didn't about 100 years ago!
She might have made the sensible calculation that she’s not big and powerful enough to have a long successful grand slam career, especially as it involves soul destroying levels of commitment to a sport, to the exclusion of all else
Instead she can swan around for 2-3 seasons, make $10m, then take up her offer at Cambridge. Not a bad option
Check out map included with following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election
Which shows that most of the "border districts" of future NI did NOT vote Unionist, instead for SF or IPP.