A 33% return in just under two and a half years? – politicalbetting.com

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

Not market that I am betting on, but a further Sindyref is inevitable at some point, even if Westminster persists in the current logjam for the rest of this generation. It is for Scotland to decide on when that should be, anything else is a denial of democracy.

We should learn from Brexit though and know the terms of separation in advance of the vote, rather than interminable discussions afterwards. People need to know what they are voting on, rather than unicorns frolicking on sunlit uplands.

Yes in principle but there is a difficulty. An independent Scotland as such can have complete borderless FoM, trade etc between it and England etc. But a Scotland in the EU can't.

In the first case the public would notice little day to day difference. In the second case the England Scotland border would have the same exciting status as that between Bulgaria and Turkey or Lithuania and Kaliningrad.

While Scotland is part of the UK there is no possibility at all of knowing what the EU will require of Scotland for membership. But the island of Ireland situation tells us in advance that situational flexibility is not always the strongest point of the various parties.

For those, like me, who cross the England/Scotland border all the time and live near it, this matters.

Yes I think for that reason that Scotland would probably be better in the EEA rather than the EU . EEA members are free to make their own trade deals and Scotland could then make one with rest of what was the UK . That might reduce some of the issues .

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

geoffw said:

 

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?

Unfortunately there is evidence

Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP

The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged

Putin is winning

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Truly infantile levels of analysis

Leon said:

geoffw said:

 

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?

Unfortunately there is evidence

Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP

The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged

Putin is winning

And yet they're scraping the barrel in their forces, using decrepit machines kept out in the open for decades, while Ukraine is using new HIMARS equipment with great effect to destroy Russian ammo dumps.

And the movement recently has been to see the Ukrainians encircling Kherson and potentially about to retake Kherson.

This isn't over yet or all one way traffic.

Though its certainly true that in the Russian/Ukrainian war the first country to surrender was France, and the second might be Germany - but that doesn't mean Putin is winning.

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

What, other than boredom with repeatedly rehearsed arguments, makes you say that?

It seemed to me that June and July were the months where Russia could win the war. They have made considerable progress in the Donbass and taken a lot of territory. More significantly,they caused real damage to the Ukranian army. But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them, that the more sophisticated weaponry of the west, and their own logistical deficiencies, have ground them to a halt and that they are in increasing danger now of being driven back. My expectation is that within 2-3 weeks the Ukranians will retake Kherson. The threat to Crimea will then be significant. And there may not be a lot that Putin can do about it.

The problem with Ukraine taking Crimea (or even the southern Ukrainian territories that Russia has taken over) is that Russia has systematically removed troublesome locals from the region and moved other Russians in to replace them.

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Truly infantile levels of analysis

Ooh cutting! So you think that the union isn't a voluntary grouping of countries?

Scott_xP said:

Conservative party members should be stripped of their power to pick Britain’s next prime minister, a senior MP has said, citing concerns about the increasingly hostile public attacks by the campaigns of Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss on their rival.

Charles Walker, a former longstanding vice-chair of the 1922 Committee, which oversees the rules for internal party no-confidence votes and leadership elections, said the contest “should have got nowhere near” the 180,000 Tory grassroots activists who will decide Boris Johnson’s replacement in just over a month.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/26/strip-tory-members-of-power-to-pick-prime-minister-demands-senior-mp?CMP=share_btn_tw

The electorates for the party leaders are the worst possible size. It's what you'd choose if you were optimizing for maximum madness. They could fix it in either direction: Either make it smaller (just MPs, or MPs and local councillors or whatever) or bigger (open primary).

Good article from TSE. Neither Truss, Sunak or Starmer will want to risk an indyref2.

Only way it might happen is if the Tories win most seats at the next general election but Labour and the SNP combined have more seats than the Tories and the SNP state they would abstain without an indyref2 commitment from Starmer

HYUFD said:

Good article from TSE. Neither Truss, Sunak or Starmer will want to risk an indyref2.

Only way it might happen is if the Tories win most seats at the next general election but Labour and the SNP combined have more seats than the Tories and the SNP state they would abstain without an indyref2 commitment from Starmer

Not even then - Starmer's best plan would be to have another election and with the campaign slogan - vote SNP get a Tory Government...

Good news at last! I hear the Johnson's wedding party is to be given by the £14 million Tory donors the Bamfords. While there are freeloaders like the Johnsons and court sycophants like the Bamfords we can sleep easy knowing the walls of Chequers will be spared the pasting taken by those in Downing Street

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.

Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.

That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.

That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Feb 25 is two and a half years from now.

It has been said since March 22, I think, but yes and its been true since then. The balance of power has been swinging from Russia to Ukraine since then.

The "balance of power", eh? Please define this as it applies to the war in Ukraine.

TIA

OnlyLivingBoy said:

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Is that true? Could England, Wales, Ni kick Scotland out?
Can Yorkshire secede? Wiltshire? Salisbury?

I fully believe in self determination, but its complex. If the majority of Scots (defined how?) want independence, then a referendum is fine, but our recent experience informs how that should be held. No more Yes/No to a simple question. The end state must be agreed in advance. What does an independent Scotland look like? What currency? Hard border with England? Part of Nato? National Debt? And on and on and on.

And if another referendum is held, when is the one after that? Every year? Until the right answer is given?

The SNP might reflect on the 'success' of Brexit. At the moment all the issues are down to the Tory government in Westminster. After independence - you must look to yourselves.

Mr. Boy, the Scots did choose. They chose to stay.

It's bizarre to hear people talking about the will of the Scots not being allowed when they're purposefully ignoring the expression of that will.

Roger said:

Good news at last! I hear the Johnson's wedding party is to be given by the £14 million Tory donors the Bamfords. While there are freeloaders like the Johnsons and court sycophants like the Bamfords we can sleep easy knowing the walls of Chequers will be spared the pasting taken by those in Downing Street

You’re going to miss Boris, aren’t you?

.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

 

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?

Unfortunately there is evidence

Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP

The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged

Putin is winning

And yet they're scraping the barrel in their forces, using decrepit machines kept out in the open for decades, while Ukraine is using new HIMARS equipment with great effect to destroy Russian ammo dumps.

And the movement recently has been to see the Ukrainians encircling Kherson and potentially about to retake Kherson.

This isn't over yet or all one way traffic.

Though its certainly true that in the Russian/Ukrainian war the first country to surrender was France, and the second might be Germany - but that doesn't mean Putin is winning.

France hasn't surrendered. They've recently sent some more Caesar self-propelled howitzers, that are well-regarded by the Ukrainians.

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

Referendum allowed, no possible legal effect from said referendum ?

Not really satisfactory as that would then be asking councils to spend money on something that had no legal force. What if one of them refused to comply?

I had no idea it was purely advisory when it was held, but the Brexit referendum had no legal force and involved council spending I think ?

That was authorised by the UK Parliament and nobody disputed they had the right to hold it or act on the result.

Hold on, that's a different argument.

How?

Your argument was about 'Council spending on no legal force' , now you've moved to the authorisation body and lack of dispute.

Just because there wasn't a dispute from any council about holding the Brexit referendum is irrelevant and the authorising body is a different argument to legal effect.

My sense is you're simply not keen on the Scottish Parliament getting ideas above it's station.

Well, I'm not, just as I'm not keen on the Supreme Court doing the same. Or for the matter of that Staffordshire County Council. The reason for this is simple - if they start doing things that suit them rather than what they should be doing, what happens when they start making dumb decisions that suit them but cause massive harm? Which would inevitably happen as we all make mistakes.

But the argument is, does the Scottish Parliament have the power to hold a non-binding referendum on a subject outside its competence and force councils to take part spending money they don't really have on something they don't want to do?

Whereas nobody disputed Brexit was in the competence of the UK Parliament.

I don't see a contradiction there.

The Scottish Parliament operates under the principle that everything that is not forbidden, is allowed within its competence.

So if a referendum is only advisory (which Miller says it is) then would an advisory referendum directly change or affect any reserved matters? Not really, no.

If it does not affect any reserved matters should it be allowed? Yes.

Just because the Scottish Parliament doesn't have competence for handling the aftermath of the referendum doesn't mean a referendum itself is verboten.

Then as a devolved rather than a federated body it's operating under the wrong principle. It should be operating under the principle that anything not within its competence is forbidden to it. Some explicitly, some implicitly.

In America, it's the other way around. But rather fortunately for Scotland at this moment, it isn't in America.

Why is it the wrong principle?

Reserved matters are outside of its competence. Anything not reserved therefore is not.

If it was the other way around then reserved wouldn't exist, there'd be a list of competencies instead, but there isn't.

I think you are right and wrong. The SP is competent on unreserved matters. But it is obvious on a moment's reflection that a properly organised advisory referendum on a statutory basis about independence is a reserved matter relating to the constitution of the UK. So the SP can't do it.

NS is engaged in an exercise of time passing and blame transferring during which there is no second referendum, which would mark the end of her career. That's politics. Lord Reed will despatch it.

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Truly infantile levels of analysis

Ooh cutting! So you think that the union isn't a voluntary grouping of countries?

The minor inconveniences of being prohibited from deciding on membership of one union while being forcibly expelled from another is as nothing to the vile tyranny of collective decision making on how hard your vacuum cleaner sucks.

And yet, of course, you actually VOTED to be “forcibly expelled” from the EU, when you voted YES in 2014. Didn’t seem to bother you then, so I think we can take your angst now for the hypocritical wank that it is

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Feb 25 is two and a half years from now.

It has been said since March 22, I think, but yes and its been true since then. The balance of power has been swinging from Russia to Ukraine since then.

The balance of military forces, perhaps.
But @Leon is quite right to argue that economically Russia is a great deal more resilient than many claimed back in March. Their manufacturing has taken a very big hit, but state revenues have held up because of commodity prices.
Carrying on opposing the invasion will cost Europe a great deal in the short term.

It's a contest of will as much as military force. Russian society has been conditioned for a very long time indeed to cope with suffering; our societies haven't.
There seems to be a recognition by European politicians that the price of defeating Russia is worth paying (see for example the new agreement on limiting gas usage), but democracies depend on electorates supporting that calculation.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

What, other than boredom with repeatedly rehearsed arguments, makes you say that?

It seemed to me that June and July were the months where Russia could win the war. They have made considerable progress in the Donbass and taken a lot of territory. More significantly,they caused real damage to the Ukranian army. But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them, that the more sophisticated weaponry of the west, and their own logistical deficiencies, have ground them to a halt and that they are in increasing danger now of being driven back. My expectation is that within 2-3 weeks the Ukranians will retake Kherson. The threat to Crimea will then be significant. And there may not be a lot that Putin can do about it.

See my other post. We are all studiously ignoring the evidence Putin is winning the economic war, and concentrating on Kherson or whatever

This war will be won in the energy markets not in the Donbas. Gun to head now, my prediction is that Germany and other EU countries will crumble in late autumn - as the gas is turned off - and force Kyiv to accept an inglorious “peace”

If Poland, UK and US stand firm it doesn't matter much what Germany does.

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Feb 25 is two and a half years from now.

It has been said since March 22, I think, but yes and its been true since then. The balance of power has been swinging from Russia to Ukraine since then.

The "balance of power", eh? Please define this as it applies to the war in Ukraine.

TIA

That's complicated and could take detailed essays and pages of work.

But I will make the same point I've made all along since Ukraine survived the initial invasion - it is logistics that win wars.

Russia started with an overwhelming armament advantage but is using up armaments that it has had in storage for decades and has little ability to acquire or build replacements.

Ukraine started with a small fraction of Russia's armaments but it is continuously gaining more. Now it has HIMARS being used to great effect that they didn't have before.

So long as the West keeps up its nerve and keeps a supply of new weaponry to Ukraine flowing the balance is shifting to Ukraine's advantage.

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

What, other than boredom with repeatedly rehearsed arguments, makes you say that?

It seemed to me that June and July were the months where Russia could win the war. They have made considerable progress in the Donbass and taken a lot of territory. More significantly,they caused real damage to the Ukranian army. But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them, that the more sophisticated weaponry of the west, and their own logistical deficiencies, have ground them to a halt and that they are in increasing danger now of being driven back. My expectation is that within 2-3 weeks the Ukranians will retake Kherson. The threat to Crimea will then be significant. And there may not be a lot that Putin can do about it.

See my other post. We are all studiously ignoring the evidence Putin is winning the economic war, and concentrating on Kherson or whatever

This war will be won in the energy markets not in the Donbas. Gun to head now, my prediction is that Germany and other EU countries will crumble in late autumn - as the gas is turned off - and force Kyiv to accept an inglorious “peace”

If Poland, UK and US stand firm it doesn't matter much what Germany does.

Of course it does. Germany dominates the EU

If Berlin says “sue for peace” then much of the EU will fall in behind - even France, I suspect

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.

Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.

That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.

That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

That is not how Texans conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Texas should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Texans would deny that the decision is Texas's to make whenever they choose to. That other Americans don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education North of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Texas are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

Does that work?

If Scots think they're sovereign then that speaks of a failure of civic education North of the border. They're not, the UK is sovereign. Scotland abolished its own sovereignty in 1707.

I would welcome a restoration of Scottish sovereignty, I want it to happen, but it doesn't exist presently. Scotland is not a sovereign country.

Scotland is very unique though - I can't think of anywhere else in the world were a region of a country has a completely separate legal and court system to the rest of the country.

America and the fifty states meet that criteria.

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.

Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.

That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.

That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

In reality it isn't. Even if 99% of Scots backed independence, legally and constitutionally it could not become independent without Westminster passing legislation to enable Scottish independence.

Although practically if say 3/4 of Scots backed independence it might be more difficult to keep it in the Union but we are nowhere near that point now

The viceroy speaks.

HYUFD said:

As Edmund in Tokyo posted last night, Buttigieg now ahead of Biden and Harris in new New Hampshire Democratic primary poll
https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1551967818123542528?s=20&t=3U3teZ-0FwQB5bLN9CYilw

Straws in the wind... but there are a lot of articles like this cropping up.

So, Do Any of the Newer Democrats Who Might Replace Joe Biden in 2024 Have What It Takes?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/2024-democratic-presidential-candidates-whitmer-warnock-biden.html

MarqueeMark said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

 

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

Well he has a winning smile and a winning ticket in the national lottery. Oh that's not what you mean?

Unfortunately there is evidence

Russia’s coffers are groaning with foreign gold. The sanctions are not working. The rouble is at an 8 year high. Putin can turn the winter energy screw on Germany, causing a 10% drop in German GDP

The IMF has just predicted a vastly better outcome for the Russian economy next year than was envisaged

Putin is winning

And yet they're scraping the barrel in their forces, using decrepit machines kept out in the open for decades, while Ukraine is using new HIMARS equipment with great effect to destroy Russian ammo dumps.

And the movement recently has been to see the Ukrainians encircling Kherson and potentially about to retake Kherson.

This isn't over yet or all one way traffic.

Though its certainly true that in the Russian/Ukrainian war the first country to surrender was France, and the second might be Germany - but that doesn't mean Putin is winning.

Russia has pretty much gone all in. 85% of it troops from across 8 time zones are now committed to the Ukraine Special Operation. It is so Special, it has left its borders to the east wide open. China could take everything east of the Urals right now if it was so inclined (and didn't mind losing a few cities in a nuclear exchange). All for Putin's vanity project, meant to be remembered across the ages. Well, he got that bit right....

The news on the taking out overnight of the Antonovskiy Bridge is interesting. It is no longer a route through which Russian troops can quickly retreat to Crimea. It is a big piece of the jigsaw for an upcoming Ukrainian counter-offensive in the south. Trapping and taking prisoner many thousands of Russian troops is one of the few routes I can see to getting a meaningful round table discussion on ending the war quickly. As well as destroying supply lines, HIMARS delivers Ukraine the capability to cut off Russian escape routes.

Cutting off escape routes is always a high-risk play though as it means the troops left might fight to the last if they feel they can't escape.

It also makes it seem quite probable that Ukraine is seeking to retake Kherson but not Crimea, which is unfortunate but probably inevitable.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Fishing said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.

Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.

That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.

That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?

The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all.
Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.

No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.

Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

What, other than boredom with repeatedly rehearsed arguments, makes you say that?

It seemed to me that June and July were the months where Russia could win the war. They have made considerable progress in the Donbass and taken a lot of territory. More significantly,they caused real damage to the Ukranian army. But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them, that the more sophisticated weaponry of the west, and their own logistical deficiencies, have ground them to a halt and that they are in increasing danger now of being driven back. My expectation is that within 2-3 weeks the Ukranians will retake Kherson. The threat to Crimea will then be significant. And there may not be a lot that Putin can do about it.

See my other post. We are all studiously ignoring the evidence Putin is winning the economic war, and concentrating on Kherson or whatever

This war will be won in the energy markets not in the Donbas. Gun to head now, my prediction is that Germany and other EU countries will crumble in late autumn - as the gas is turned off - and force Kyiv to accept an inglorious “peace”

I do not agree that he is winning. Our optimism that sanctions would bring him to his knees has been proven, once again, to be seriously misplaced. But the disruption to the Russian economy has been real and will be progressive as they lose the ability to operate western kit, such as their airlines. If that is combined with defeats on the ground I don't think Putin personally will survive.

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Feb 25 is two and a half years from now.

It has been said since March 22, I think, but yes and its been true since then. The balance of power has been swinging from Russia to Ukraine since then.

The "balance of power", eh? Please define this as it applies to the war in Ukraine.

TIA

That's complicated and could take detailed essays and pages of work.

But I will make the same point I've made all along since Ukraine survived the initial invasion - it is logistics that win wars.

Russia started with an overwhelming armament advantage but is using up armaments that it has had in storage for decades and has little ability to acquire or build replacements.

Ukraine started with a small fraction of Russia's armaments but it is continuously gaining more. Now it has HIMARS being used to great effect that they didn't have before.

So long as the West keeps up its nerve and keeps a supply of new weaponry to Ukraine flowing the balance is shifting to Ukraine's advantage.

Agreed.
But "so long as the West keeps its nerve" is an important qualification.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Liz Truss unveils “back to basics” crime plan

👮‍♂️ Cops will visit every burglary victim

🐦 Police to spend less time on Twitter soars and more time pounding the streets

⚽️ Target to cut serious crime by 20% - with league tables tracking progress

Why doesn't Liz ask Tony Blair what he did? This plan is even less ambitious than his - and his achieved better results 15 years ago!

It doesn't really solve anything when the rest of the justice system is so backlogged a person arrested today won't be in court until 2024...

Fishing said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Fishing said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.

Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.

That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.

That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?

The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all.
Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.

No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.

Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.

Does Orkney have a separate legal system to the rest of Scotland?

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Feb 25 is two and a half years from now.

It has been said since March 22, I think, but yes and its been true since then. The balance of power has been swinging from Russia to Ukraine since then.

The "balance of power", eh? Please define this as it applies to the war in Ukraine.

TIA

That's complicated and could take detailed essays and pages of work.

But I will make the same point I've made all along since Ukraine survived the initial invasion - it is logistics that win wars.

Russia started with an overwhelming armament advantage but is using up armaments that it has had in storage for decades and has little ability to acquire or build replacements.

Ukraine started with a small fraction of Russia's armaments but it is continuously gaining more. Now it has HIMARS being used to great effect that they didn't have before.

So long as the West keeps up its nerve and keeps a supply of new weaponry to Ukraine flowing the balance is shifting to Ukraine's advantage.

Thanks. I respect the fact that you accept that you have no idea what the "balance of power" actually means.

I think that for many reasons it is dangerous to look at any element of the war on a tactical, strategic or theatre level and pronounce on "who's winning" or the "balance of power".

As I said, frustratingly for all of us, we are passengers with various countries pushing at the string to try to affect events, for example with their gas consumption policy.

But since the day after the invasion as I said there has been a large contingent on PB opining once and for all about what is happening and what is about to happen whereas as you graciously accept, no one has any idea; not the protagonists, not other governments, not RUSI and, last but of course not least, not your very good self.

Absolutely the future is uncertain that is true, but what is also true is that the balance of power is shifting to Ukraine's advantage and it has been since this began.

The tense on the word shifting matters. The shifting hasn't finished, it might take years to finish, but it is shifting. Six months ago Russia had far more ammunition than it does now and Ukraine did not have the HIMARS etc it has now.

The future is uncertain, but the balance of power is shifting.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

What, other than boredom with repeatedly rehearsed arguments, makes you say that?

It seemed to me that June and July were the months where Russia could win the war. They have made considerable progress in the Donbass and taken a lot of territory. More significantly,they caused real damage to the Ukranian army. But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them, that the more sophisticated weaponry of the west, and their own logistical deficiencies, have ground them to a halt and that they are in increasing danger now of being driven back. My expectation is that within 2-3 weeks the Ukranians will retake Kherson. The threat to Crimea will then be significant. And there may not be a lot that Putin can do about it.

See my other post. We are all studiously ignoring the evidence Putin is winning the economic war, and concentrating on Kherson or whatever

This war will be won in the energy markets not in the Donbas. Gun to head now, my prediction is that Germany and other EU countries will crumble in late autumn - as the gas is turned off - and force Kyiv to accept an inglorious “peace”

The energy sanctions have been an abject failure, thanks largely to Greece vetoing the EU shipping ban on Russian hydrocarbons, combined with a failure of the West overall to impose secondary sanctions on states still importing Russian crude. We are importing Russian oil that has been refined elsewhere. But… the technology sanctions seem to be the job.

As for the consequences of Putin firing the natural gas weapon, given Germany has been of little help to Ukraine so far, it’s not clear to me how them throwing their toys out the pram would change the equation.

No, the risk lies instead in political change in the UK and US. For this reason I leaned towards letting Boris stay, despite everything, purely because I had no clue who would replace him. It’s actually imperative that Truss wins the vote, I just don’t think Mr Treasury Sunak can be trusted when the going gets tough. Truss meanwhile hates Putin and Lavrov with a personal passion. And this might become important given Biden’s actuarial risk. A wavering partner in the UK would make it much easier for an incoming President Kamala to drop support.

On the ground, some analysts (see Dr Mike Martin) have been saying for months that Donbas is the sideshow and the real action is Kherson. Firstly it’s Russia’s only bridgehead west/north of the Dnipro so it’s crucial to for the long term security situation, not just this war. Secondly, if it falls back to Ukraine, suddenly Crimea comes into play. The political importance of Crimea is paramount to Putin and it’s likely he would relocate swathes of his forces to defend it rather than continue the grinding assault on Donbas. But the single bridge to Russian territory makes it very vulnerable if the landbridge Russia has formed can be disrupted.

My personal suspicion is that events will play out such that Russia fires the natural gas weapon after Crimea gets hot and not before and he’ll use it as a crutch to argue that Crimea needs to be recognised as Russian.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Fishing said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Fishing said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.

Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.

That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.

That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

What about if the people of Orkney or the Borders want to stay in the Union while the rest of Scotland votes heavily to secede?

The English love a bit of partition don't they. It worked so well in Ireland, after all.
Scotland is a country. The Borders and Orkney are not a country. And they are not part of England. If Scotland votes to leave, they leave too. After all, by your logic, London, Scotland and NI should have remained in the EU.

No, the EU doesn't recognise sub-national members. The precedent for too many of its member states is rather too obvious.

Soctland is not a country. Nor is England. They were before 1707, but are no longer. The United Kingdom is a country and Scotland is a province, or state, or whatever. There seems no reason why Orkney should be denied self-determination if mainland Scotland wants it.

Does Orkney have a separate legal system to the rest of Scotland?

Orkney is only "Scottish" because of the failure to pay a dowry..... Whereupon the Earldom of Orkney was "absorbed" into the Kingdom of Scotland.

THAT Scottish legal system?

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Feb 25 is two and a half years from now.

It has been said since March 22, I think, but yes and its been true since then. The balance of power has been swinging from Russia to Ukraine since then.

The "balance of power", eh? Please define this as it applies to the war in Ukraine.

TIA

That's complicated and could take detailed essays and pages of work.

But I will make the same point I've made all along since Ukraine survived the initial invasion - it is logistics that win wars.

Russia started with an overwhelming armament advantage but is using up armaments that it has had in storage for decades and has little ability to acquire or build replacements.

Ukraine started with a small fraction of Russia's armaments but it is continuously gaining more. Now it has HIMARS being used to great effect that they didn't have before.

So long as the West keeps up its nerve and keeps a supply of new weaponry to Ukraine flowing the balance is shifting to Ukraine's advantage.

Thanks. I respect the fact that you accept that you have no idea what the "balance of power" actually means.

I think that for many reasons it is dangerous to look at any element of the war on a tactical, strategic or theatre level and pronounce on "who's winning" or the "balance of power".

As I said, frustratingly for all of us, we are passengers with various countries pushing at the string to try to affect events, for example with their gas consumption policy.

But since the day after the invasion as I said there has been a large contingent on PB opining once and for all about what is happening and what is about to happen whereas as you graciously accept, no one has any idea; not the protagonists, not other governments, not RUSI and, last but of course not least, not your very good self.

Absolutely the future is uncertain that is true, but what is also true is that the balance of power is shifting to Ukraine's advantage and it has been since this began.

The tense on the word shifting matters. The shifting hasn't finished, it might take years to finish, but it is shifting. Six months ago Russia had far more ammunition than it does now and Ukraine did not have the HIMARS etc it has now.

The future is uncertain, but the balance of power is shifting.

You have stated that you have no idea what "the balance of power" means and yet you continue to use the term to try to prove your spurious point.

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Feb 25 is two and a half years from now.

It has been said since March 22, I think, but yes and its been true since then. The balance of power has been swinging from Russia to Ukraine since then.

The "balance of power", eh? Please define this as it applies to the war in Ukraine.

TIA

That's complicated and could take detailed essays and pages of work.

But I will make the same point I've made all along since Ukraine survived the initial invasion - it is logistics that win wars.

Russia started with an overwhelming armament advantage but is using up armaments that it has had in storage for decades and has little ability to acquire or build replacements.

Ukraine started with a small fraction of Russia's armaments but it is continuously gaining more. Now it has HIMARS being used to great effect that they didn't have before.

So long as the West keeps up its nerve and keeps a supply of new weaponry to Ukraine flowing the balance is shifting to Ukraine's advantage.

Thanks. I respect the fact that you accept that you have no idea what the "balance of power" actually means.

I think that for many reasons it is dangerous to look at any element of the war on a tactical, strategic or theatre level and pronounce on "who's winning" or the "balance of power".

As I said, frustratingly for all of us, we are passengers with various countries pushing at the string to try to affect events, for example with their gas consumption policy.

But since the day after the invasion as I said there has been a large contingent on PB opining once and for all about what is happening and what is about to happen whereas as you graciously accept, no one has any idea; not the protagonists, not other governments, not RUSI and, last but of course not least, not your very good self.

Absolutely the future is uncertain that is true, but what is also true is that the balance of power is shifting to Ukraine's advantage and it has been since this began.

The tense on the word shifting matters. The shifting hasn't finished, it might take years to finish, but it is shifting. Six months ago Russia had far more ammunition than it does now and Ukraine did not have the HIMARS etc it has now.

The future is uncertain, but the balance of power is shifting.

You have stated that you have no idea what "the balance of power" means and yet you continue to use the term to try to prove your spurious point.

I did not state that. I said that it is "complicated and could take detailed essays and pages of work", not that I have no idea.

I don't think anyone here wants me to start writing pages of text on this subject.

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.

Jesus fucking Christ.

"Given the shortage of working trucks...."

David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.

He is right

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Feb 25 is two and a half years from now.

It has been said since March 22, I think, but yes and its been true since then. The balance of power has been swinging from Russia to Ukraine since then.

The "balance of power", eh? Please define this as it applies to the war in Ukraine.

TIA

That's complicated and could take detailed essays and pages of work.

But I will make the same point I've made all along since Ukraine survived the initial invasion - it is logistics that win wars.

Russia started with an overwhelming armament advantage but is using up armaments that it has had in storage for decades and has little ability to acquire or build replacements.

Ukraine started with a small fraction of Russia's armaments but it is continuously gaining more. Now it has HIMARS being used to great effect that they didn't have before.

So long as the West keeps up its nerve and keeps a supply of new weaponry to Ukraine flowing the balance is shifting to Ukraine's advantage.

Thanks. I respect the fact that you accept that you have no idea what the "balance of power" actually means.

I think that for many reasons it is dangerous to look at any element of the war on a tactical, strategic or theatre level and pronounce on "who's winning" or the "balance of power".

As I said, frustratingly for all of us, we are passengers with various countries pushing at the string to try to affect events, for example with their gas consumption policy.

But since the day after the invasion as I said there has been a large contingent on PB opining once and for all about what is happening and what is about to happen whereas as you graciously accept, no one has any idea; not the protagonists, not other governments, not RUSI and, last but of course not least, not your very good self.

Absolutely the future is uncertain that is true, but what is also true is that the balance of power is shifting to Ukraine's advantage and it has been since this began.

The tense on the word shifting matters. The shifting hasn't finished, it might take years to finish, but it is shifting. Six months ago Russia had far more ammunition than it does now and Ukraine did not have the HIMARS etc it has now.

The future is uncertain, but the balance of power is shifting.

You have stated that you have no idea what "the balance of power" means and yet you continue to use the term to try to prove your spurious point.

I did not state that. I said that it is "complicated and could take detailed essays and pages of work", not that I have no idea.

I don't think anyone here wants me to start writing pages of text on this subject.

LOL.

"I could but I won't."

You have no idea what it means, pages and pages not written notwithstanding. But you are of course in good company as no one has any idea.

You have no idea + I have no idea + I have work to do = I bid you adieu for the moment as you all work out the strategic implications of different levels of tyre pressure for those trucks the Russians don't have.

Oh yes and also interpreting the latest YouTube videos.

The NYT on Ukraine’s plan to retake Kherson

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/25/world/europe/ukraine-kherson-russia-counterattack.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

In short: seriously hard, probably won’t happen

eek said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.

Jesus fucking Christ.

"Given the shortage of working trucks...."

David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.

Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,

The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.

And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..

LOL x2

Enjoy the strategy session team.

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

geoffw said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Ludicrous parallel being drawn between the UK and the EU. Take a trip to Specsavers.

Well clearly the EU is much less of a threat to national sovereignty as it has a clear constitutional route for exit. If the UK doesn't then the sovereign country of Scotland, which acceded to the union in 1707, is, essentially being held captive by a hostile power. Otherwise the parallel seems far from ludicrous.
The way some English people conceive of the Union is disturbing. It is voluntary and can be dissolved by any of its constituent parts unilaterally. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

What "sovereign country of Scotland"? "The sovereign country of Scotland" ceased to exist in 1707. That's like referring to the "sovereign country of Texas" and its right to secede into the CSA.

Its not captive, its simply a part of the country called the United Kingdom.

That accession into countries is "irreversible" is not ludicrous, it is accepted around the globe. I think we should respect Scots right to leave if they want to, but there is no legal reason why that must be the case.

That is not how Scots conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Scotland should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Scots would deny that the decision is Scotland's to make whenever they choose to. That the English don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education South of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Scotland are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

That is not how Texans conceive of their nationhood. Whether or not Texas should be in the union is a question on which opinion is evenly split but very few Texans would deny that the decision is Texas's to make whenever they choose to. That other Americans don't understand that speaks to a failure of civic education North of the border.
Let me put it in plain English: the people of Texas are sovereign and whether we remain in the union is our business and ours alone.

Does that work?

If Scots think they're sovereign then that speaks of a failure of civic education North of the border. They're not, the UK is sovereign. Scotland abolished its own sovereignty in 1707.

I would welcome a restoration of Scottish sovereignty, I want it to happen, but it doesn't exist presently. Scotland is not a sovereign country.

Scotland is very unique though - I can't think of anywhere else in the world were a region of a country has a completely separate legal and court system to the rest of the country.

N.Ireland?

It is not completely separate, they all meet at the Supreme Court where they are subject to its jurisdiction; as does the USA.

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

What the Supreme Court has done is decide the question of prematurity (since the bill has yet to be passed by Holyrood) and competency (since it is a constitutional matter) will be decided together. FWIW I think that they will still determine that the reference of the Bill is premature but they want to deal with the substantive matter too so everyone is clear where they stand.

My very strong expectation is that they will say that this is beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament and that a referendum cannot proceed without a s30 order. For the reasons @TSE has given no PM is going to be keen to grant a s30 order and risk losing. This raises a real question of democratic deficit in Scotland which is troubling, even for a Unionist like me.

It is indeed troubling. Whether one thinks Scotland should leave the union or not, most reasonable people, and certainly most Scots, would say that they have the right to. If there is no legal route for that right to be exercised then there will be trouble.

But this is not a one way matter. The UK is a joint enterprise in which Scotland has equal (arguably greater) sovereignty with England, Wales and NI

The break-up of the UK would be a profound national trauma that would deeply impact every UK citizen. Inter alia I am sure it would cause economic depression in Scotland and severe recession in rUK as investors fled the chaos and the £ crashed

Therefore Scotland’s right to secede must be balanced with the UK’s right to say “hang on a minute”

It’s not like the UK is some evil colonial power forbidding democracy; the UK Parliament - in which Scotland is fully represented - granted an indyref as recently as 8 years ago

The SNP needs to persuade its own supreme parliament at Westminster to grant a 2nd vote. I doubt that will happen before a generation has actually elapsed. 15-20 years, as in Canada

No that is bollocks. If Scotland wants to leave the Union then of course it will affect other countries in the Union but they don't have a veto. By your argument, the EU should have had the right to refuse the Brexit referendum. England, Wales and NI should have the same unilateral right to seceed, of course.

Truly infantile levels of analysis

Why?

I had the same argument with you recently and you came out with the same type of reply i.e. you stop arguing and just throw insults. The analogy is a good one.

The bizarre thing is when we had the discussion before you actually said it mattered not one jot what trauma leaving the EU caused even if massive because we gained independence (it trumped all) and then (as above) gave the trauma of Scotland leaving the union as a reason for not allowing it.

When called out on the inconsistency each time you stop arguing and resort to insults.

prh47bridge said:

ydoethur said:

AIUI the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on whether Holyrood can hold a referendum unilaterally. That's possibly a good sign for the Nats, as the government argument was that the case didn't even deserve a hearing as proper process hadn't been followed.

It's rather difficult to see how they could rule in Sturgeon's favour under the law, but then the Supreme Court has form for bizarre judgements which bear as much relationship to the law as SeanT does to sobriety. Prorogation and Shamima Begum spring to mind.

I disagree that the prorogation judgement was bizarre. It was entirely in line with the principle that Parliament is supreme. Ignore politicians trying to conflate Parliament with government. They are not the same.

Prorogation of Parliament is within the Queen's prerogative. This is undisputed and the judgement did not change that. However, she exercises her prerogative on advice from the Prime Minister. Is the PM's ability to advise unfettered? Clearly not. If it was, a PM could get the Queen to prorogue Parliament indefinitely, allowing him or her to rule as dictator. The question, therefore, is what are the limits. In this case, it was clear that the government's attempted justification (arguing that they needed 5 weeks to write a Queen's Speech) was not the real reason - it doesn't take anywhere near that long to write a Queen's Speech. Parliament was being prorogued to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the government's actions. The Supreme Court (rightly in my view) found that, contrary to the government's messaging, the intention was to frustrate Parliament. In line with the basic principle that Parliament is supreme, that is not acceptable and therefore Johnson's advice to the Queen was unlawful.

The attempt by the government to argue that article 9 of the Bill of Rights meant that Parliament would remain prorogued even if Johnson's advice was unlawful was clearly doomed to failure. Article 9 stops the courts interfering in proceedings in Parliament, but, although the prorogation takes place in the Lords and is attended by members of both houses, it cannot in any sensible way be described as a proceeding in Parliament (see Erskine May).

The Supreme Court was clear that what happened next was a matter for Parliament and that, whatever Parliament decided, the courts could not interfere.

It seems to me that this was a perfectly ordinary judgement, entirely in line with the law.

The mention of "5 weeks" here is grossly misleading, since the proposed prorogation included the three week party conference recess. My recollection is that the proprogation proposed was about three sitting days longer than a "standard" one, which certainly didn't justify such a nonsensical and deeply damaging ruling.

But the Supreme Court is a supreme court, and it's been known for decades (at the very least since Roe v. Wade) that supreme courts start with the decision that they want and then try to concoct a justification for it. That's exactly what happened here with prorogation and the Begum case, and it's what will happen with anything pertaining to a proposed early Scottish referendum.

eek said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

Putin is winning, isn’t he?

But as August comes around I think that the balance of power is swinging against them

David, I've no idea what is happening in Ukraine as we are all rather frustrated and impotent observers. I sincerely hope it is resolved to as great a mutual satisfaction as possible.

But hasn't a large PB contingent been saying this since Feb 25?

Some but until about 6 weeks ago I was in @Leon's camp. Ukraine had no answer to the artillery war that Russia was waging and its forces were being concussed, quite literally. With the long range attacks on the Russian supply lines they have found an answer and the daily bombardments have dwindled. This response seems likely to grow. Given the shortage of working trucks etc it is not clear what the Russians can do about it.

Jesus fucking Christ.

"Given the shortage of working trucks...."

David you're a fantastic poster but please explain to me your understanding of how the "shortage of working trucks" is going to affect the outcome of the Ukrainian war.

Previously Russian logistics worked on the basis of arms dump 30 miles from the front with trucks doing say 2 to 3 runs a day to the front,

The long range attacks mean Russian arms dumps are now 100 miles from the front which means each truck can only do a single run a day.

And as trucks get destroyed the number of runs shrink to even fewer..

Russian logistics doctrine is very dependent on using rail transport to hubs close to the front line, with hand loaded trucks shipping shells to the front. This is in stark contrast to NATO / US doctrine which emphasises mechanised goods handling & for a force sized to a Russian BTG would include many more transport vehicles.

The delivery of long ranged missiles to Ukraine has changed the game: Russian transport hubs 30km behind the front lines are now just targets & the rate of Ukrainian losses has dropped tenfold as the Russians struggle to keep their artillery supplied with shells.