One in four support compulsory voting – politicalbetting.com

dixiedean said:

kinabalu said:

dixiedean said:

Gardenwalker said:

🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)

https://twitter.com/luketryl/status/1627260636030722049?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders.
Not at all surprised.

For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.

Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.

All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.

I think you are right.
The North does contain a higher proportion of ageing working class voters of a socially conservative bent. But that is a function of long term demography.
The kids I teach, and their parents, in a very stereotypically Red Wall area, are no less "woke" than anywhere else.
It's as much a function of the recent age polarisation of voting behaviour as anything geographical.

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.

Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.

Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.

Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.

I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.

I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.

Any suggestions for education policy?

Are you buying AK47s or M16s?

Both have been out of production for a while…

No, I will respect tradition - put out a tender, and award the contract to someone incompetent at both bribing people and providing the contracted service

So pea shooters, then?

I was assuming you were buying second hand, anyway.

In any case, it's irrelevant. The important thing is not to have a policy, as it will be a clusterfuck.

Just let schools carry on. If they teach effectively, result, and if they don't, you've probably not lost anything.

No - brand new and unaffordable. Bigger the price, bigger the bribe.

What about hiring the DfE to destroy education in Peru? Since they will screw that up…

AugustusCarp2 said:

Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.

Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.

Gardenwalker said:

Fascinating map of Europe.
If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Europe has four clear zones:
A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland
A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany.
A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden.
An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.

This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.

Malmesbury said:

AugustusCarp2 said:

Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.

Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.

For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.

sarissa said:

Gardenwalker said:

Fascinating map of Europe.
If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Europe has four clear zones:
A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland
A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany.
A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden.
An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.

This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.

Is that indicating Scots would prefer England?

WillG said:

IanB2 said:

Carnyx said:

Another point: having a legal requirement to vote would clash with current Conservative Party policies to disenfranchise people on the sly.

They’d only make it compulsory for Conservatives….

Who exactly are the Conservatives disenfranchising? They won't even do the eminently sensible thing of stopping foreigners voting in national elections.

MaxPB said:

Facebook to charge $12/m for blue ticks. Elon, once again paving that path. I'm sure Google will follow suit for YouTube and TikTok will also monetise.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

In light of announcements many people nobody ever thought would stand are not standing, I would like to announce I will not be putting myself forward for the post of leader of the SNP and FM of Scotland.

Many friends of mine urged me to stand on the basis I am not English, have a pulse and would only be up against Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf. Therefore, I would be bound to win.

Compelling as these arguments are, especially compared to the trivial ones that I am not eligible and don't live in Scotland, I have concluded my current family circumstances simply make it impossible for me to carry out the duties of First Minister in a way that befits the dignity of the office.

Moreover, having a very good memory, I think I would be unsuitable for the role.

I would like to thank all those figments of my imagination friends who urged me to stand and assure them that I was flattered and heartened by their support.

I am considering a run for President of Peru, as leader of the Incompetent Corrupt Colonialist Party.

Any suggestions for education policy?

Difficult. I would suggest that, on balance and all things being considered, it would probably be a good idea if you had an education before trying to be President of Peru. . At least some basic numeracy anyway. An idea of Peruvian history might also be a help but probably not essential. The ability to read and write is probably optional as you can get someone to do that for you.

kamski said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gardenwalker said:

Fascinating map of Europe.
If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Europe has four clear zones:
A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland
A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany.
A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden.
An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.

This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.

In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.

Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm

CarlottaVance said:

There's an underlying tension now between the SNP's dual roles as secessionist insurgents and party of govt, which writers within the independence movement have emphasised in the past week.

Regan is placing herself on one side of that tension, that may not serve her well.

https://twitter.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1627319741751721984?s=20

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

dixiedean said:

Gardenwalker said:

🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)

https://twitter.com/luketryl/status/1627260636030722049?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders.
Not at all surprised.

For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.

Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.

All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.

what do you consider those values to be ?

Socially conservative, insular, down to earth, patriotic, this type of thing.

Scott_xP said:

MaxPB said:

Facebook to charge $12/m for blue ticks. Elon, once again paving that path. I'm sure Google will follow suit for YouTube and TikTok will also monetise.

Meta are already copying Twitter.

On both platforms what I want as a user is a chronological stream of posts by people I elect to follow.

And both of them have completely fucked that up.

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

solarflare said:

Scott_xP said:

MaxPB said:

Facebook to charge $12/m for blue ticks. Elon, once again paving that path. I'm sure Google will follow suit for YouTube and TikTok will also monetise.

Meta are already copying Twitter.

On both platforms what I want as a user is a chronological stream of posts by people I elect to follow.

And both of them have completely fucked that up.

I'm sure they'll offer a £12/m "chronological order" option soon enough...

kle4 said:

Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

kinabalu said:

dixiedean said:

kinabalu said:

dixiedean said:

Gardenwalker said:

🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)

https://twitter.com/luketryl/status/1627260636030722049?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders.
Not at all surprised.

For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.

Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.

All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.

I think you are right.
The North does contain a higher proportion of ageing working class voters of a socially conservative bent. But that is a function of long term demography.
The kids I teach, and their parents, in a very stereotypically Red Wall area, are no less "woke" than anywhere else.
It's as much a function of the recent age polarisation of voting behaviour as anything geographical.

Totally agree. Re-engineering the electoral definition risks pithiness but to try anyway:

A Red Wall voter is one who voted Con last time primarily because they (i) wanted Brexit or (ii) liked 'Boris' or (iii) disliked Jez, or a combo/all of these.

A Red Wall seat is one that went Con from Lab last time because there were enough of the above voters in it to make the difference.

Red Wall voters are in every seat in England.

Red Wall seats are mainly (but not exclusively) in the north and the midlands.

stodge said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

stodge said:

kinabalu said:

dixiedean said:

Gardenwalker said:

🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)

https://twitter.com/luketryl/status/1627260636030722049?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders.
Not at all surprised.

For me 'Red Wall' is best understood as shorthand for a set of values/attitudes. So when something is said to be 'appealing to the Red Wall' it means it's pitched to those values/attitudes not to any specific place.

Are these attitudes/values particularly common in the north? Not necessarily. It's just that in the north they are more likely to be attached to people who are particularly important electorally given our current FPTP chemistry - ie voters in trad Labour seats who switched to the Cons last time because of Boris/Brexit/Corbyn and turned those seats blue.

All such seats are in truth Red Wall seats, regardless of where in the country they are. Because most happen to be oop north 'Red Wall' has become a geographic term - but this is wrong, it's values/attitudes.

The move away from Labour to the Conservatives in Midlands and Northern seats didn't begin in 2016 or 2019 - it began long before that.

In Sedgefield, for example, the Conservative vote rose at every election from 2005 to 2019 from 14% to 47% - that's a serious long term move of voters. The previous incarnation of Sedgefield (until 1970) regularly saw Conservative votes in the high 30s in straight fights with Labour.

A long time ago, I had started doing a spreadsheet with the swings in each region by seat back to 2005 (yes, there are boundaries changes but my view they all got washed out in the regional mix).

It showed exactly what you say. Labour's foundations had been crumbling long before 2019. 2005 was when the trend first became apparent.

Yet now the swing back to Labour in England is in the region of 18%. The Redfield & Wilton Sub Sample (small) has a swing of 16% in the North East which mirrors the overall Red Wall swing.

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

What does 'use international law' mean in this context?

The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

There is an argument (not a good one I grant) that if the SNP take the stance that some number of votes on a GE means Indy, WM could claim it means "the end of devolution" so we'll close Holyrood.

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

What does 'use international law' mean in this context?

The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.

Scott_xP said:

malcolmg said:

a union means people are free to vote to join or leave

We voted in 2014

Don't you respect the result?

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

What does 'use international law' mean in this context?

The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.

The idea of "using" the right to self determination as a means of construing the terms of the Scotland Act was attempted by those representing the SNP in their written submissions to the Referendum decision in the Supreme Court. The argument was that the right to self determination meant that the Scotland Act had to be construed in a way consistent with that obligation or right. To say that it got nowhere in the judgment is being polite.

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

AugustusCarp2 said:

Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.

Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.

For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.

I can entirely relate to that. My wife says the same thing about me.

Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.

This is noticeably a man thing. Women are less likely to feel the need to pretend to know or understand things which they don't. In fact they are more prone to the opposite - pretending to not know or understand things which they do.

PB being almost all men has tons of pretend expertise* going on. Who here has not done the quick and desperate google/wiki to keep oneself afloat in a tumble about something that's going off the rails?

Really? ,,, I don't believe you.

Yes, ok, and there's plenty of real expertise too. I know that. Easy to tell the difference, too, so no harm done by the bluffers.

rcs1000 said:

kamski said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gardenwalker said:

Fascinating map of Europe.
If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Europe has four clear zones:
A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland
A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany.
A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden.
An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.

This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.

In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.

Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm

Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.

FrankBooth said:

rcs1000 said:

kamski said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gardenwalker said:

Fascinating map of Europe.
If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Europe has four clear zones:
A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland
A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany.
A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden.
An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.

This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.

In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.

Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm

Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.

It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.

I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.

It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.

kinabalu said:

darkage said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

AugustusCarp2 said:

Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.

Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.

For some reason I am reminded of what Von Staffenberg’s wife said about him - that he would argue vigouresly contradictory political and moral positions depending on who he was talking with. She thought that he did it for amusement, to work out his own ideas and to hide his real thoughts.

I can entirely relate to that. My wife says the same thing about me.

Mind you she also says that the less I know about a subject the more assured I manage to make myself sound about it.

This is noticeably a man thing. Women are less likely to feel the need to pretend to know or understand things which they don't. In fact they are more prone to the opposite - pretending to not know or understand things which they do.

PB being almost all men has tons of pretend expertise* going on. Who here has not done the quick and desperate google/wiki to keep oneself afloat in a tumble about something that's going off the rails?

Really? ,,, I don't believe you.

Yes, ok, and there's plenty of real expertise too. I know that. Easy to tell the difference, too, so no harm done by the bluffers.

Yes, nothing more annoying than someone who thinks they know everything but actually knows nothing. I have had a lot of experience of this in my career. In my last formal job interview one of the questions was can I suffer fools gladly, it is an essential human quality as a public servant.

The only point I would make here is that feigning ignorance is also often a successful negotiating strategy. Depends on the situation.

"Don't suffer fools gladly" is an interesting one. As a general rule it's a compliment if said about somebody else - but if a person describes themselves that way you should run a mile.

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

What does 'use international law' mean in this context?

The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.

Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.

That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.

You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?

FrankBooth said:

rcs1000 said:

kamski said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gardenwalker said:

Fascinating map of Europe.
If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

Europe has four clear zones:
A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland
A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany.
A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden.
An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.

This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.

In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.

Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm

Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.

It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.

I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.

It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.

FrankBooth said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

What does 'use international law' mean in this context?

The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.

Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.

That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.

You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?

He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.

Monkeys said:

I nearly puked when I voted in 2019.

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

WillG said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

I have rewritten Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” and deleted all of the problematic and offensive elements.

You’re welcome.


https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1627331028569186304?s=20

Roald Dahl's works might have been bowdlerised but he was lucky not to be cancelled for raging antisemitism.

Is it "raging" if its just a couple of comments? I feel like raging racists can't shut up about it because it is a central part of their identity.

Quite a few racists don’t bang on about it in everything they write.

In a complete set of the works of Rudyard Kipling I have, you have the following -

- a fictional story, written obviously for a real incident, where a Indian child are her actions are described with great sensitivity, compassion and kindness. She is seen as a person - and one of value to the world. Nor racism present.

- in the next section there is a journalistic account of encountering an white woman living with an Indian. The racist diatribe that followed was Der Sturmer grade - complete with a reference to “treason to the race”.

One of Kipling's poems ('If') is set for GCSE English.

Most pupils I teach don't see anything racist in it.

Then, when we've discussed it for a while, I let them read 'White Man's Burden.'

Suddenly they note a great deal more subtext to that line 'then yours is the Earth and everything that's in it!'

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

What does 'use international law' mean in this context?

The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.

Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.

That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.

You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?

sarissa said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting question:

I’m interested in the corollary of this position. Given that negotiations will almost certainly last until after the next election to one of the two parliaments, does it follow that the mandate is lost if pro-independence parties fail to secure 50% of the vote at that point?

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1627275684346310656?s=20

In the same way that the 2017 GE ‘lost’ the mandate for Brexit and had to have it restored in 2019?

TheKitchenCabinet said:

FrankBooth said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

What does 'use international law' mean in this context?

The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.

Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.

That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.

You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?

He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.

Actually, Malc also has a point if you believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. One of the core principles of Parliament is that it cannot bind its successors to its decisions. Yet that is exactly what happened in 1707 with the Act of Union (and in Ireland in 1801) and which dissolved the Scottish Parliament, thus effectively binding its successors.

TheKitchenCabinet said:

O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.

RobD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

FrankBooth said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

solarflare said:

Leon said:

Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself

I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty

It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.

In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?

She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate

What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?

it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering

It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.

As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.

If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.

So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?

As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB

Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.

As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.

Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.

What does 'use international law' mean in this context?

The international community is pretty comfortable with ignoring areas saying they do not want to be part of another country. Scotland would garner a lot more sympathy than most, especially if Westminster is ignoring any alternative options, but it would still come down to what action could a FM take to force the issue, at hpome and abroad? Refuse to sit in Holyrood? Daily protests outside Downing Street?

This isn't to dismiss your desire, I just genuinely do not know what you mean by 'using' international law, rather than simply appealing for recognition on the basis of it.

Law that says that every country has the right to chose their own government if the majority wish it. As it is we are no more than a colony, a union means people are free to vote to join or leave yet Westminster have dismissed that and are keeping Scotland prisoner, it cannot be condoned but is typical. Many many countries got shot of the colonial yoke and Scotland will be among one of the last to do so despite Westminster.

That's a load of waffle, malc. I was asking about what actual actions would be taken, not what the nature of the legal or moral demand would be, we already know all that.

You said they would 'use' international law, not simply that they will rely on it for legal/moral argument, so I'm genuinely curious how - seek to raise a legal action in some international court, start negotiating with other nations ignoring Westminster, badger UN representatives, what?

He does sort of have a point. The Union/family of nations bunk hasn't exactly helped us. If countries have a right to self determination why should they be kept in a union against their wishes? The obvious argument is that the UK is a country. But a country implies a people. The UKers? We used to say British but apparently that is now a phantom identity. I don't believe this union can survive eternally unless that common identity can be re-discovered.

Actually, Malc also has a point if you believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. One of the core principles of Parliament is that it cannot bind its successors to its decisions. Yet that is exactly what happened in 1707 with the Act of Union (and in Ireland in 1801) and which dissolved the Scottish Parliament, thus effectively binding its successors.

It evidently didn’t bind its successors, since there is again a Scottish Parliament.

Theuniondivvie said:

Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’.

NickPalmer said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

WillG said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64689391

Starmer: No deal with SNP under any circumstances

Excellent position from Starmer.

Starmer seems to have got to the place where he consistently makes good strategic decisions. It makes it so remarkable in retrospect that he made such poor ones in the Brexit aftermath.

Not sure the SNP statement really changes the dial with Starmer. The reason why it worked so well with Miliband was that it played exactly into popular conceptions about EM being weak in character, conniving and a bit of a nerd who could be bullied - which is what that poster encapsulated.

Nobody sees Starmer as that. The underlying core issue - and one which is captured by people saying they don't know what he stands for- is that people feel that he can't be trusted. A stereotype I know but a lot of RW voters do not live in a world of perfect information. They have to make a lot of fairly important decisions based on a judgement call of what makes sense and whether, importantly, someone can be trusted.

If you asked many voters what SKS thinks, my feel is that most would say their fear is that he might be making the right noises now re being sensitive to get elected but the moment he gets into power it will be unlimited immigration and compulsory trans lessons in schools (obviously not but...)

So he needs to address that. I reckon he would get far more traction with RW voters if he came out swinging the bat for Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling, and saying that, while he respects trans rights, abuse such as the two aforesaid have suffered is unacceptable and will be treated in the same way he treats anti-semitism. The fact he doesn't, and struggles to define what is a woman, to many voters screams someone not to be trusted

I disagree - I don't think Starmer should offer any further comment on the trans issue, while continuing to maintain that everyone should be able to express their opinions without intimidation. It's a fringe issue for most people and the Tory interest in it reflects their lack of grip on the subjects that actually matter to most people - the cost of the living and the NHS.

CarlottaVance said:

I am disappointed not to have been adopted as the Conservative candidate for the new Weald of Kent seat. I am now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work for the people of Ashford and support the Government.

https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1627312128276197377?s=20

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’.

I think you are rather searching for a reason to get offended there. Are there really political parties, except at their lowest points, known for going 'People were right to vote for someone else'?

rcs1000 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.

Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3866