Can the LDs become the third party once again? – politicalbetting.com

Sandpit said:

Not if Labour win seats like Mid Bedfordshire.

That said, there’s nothing I’d personally like more than an SNP implosion. I don’t like those who wish to break up the country, and have many family and friends in Scotland.

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Not if Labour win seats like Mid Bedfordshire.

That said, there’s nothing I’d personally like more than an SNP implosion. I don’t like those who wish to break up the country, and have many family and friends in Scotland.

Mid Bedfordshire is not even in the top 100 LD target seats

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

Any Scottish independence referendum should give Orkney and the Shetlands an escape clause.

As in, escape to Norway?

Many in Scotland complained of being dragged out of the EU against their will. Likewise, the people of O&S should not be dragged out of the UK against their will, should Scotland vote for independence. In that eventuality, they should be given the option to stay in the UK or to chart another path separate to the rest of Scotland.

Just Orkney and Shetland? No other parts that might be given the same clause?

The Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland has a historical identity that means it should get a special status in a way, that, say Cumbria doesn’t. O&S have a historical identity that warrant a special status in a different way to the rest of Scotland.

Given that Scotland does have a legal and national identity *at present* that is a distinct misapprehension. That reflects history, but does not directly depend on a historical identity.

Illogical for you to demand that a referendum for independence for Scotland includes the instant breakup of the new state. Also illogical for youy to demand that voters vote on a second order event when they don't know the result of the first one. Makes much more sense for Orcadians to vote on their own independence when they see what the landscape is like, which is fine with me. And "Britain" does have a history of trying to sabotage independence by Partition, which is what you sound like, rightly or wrongly.

The Orkney complaints, in any case, seem to centre on the current situation and are not to do with independence for Scotland per se. They seem to centre in part on the fact that the Shetlanders are getting more money. Presumably this reflects the relative deals struck by the then local authorities and the oil companies etc., and I can't see that the Shetlanders can be blamed for getting more oil/money in their areas.

I was only suggesting an Orkney vote *after* a successful Scottish independence vote, so I think that means we are in agreement.

Yes, Britain (including England and Scotland) has sought to sabotage independence movements. I think there’s a limit to the applicability of the history of the disassembling of a colonial Empire to the history of England and Scotland’s relationship.

Indeed, we agree. But on the latter point, many a unionist instantly responds to indyref2 by proposing partition (e.g. PB passim). So it's still applicable in the semse of very much part of the universe of discourse.

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

It's not just PMQs (as the header notes, two questions a week against one every blue moon) but also invitations to Question Time and invitations to comment on news and current events generally.

Quite right; the exclusion of the LibDems from such programmes has been scandalous, especially when looks at the time given to the Faragists and similar potential demagogues.

And Good Morning to one and all.

Agreed. It's not been fair on the LDs, and reflects very badly on the primitive procedures of the HoC.

I suppose the problem is, there are eleven recognised parties in the House of Commons: Tories, Labour, SNP, DUP, Sinn Fein (sort of) Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Alliance, Greens and Reclaim (sort of).

If each of them had two questions for the leader, plus six for Labour less 2 for SF that's 22 questions. That's a lot to cram in and get backbenchers in too.

Even if you said they must have at least five MPs, that still leaves 12 to get in. Not much room for more.

So the line has to be drawn somewhere. It may be unfair on the Lib Dems but ultimately you could make a case it was their own fault they collapsed so much (they were not actually forced to support the disastrous Browne report).

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

Was somebody wearing a Max Verstappen T-shirt?

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

Yep!

I’m not a newspaper.

(What I actually said, was that I would expect the very offensive football shirt to be a defence against assault. Obviously a newspaper wouldn’t publish anything so offensive. The man wearing the shirt in question was charged with a criminal offence).

Neither is Walking Myocardial Infarction Clarkson. He's free to repeat his joke on Twitter or whatever so he's not being silenced.

You are still maintaining that Shirt Guy's freedom of expression ends where your feelings begin.

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

Yep!

I’m not a newspaper.

(What I actually said, was that I would expect the very offensive football shirt to be a defence against assault. Obviously a newspaper wouldn’t publish anything so offensive. The man wearing the shirt in question was charged with a criminal offence).

Carnyx said:

FF43 said:

bondegezou said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

Any Scottish independence referendum should give Orkney and the Shetlands an escape clause.

As in, escape to Norway?

Many in Scotland complained of being dragged out of the EU against their will. Likewise, the people of O&S should not be dragged out of the UK against their will, should Scotland vote for independence. In that eventuality, they should be given the option to stay in the UK or to chart another path separate to the rest of Scotland.

Just Orkney and Shetland? No other parts that might be given the same clause?

The Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland has a historical identity that means it should get a special status in a way, that, say Cumbria doesn’t. O&S have a historical identity that warrant a special status in a different way to the rest of Scotland.

Given that Scotland does have a legal and national identity *at present* that is a distinct misapprehension. That reflects history, but does not directly depend on a historical identity.

Illogical for you to demand that a referendum for independence for Scotland includes the instant breakup of the new state. Also illogical for youy to demand that voters vote on a second order event when they don't know the result of the first one. Makes much more sense for Orcadians to vote on their own independence when they see what the landscape is like, which is fine with me. And "Britain" does have a history of trying to sabotage independence by Partition, which is what you sound like, rightly or wrongly.

The Orkney complaints, in any case, seem to centre on the current situation and are not to do with independence for Scotland per se. They seem to centre in part on the fact that the Shetlanders are getting more money. Presumably this reflects the relative deals struck by the then local authorities and the oil companies etc., and I can't see that the Shetlanders can be blamed for getting more oil/money in their areas.

I was only suggesting an Orkney vote *after* a successful Scottish independence vote, so I think that means we are in agreement.

Yes, Britain (including England and Scotland) has sought to sabotage independence movements. I think there’s a limit to the applicability of the history of the disassembling of a colonial Empire to the history of England and Scotland’s relationship.

Indeed, we agree. But on the latter point, many a unionist instantly responds to indyref2 by proposing partition (e.g. PB passim). So it's still applicable in the semse of very much part of the universe of discourse.

I think if you open the Pandora's box of changing constitutional settlements or claiming a certain identity should mean special rules, then all sorts of ideas spill out. Comments on PB are part of the cut and thrust of political discourse. It feels a bit weird to compare a post on PB to, say, the actual partition of India.

The Orkney discussion however is about leaving the United Kingdom, not an independent Scotland.

Indeed. The discussion has arisen before, but very much as applying Partition to the Scottish independence referendum. Slightly unusual for it to arise in this current context.

Carnyx said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

Some folk were reportedly all for beating the shit out of JSO protestors at the next Scalextric convention, without bothering the nice police, the nice judges, the evil defending lawyers and the evil juries.

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

On current polls the LDs should gain about 35 Tory seats, which with the 14 MPs they currently have would take them close to 50 seats.

Given the SNP are forecast to fall to about 30 seats then the LDs could certainly become the 3rd party UK wide again for the first time since 2015

A very sensible post, young HY. Well said!

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

Yep!

I’m not a newspaper.

(What I actually said, was that I would expect the very offensive football shirt to be a defence against assault. Obviously a newspaper wouldn’t publish anything so offensive. The man wearing the shirt in question was charged with a criminal offence).

How is that a defence against a charge for assault ?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

FF43 said:

bondegezou said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

Any Scottish independence referendum should give Orkney and the Shetlands an escape clause.

As in, escape to Norway?

Many in Scotland complained of being dragged out of the EU against their will. Likewise, the people of O&S should not be dragged out of the UK against their will, should Scotland vote for independence. In that eventuality, they should be given the option to stay in the UK or to chart another path separate to the rest of Scotland.

Just Orkney and Shetland? No other parts that might be given the same clause?

The Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland has a historical identity that means it should get a special status in a way, that, say Cumbria doesn’t. O&S have a historical identity that warrant a special status in a different way to the rest of Scotland.

Given that Scotland does have a legal and national identity *at present* that is a distinct misapprehension. That reflects history, but does not directly depend on a historical identity.

Illogical for you to demand that a referendum for independence for Scotland includes the instant breakup of the new state. Also illogical for youy to demand that voters vote on a second order event when they don't know the result of the first one. Makes much more sense for Orcadians to vote on their own independence when they see what the landscape is like, which is fine with me. And "Britain" does have a history of trying to sabotage independence by Partition, which is what you sound like, rightly or wrongly.

The Orkney complaints, in any case, seem to centre on the current situation and are not to do with independence for Scotland per se. They seem to centre in part on the fact that the Shetlanders are getting more money. Presumably this reflects the relative deals struck by the then local authorities and the oil companies etc., and I can't see that the Shetlanders can be blamed for getting more oil/money in their areas.

I was only suggesting an Orkney vote *after* a successful Scottish independence vote, so I think that means we are in agreement.

Yes, Britain (including England and Scotland) has sought to sabotage independence movements. I think there’s a limit to the applicability of the history of the disassembling of a colonial Empire to the history of England and Scotland’s relationship.

Indeed, we agree. But on the latter point, many a unionist instantly responds to indyref2 by proposing partition (e.g. PB passim). So it's still applicable in the semse of very much part of the universe of discourse.

I think if you open the Pandora's box of changing constitutional settlements or claiming a certain identity should mean special rules, then all sorts of ideas spill out. Comments on PB are part of the cut and thrust of political discourse. It feels a bit weird to compare a post on PB to, say, the actual partition of India.

The Orkney discussion however is about leaving the United Kingdom, not an independent Scotland.

Indeed. The discussion has arisen before, but very much as applying Partition to the Scottish independence referendum. Slightly unusual for it to arise in this current context.

Is it not the case that Orkney sees itself alienated from both Westminster and Holyrood and is seeking an independent relationship from both ?

My wife reminds me she was sent to Orkney to stay with relatives during the early years of the war

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Not if Labour win seats like Mid Bedfordshire.

That said, there’s nothing I’d personally like more than an SNP implosion. I don’t like those who wish to break up the country, and have many family and friends in Scotland.

Mid Bedfordshire is not even in the top 100 LD target seats

Nor was Oswestry.

I expect the Lib Dems and not Labour would take Mid Beds at a by-election, no matter the result of that "Opinium" poll. They'd hoover the theoretical? independent candidates' votes for starters.

The Independent candidate is an elected Independent councillor and chairman of Mid Beds council and extremely well know locally. I expect his vote will hold

https://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/politics/new-central-beds-council-chairman-to-contest-mid-bedfordshire-by-election-after-nadine-dorries-resignation-4179010

The big problem for any indy at a by-election is that parties have activists flooding in from across the country, so you're completely drowned out.

So if very much not expect his vote to hold up.

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Not if Labour win seats like Mid Bedfordshire.

That said, there’s nothing I’d personally like more than an SNP implosion. I don’t like those who wish to break up the country, and have many family and friends in Scotland.

Mid Bedfordshire is not even in the top 100 LD target seats

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

FF43 said:

bondegezou said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

Any Scottish independence referendum should give Orkney and the Shetlands an escape clause.

As in, escape to Norway?

Many in Scotland complained of being dragged out of the EU against their will. Likewise, the people of O&S should not be dragged out of the UK against their will, should Scotland vote for independence. In that eventuality, they should be given the option to stay in the UK or to chart another path separate to the rest of Scotland.

Just Orkney and Shetland? No other parts that might be given the same clause?

The Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland has a historical identity that means it should get a special status in a way, that, say Cumbria doesn’t. O&S have a historical identity that warrant a special status in a different way to the rest of Scotland.

Given that Scotland does have a legal and national identity *at present* that is a distinct misapprehension. That reflects history, but does not directly depend on a historical identity.

Illogical for you to demand that a referendum for independence for Scotland includes the instant breakup of the new state. Also illogical for youy to demand that voters vote on a second order event when they don't know the result of the first one. Makes much more sense for Orcadians to vote on their own independence when they see what the landscape is like, which is fine with me. And "Britain" does have a history of trying to sabotage independence by Partition, which is what you sound like, rightly or wrongly.

The Orkney complaints, in any case, seem to centre on the current situation and are not to do with independence for Scotland per se. They seem to centre in part on the fact that the Shetlanders are getting more money. Presumably this reflects the relative deals struck by the then local authorities and the oil companies etc., and I can't see that the Shetlanders can be blamed for getting more oil/money in their areas.

I was only suggesting an Orkney vote *after* a successful Scottish independence vote, so I think that means we are in agreement.

Yes, Britain (including England and Scotland) has sought to sabotage independence movements. I think there’s a limit to the applicability of the history of the disassembling of a colonial Empire to the history of England and Scotland’s relationship.

Indeed, we agree. But on the latter point, many a unionist instantly responds to indyref2 by proposing partition (e.g. PB passim). So it's still applicable in the semse of very much part of the universe of discourse.

I think if you open the Pandora's box of changing constitutional settlements or claiming a certain identity should mean special rules, then all sorts of ideas spill out. Comments on PB are part of the cut and thrust of political discourse. It feels a bit weird to compare a post on PB to, say, the actual partition of India.

The Orkney discussion however is about leaving the United Kingdom, not an independent Scotland.

Indeed. The discussion has arisen before, but very much as applying Partition to the Scottish independence referendum. Slightly unusual for it to arise in this current context.

Is it not the case that Orkney sees itself alienated from both Westminster and Holyrood and is seeking an independent relationship from both ?

My wife reminds me she was sent to Orkney to stay with relatives during the early years of the war

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

Yep!

I’m not a newspaper.

(What I actually said, was that I would expect the very offensive football shirt to be a defence against assault. Obviously a newspaper wouldn’t publish anything so offensive. The man wearing the shirt in question was charged with a criminal offence).

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Tie mystery solved.

Christie says Trump and Biden are both past their ‘sell-by date’
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4078484-christie-says-trump-and-biden-are-both-past-their-sell-by-date/
...Christie also told Dowd that he isn’t fazed with being a target of Trump’s latest insults, where he commented on the former governor’s weight, referring to him as “Sloppy Chris Christie.”
“I’m not going to say it never bothers me,” Christie told the Times. “Trump is no Adonis, so coming from him? Who cares? Look in the mirror. I always thought it was very funny that he has this vision of himself. He told me one time the reason he ties his ties so long is that it slenderizes him and I should do the same thing.”..

Oh is that why? I always assumed it was to hide his shortness in another area.

El_Capitano said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

FF43 said:

bondegezou said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

Any Scottish independence referendum should give Orkney and the Shetlands an escape clause.

As in, escape to Norway?

Many in Scotland complained of being dragged out of the EU against their will. Likewise, the people of O&S should not be dragged out of the UK against their will, should Scotland vote for independence. In that eventuality, they should be given the option to stay in the UK or to chart another path separate to the rest of Scotland.

Just Orkney and Shetland? No other parts that might be given the same clause?

The Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland has a historical identity that means it should get a special status in a way, that, say Cumbria doesn’t. O&S have a historical identity that warrant a special status in a different way to the rest of Scotland.

Given that Scotland does have a legal and national identity *at present* that is a distinct misapprehension. That reflects history, but does not directly depend on a historical identity.

Illogical for you to demand that a referendum for independence for Scotland includes the instant breakup of the new state. Also illogical for youy to demand that voters vote on a second order event when they don't know the result of the first one. Makes much more sense for Orcadians to vote on their own independence when they see what the landscape is like, which is fine with me. And "Britain" does have a history of trying to sabotage independence by Partition, which is what you sound like, rightly or wrongly.

The Orkney complaints, in any case, seem to centre on the current situation and are not to do with independence for Scotland per se. They seem to centre in part on the fact that the Shetlanders are getting more money. Presumably this reflects the relative deals struck by the then local authorities and the oil companies etc., and I can't see that the Shetlanders can be blamed for getting more oil/money in their areas.

I was only suggesting an Orkney vote *after* a successful Scottish independence vote, so I think that means we are in agreement.

Yes, Britain (including England and Scotland) has sought to sabotage independence movements. I think there’s a limit to the applicability of the history of the disassembling of a colonial Empire to the history of England and Scotland’s relationship.

Indeed, we agree. But on the latter point, many a unionist instantly responds to indyref2 by proposing partition (e.g. PB passim). So it's still applicable in the semse of very much part of the universe of discourse.

I think if you open the Pandora's box of changing constitutional settlements or claiming a certain identity should mean special rules, then all sorts of ideas spill out. Comments on PB are part of the cut and thrust of political discourse. It feels a bit weird to compare a post on PB to, say, the actual partition of India.

The Orkney discussion however is about leaving the United Kingdom, not an independent Scotland.

Indeed. The discussion has arisen before, but very much as applying Partition to the Scottish independence referendum. Slightly unusual for it to arise in this current context.

Is it not the case that Orkney sees itself alienated from both Westminster and Holyrood and is seeking an independent relationship from both ?

My wife reminds me she was sent to Orkney to stay with relatives during the early years of the war

Mr Stockan claims so, which is not quite the same thing. I'm just wondering what has brought this on and what is in it for him or Orkney politically.

It's like Audlem voting to be in Wales, isn't it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-english-village-that-would-rather-be-welsh-815422.html

No one seriously expects Audlem to join Wales, or Orkney to join Norway, or Totnes to rejoin the EU. But it gets them in the news and hence their grievances listened to.

(Audlem's a lovely place.)

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

Yep!

I’m not a newspaper.

(What I actually said, was that I would expect the very offensive football shirt to be a defence against assault. Obviously a newspaper wouldn’t publish anything so offensive. The man wearing the shirt in question was charged with a criminal offence).

How is that a defence against a charge for assault ?

Provocation.

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Not if Labour win seats like Mid Bedfordshire.

That said, there’s nothing I’d personally like more than an SNP implosion. I don’t like those who wish to break up the country, and have many family and friends in Scotland.

Mid Bedfordshire is not even in the top 100 LD target seats

I think Labour and the Lib Dems will split the anti-Tory vote and the Tories will retain this seat. A value bet at 3.5 on Betfair.

Miklosvar said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

FF43 said:

bondegezou said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

Any Scottish independence referendum should give Orkney and the Shetlands an escape clause.

As in, escape to Norway?

Many in Scotland complained of being dragged out of the EU against their will. Likewise, the people of O&S should not be dragged out of the UK against their will, should Scotland vote for independence. In that eventuality, they should be given the option to stay in the UK or to chart another path separate to the rest of Scotland.

Just Orkney and Shetland? No other parts that might be given the same clause?

The Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland has a historical identity that means it should get a special status in a way, that, say Cumbria doesn’t. O&S have a historical identity that warrant a special status in a different way to the rest of Scotland.

Given that Scotland does have a legal and national identity *at present* that is a distinct misapprehension. That reflects history, but does not directly depend on a historical identity.

Illogical for you to demand that a referendum for independence for Scotland includes the instant breakup of the new state. Also illogical for youy to demand that voters vote on a second order event when they don't know the result of the first one. Makes much more sense for Orcadians to vote on their own independence when they see what the landscape is like, which is fine with me. And "Britain" does have a history of trying to sabotage independence by Partition, which is what you sound like, rightly or wrongly.

The Orkney complaints, in any case, seem to centre on the current situation and are not to do with independence for Scotland per se. They seem to centre in part on the fact that the Shetlanders are getting more money. Presumably this reflects the relative deals struck by the then local authorities and the oil companies etc., and I can't see that the Shetlanders can be blamed for getting more oil/money in their areas.

I was only suggesting an Orkney vote *after* a successful Scottish independence vote, so I think that means we are in agreement.

Yes, Britain (including England and Scotland) has sought to sabotage independence movements. I think there’s a limit to the applicability of the history of the disassembling of a colonial Empire to the history of England and Scotland’s relationship.

Indeed, we agree. But on the latter point, many a unionist instantly responds to indyref2 by proposing partition (e.g. PB passim). So it's still applicable in the semse of very much part of the universe of discourse.

I think if you open the Pandora's box of changing constitutional settlements or claiming a certain identity should mean special rules, then all sorts of ideas spill out. Comments on PB are part of the cut and thrust of political discourse. It feels a bit weird to compare a post on PB to, say, the actual partition of India.

The Orkney discussion however is about leaving the United Kingdom, not an independent Scotland.

Indeed. The discussion has arisen before, but very much as applying Partition to the Scottish independence referendum. Slightly unusual for it to arise in this current context.

Is it not the case that Orkney sees itself alienated from both Westminster and Holyrood and is seeking an independent relationship from both ?

My wife reminds me she was sent to Orkney to stay with relatives during the early years of the war

PS: just out of interest, whereabouts on Orkney, if one might ask?

Edit to be more constructive:

I was in Orkney in 2019 and the taxi driver was doing a very fair London cabbie imitation about how the island is getting swamped with immigrants - new age English in this case. Can't imagine covid did anything but accelerate this. So perhaps there's more activism in the air these days.

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

A really important (and long) piece, outside the paywall, about press freedom from Fraser Nelson.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/02/fraser-nelson-jeremy-clarkson-ipso-press-regulator-ruling/

No matter one’s opinions about the characters involved in the recent IPSO decision, do we respect freedom of the press, or do we regulate the media by loud activist groups?

I was very critical of the political media, and their bosses, during the pandemic, and continue to think that politics is debased, and good people don’t stand for election, because of the media environment - but also that freedom of the press is a mark of a democratic western society, and if powerful people can force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

I am unconvinced by the regulator, the Sun and Fraser. What Fraser is actually saying is that the police and no-one else should be the regulator of opinion under hate crime law. This isn't going to happen as he well knows.

Read literally Clarkson's words may be properly read as incitement to a criminal offence - assault.

Suppose some writer in a paper had said, instead of the parading naked stuff, that "It would be a good idea, though illegal, for X (a major public figure) to be raped, strangled and murdered, and in my opinion it would be excellent if some public spirited person carried this out '.

This too is the expression of opinion. Are we sure that this should be entirely unregulated except through the criminal courts?

HYUFD said:

Cheap attack from Diane Abbott

'@HackneyAbbott

1h
Our multi-millionaire prime minister Rishi Sunak donates just one £10 bottle of wine to his local school'. After all he signed it too
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1675761345856262144?s=20

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Cheap attack from Diane Abbott

'@HackneyAbbott

1h
Our multi-millionaire prime minister Rishi Sunak donates just one £10 bottle of wine to his local school'. After all he signed it too
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1675761345856262144?s=20

You’d think he’d have spent at least £15. Difficult to buy a decent bottle of English wine for under about £15.

Carnyx said:

El_Capitano said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

FF43 said:

bondegezou said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

Any Scottish independence referendum should give Orkney and the Shetlands an escape clause.

As in, escape to Norway?

Many in Scotland complained of being dragged out of the EU against their will. Likewise, the people of O&S should not be dragged out of the UK against their will, should Scotland vote for independence. In that eventuality, they should be given the option to stay in the UK or to chart another path separate to the rest of Scotland.

Just Orkney and Shetland? No other parts that might be given the same clause?

The Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland has a historical identity that means it should get a special status in a way, that, say Cumbria doesn’t. O&S have a historical identity that warrant a special status in a different way to the rest of Scotland.

Given that Scotland does have a legal and national identity *at present* that is a distinct misapprehension. That reflects history, but does not directly depend on a historical identity.

Illogical for you to demand that a referendum for independence for Scotland includes the instant breakup of the new state. Also illogical for youy to demand that voters vote on a second order event when they don't know the result of the first one. Makes much more sense for Orcadians to vote on their own independence when they see what the landscape is like, which is fine with me. And "Britain" does have a history of trying to sabotage independence by Partition, which is what you sound like, rightly or wrongly.

The Orkney complaints, in any case, seem to centre on the current situation and are not to do with independence for Scotland per se. They seem to centre in part on the fact that the Shetlanders are getting more money. Presumably this reflects the relative deals struck by the then local authorities and the oil companies etc., and I can't see that the Shetlanders can be blamed for getting more oil/money in their areas.

I was only suggesting an Orkney vote *after* a successful Scottish independence vote, so I think that means we are in agreement.

Yes, Britain (including England and Scotland) has sought to sabotage independence movements. I think there’s a limit to the applicability of the history of the disassembling of a colonial Empire to the history of England and Scotland’s relationship.

Indeed, we agree. But on the latter point, many a unionist instantly responds to indyref2 by proposing partition (e.g. PB passim). So it's still applicable in the semse of very much part of the universe of discourse.

I think if you open the Pandora's box of changing constitutional settlements or claiming a certain identity should mean special rules, then all sorts of ideas spill out. Comments on PB are part of the cut and thrust of political discourse. It feels a bit weird to compare a post on PB to, say, the actual partition of India.

The Orkney discussion however is about leaving the United Kingdom, not an independent Scotland.

Indeed. The discussion has arisen before, but very much as applying Partition to the Scottish independence referendum. Slightly unusual for it to arise in this current context.

Is it not the case that Orkney sees itself alienated from both Westminster and Holyrood and is seeking an independent relationship from both ?

My wife reminds me she was sent to Orkney to stay with relatives during the early years of the war

Mr Stockan claims so, which is not quite the same thing. I'm just wondering what has brought this on and what is in it for him or Orkney politically.

It's like Audlem voting to be in Wales, isn't it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-english-village-that-would-rather-be-welsh-815422.html

No one seriously expects Audlem to join Wales, or Orkney to join Norway, or Totnes to rejoin the EU. But it gets them in the news and hence their grievances listened to.

(Audlem's a lovely place.)

Indeed, that might be the reason.

Berwick upon Tweed is another example, come to think of it - the locals are not at all happy about their being merged into Northumberland, and there was a similar proposal to be hived off from England some years back.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

FF43 said:

bondegezou said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

Carnyx said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

solarflare said:

bondegezou said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

Any Scottish independence referendum should give Orkney and the Shetlands an escape clause.

As in, escape to Norway?

Many in Scotland complained of being dragged out of the EU against their will. Likewise, the people of O&S should not be dragged out of the UK against their will, should Scotland vote for independence. In that eventuality, they should be given the option to stay in the UK or to chart another path separate to the rest of Scotland.

Just Orkney and Shetland? No other parts that might be given the same clause?

The Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland has a historical identity that means it should get a special status in a way, that, say Cumbria doesn’t. O&S have a historical identity that warrant a special status in a different way to the rest of Scotland.

Given that Scotland does have a legal and national identity *at present* that is a distinct misapprehension. That reflects history, but does not directly depend on a historical identity.

Illogical for you to demand that a referendum for independence for Scotland includes the instant breakup of the new state. Also illogical for youy to demand that voters vote on a second order event when they don't know the result of the first one. Makes much more sense for Orcadians to vote on their own independence when they see what the landscape is like, which is fine with me. And "Britain" does have a history of trying to sabotage independence by Partition, which is what you sound like, rightly or wrongly.

The Orkney complaints, in any case, seem to centre on the current situation and are not to do with independence for Scotland per se. They seem to centre in part on the fact that the Shetlanders are getting more money. Presumably this reflects the relative deals struck by the then local authorities and the oil companies etc., and I can't see that the Shetlanders can be blamed for getting more oil/money in their areas.

I was only suggesting an Orkney vote *after* a successful Scottish independence vote, so I think that means we are in agreement.

Yes, Britain (including England and Scotland) has sought to sabotage independence movements. I think there’s a limit to the applicability of the history of the disassembling of a colonial Empire to the history of England and Scotland’s relationship.

Indeed, we agree. But on the latter point, many a unionist instantly responds to indyref2 by proposing partition (e.g. PB passim). So it's still applicable in the semse of very much part of the universe of discourse.

I think if you open the Pandora's box of changing constitutional settlements or claiming a certain identity should mean special rules, then all sorts of ideas spill out. Comments on PB are part of the cut and thrust of political discourse. It feels a bit weird to compare a post on PB to, say, the actual partition of India.

The Orkney discussion however is about leaving the United Kingdom, not an independent Scotland.

Indeed. The discussion has arisen before, but very much as applying Partition to the Scottish independence referendum. Slightly unusual for it to arise in this current context.

Is it not the case that Orkney sees itself alienated from both Westminster and Holyrood and is seeking an independent relationship from both ?

My wife reminds me she was sent to Orkney to stay with relatives during the early years of the war

Mr Stockan claims so, which is not quite the same thing. I'm just wondering what has brought this on and what is in it for him or Orkney politically.

It's not new though is it

As far as I am aware Orkney have been considering this for quite a long time, and no doubt accelerated by both the SNP and Labour's policy of stopping all future oil development which of course is quite considerable in their waters

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

A really important (and long) piece, outside the paywall, about press freedom from Fraser Nelson.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/02/fraser-nelson-jeremy-clarkson-ipso-press-regulator-ruling/

No matter one’s opinions about the characters involved in the recent IPSO decision, do we respect freedom of the press, or do we regulate the media by loud activist groups?

I was very critical of the political media, and their bosses, during the pandemic, and continue to think that politics is debased, and good people don’t stand for election, because of the media environment - but also that freedom of the press is a mark of a democratic western society, and if powerful people can force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

I am unconvinced by the regulator, the Sun and Fraser. What Fraser is actually saying is that the police and no-one else should be the regulator of opinion under hate crime law. This isn't going to happen as he well knows.

Read literally Clarkson's words may be properly read as incitement to a criminal offence - assault.

Suppose some writer in a paper had said, instead of the parading naked stuff, that "It would be a good idea, though illegal, for X (a major public figure) to be raped, strangled and murdered, and in my opinion it would be excellent if some public spirited person carried this out '.

This too is the expression of opinion. Are we sure that this should be entirely unregulated except through the criminal courts?

The slippery slope argument fails when the speech in question is some way back from the start of the slope.

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Not if Labour win seats like Mid Bedfordshire.

That said, there’s nothing I’d personally like more than an SNP implosion. I don’t like those who wish to break up the country, and have many family and friends in Scotland.

Mid Bedfordshire is not even in the top 100 LD target seats

Nor was Oswestry.

I expect the Lib Dems and not Labour would take Mid Beds at a by-election, no matter the result of that "Opinium" poll. They'd hoover the theoretical? independent candidates' votes for starters.

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

A really important (and long) piece, outside the paywall, about press freedom from Fraser Nelson.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/02/fraser-nelson-jeremy-clarkson-ipso-press-regulator-ruling/

No matter one’s opinions about the characters involved in the recent IPSO decision, do we respect freedom of the press, or do we regulate the media by loud activist groups?

I was very critical of the political media, and their bosses, during the pandemic, and continue to think that politics is debased, and good people don’t stand for election, because of the media environment - but also that freedom of the press is a mark of a democratic western society, and if powerful people can force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

I am unconvinced by the regulator, the Sun and Fraser. What Fraser is actually saying is that the police and no-one else should be the regulator of opinion under hate crime law. This isn't going to happen as he well knows.

Read literally Clarkson's words may be properly read as incitement to a criminal offence - assault.

Suppose some writer in a paper had said, instead of the parading naked stuff, that "It would be a good idea, though illegal, for X (a major public figure) to be raped, strangled and murdered, and in my opinion it would be excellent if some public spirited person carried this out '.

This too is the expression of opinion. Are we sure that this should be entirely unregulated except through the criminal courts?

The slippery slope argument fails when the speech in question is some way back from the start of the slope.

No, not a slippery slope argument. Fraser is saying that opinion is exempt from scrutiny in its entirety. So this has to be tested against samples of opinion. The human mind when it comes to opinion is not a very nice place.

Nigelb said:

.

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Cheap attack from Diane Abbott

'@HackneyAbbott

1h
Our multi-millionaire prime minister Rishi Sunak donates just one £10 bottle of wine to his local school'. After all he signed it too
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1675761345856262144?s=20

You’d think he’d have spent at least £15. Difficult to buy a decent bottle of English wine for under about £15.

He's a non drinker, remember.

HYUFD said:

Cheap attack from Diane Abbott

'@HackneyAbbott

1h
Our multi-millionaire prime minister Rishi Sunak donates just one £10 bottle of wine to his local school'. After all he signed it too
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1675761345856262144?s=20

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

A really important (and long) piece, outside the paywall, about press freedom from Fraser Nelson.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/02/fraser-nelson-jeremy-clarkson-ipso-press-regulator-ruling/

No matter one’s opinions about the characters involved in the recent IPSO decision, do we respect freedom of the press, or do we regulate the media by loud activist groups?

I was very critical of the political media, and their bosses, during the pandemic, and continue to think that politics is debased, and good people don’t stand for election, because of the media environment - but also that freedom of the press is a mark of a democratic western society, and if powerful people can force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

I am unconvinced by the regulator, the Sun and Fraser. What Fraser is actually saying is that the police and no-one else should be the regulator of opinion under hate crime law. This isn't going to happen as he well knows.

Read literally Clarkson's words may be properly read as incitement to a criminal offence - assault.

Suppose some writer in a paper had said, instead of the parading naked stuff, that "It would be a good idea, though illegal, for X (a major public figure) to be raped, strangled and murdered, and in my opinion it would be excellent if some public spirited person carried this out '.

This too is the expression of opinion. Are we sure that this should be entirely unregulated except through the criminal courts?

Nigelb said:

Victoria Amelina was one of kindest and most charitable Ukrainian writers who did much more for others than for herself. She founded 2 literary festivals - in New York (Donbas) and in Kramatorsk, where her life was stopped by russian missile. RIP.
https://twitter.com/AKurkov/status/1675771627257069569

Miklosvar said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

A really important (and long) piece, outside the paywall, about press freedom from Fraser Nelson.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/02/fraser-nelson-jeremy-clarkson-ipso-press-regulator-ruling/

No matter one’s opinions about the characters involved in the recent IPSO decision, do we respect freedom of the press, or do we regulate the media by loud activist groups?

I was very critical of the political media, and their bosses, during the pandemic, and continue to think that politics is debased, and good people don’t stand for election, because of the media environment - but also that freedom of the press is a mark of a democratic western society, and if powerful people can force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

I am unconvinced by the regulator, the Sun and Fraser. What Fraser is actually saying is that the police and no-one else should be the regulator of opinion under hate crime law. This isn't going to happen as he well knows.

Read literally Clarkson's words may be properly read as incitement to a criminal offence - assault.

Suppose some writer in a paper had said, instead of the parading naked stuff, that "It would be a good idea, though illegal, for X (a major public figure) to be raped, strangled and murdered, and in my opinion it would be excellent if some public spirited person carried this out '.

This too is the expression of opinion. Are we sure that this should be entirely unregulated except through the criminal courts?

Aiui Clarkson's defence and/or mitigation was that the words complained of were not incitement to assault but a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones.

But I never understood that. Most bad things have happened in fiction. When I said the victim needed a good shanking I was merely alluding to the play Julius Caesar, yr honner.

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

Weren't you all for beating the shit out of somebody because of the shirt they were wearing?

Yep!

I’m not a newspaper.

(What I actually said, was that I would expect the very offensive football shirt to be a defence against assault. Obviously a newspaper wouldn’t publish anything so offensive. The man wearing the shirt in question was charged with a criminal offence).

How is that a defence against a charge for assault ?

Provocation.

That may be argued in mitigation for sentencing; it is not a defence to a charge of assault.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

A really important (and long) piece, outside the paywall, about press freedom from Fraser Nelson.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/02/fraser-nelson-jeremy-clarkson-ipso-press-regulator-ruling/

No matter one’s opinions about the characters involved in the recent IPSO decision, do we respect freedom of the press, or do we regulate the media by loud activist groups?

I was very critical of the political media, and their bosses, during the pandemic, and continue to think that politics is debased, and good people don’t stand for election, because of the media environment - but also that freedom of the press is a mark of a democratic western society, and if powerful people can force opinions and jokes to be silenced there’s a big problem.

I am unconvinced by the regulator, the Sun and Fraser. What Fraser is actually saying is that the police and no-one else should be the regulator of opinion under hate crime law. This isn't going to happen as he well knows.

Read literally Clarkson's words may be properly read as incitement to a criminal offence - assault.

Suppose some writer in a paper had said, instead of the parading naked stuff, that "It would be a good idea, though illegal, for X (a major public figure) to be raped, strangled and murdered, and in my opinion it would be excellent if some public spirited person carried this out '.

This too is the expression of opinion. Are we sure that this should be entirely unregulated except through the criminal courts?

Aiui Clarkson's defence and/or mitigation was that the words complained of were not incitement to assault but a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones.