You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.
Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.
Tick Tock.
Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared
Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.
The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).
The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.
Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.
Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.
Presumably any party advocating calls for another referendum would be happy to pay for it, then? I would not be happy for it to come out of taxpayers money after the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.
Oh, and OIL!!!!
No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.
You should be warned that my wife, born and raised in Scotland, has threatened to take the saltire off the front license plate of her SUV if Scotland votes for independence (in Georgia you only have a rear license plate).
A sword of Damocles such as that ought to tamp down any further referendum talk
You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.
Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.
Tick Tock.
Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared
Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.
The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).
The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.
Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.
Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.
Presumably any party advocating calls for another referendum would be happy to pay for it, then? I would not be happy for it to come out of taxpayers money after the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.
Oh, and OIL!!!!
No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.
It most certainly is not fine by me, Mr Llama. I cannot have my Garden (special Rose section) fund depleted in such a cause. I am sure, being the honourable gentleman you are, you will pay my share.
You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.
Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.
Tick Tock.
Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared
Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.
The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).
The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.
Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.
Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.
Rubbish, the PQ and then the BQ twice delivered a referendum in 1980 and 1995 and both times they lost it. There was never any mood for a third referendum in 1999, indeed the Liberals got more votes in the 1998 elections albeit the PQ won more seats.
Scots themselves when polled do not want another referendum for at least 5-10 years, so the SNP cannot force something on Scots they themselves do not want. Even the SNP still backs the monarchy
If you are so committed to regular consultation of the people even if Scotland did vote for independence presumably you would allow for another vote to rejoin the Union if the public mood desired?
Your stunning and willful ignorance of the workings of the EEA and EU make your utterly unfit to even comment on what Eurosceptics might say. you deserve to be treated with nothing but derision.
LOL! Talk about winning friends and influencing people.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm very happy to discuss the EEA and EU with anyone sensible, but not with people like Richard.
We know how you hate having to face facts and having your opponents use actual documentary evidence rather than just your wild ill informed theorising .
So it is no surprise you are unwilling to discuss these matters with someone who actually knows what they are talking about and shows how ignorant you are.
OK, I'll bite, once more, for a laugh. Are you still seriously suggesting that Norway has a veto on EU regulations which affect it, with no consequences to its access to the Single Market? Really? You're seriously saying that?
No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.
You should be warned that my wife, born and raised in Scotland, has threatened to take the saltire off the front license plate of her SUV if Scotland votes for independence (in Georgia you only have a rear license plate).
A sword of Damocles such as that ought to tamp down any further referendum talk
This is the sort of bizarre inanity that I really don't understand. Someone with enough affinity to being Scottish that while living overseas likes to graphically display that allegiance but would choose not to if people living in Scotland chose to set their own destiny. It's an utter nonsense outside the realms of credible logic.
Your stunning and willful ignorance of the workings of the EEA and EU make your utterly unfit to even comment on what Eurosceptics might say. you deserve to be treated with nothing but derision.
LOL! Talk about winning friends and influencing people.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm very happy to discuss the EEA and EU with anyone sensible, but not with people like Richard.
... A recent EFTA report shows that more than 90 percent of the laws of the single market include policy areas covered by UN or other global bodies. Norway has more influence in drafting laws originating from these sources than Britain, which often has to accept the "common position" agreed within the EU without the right of veto.
Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with tradings rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and whole host of bodies few have ever heard of, where the EU takes our seat and negotiates on our behalf. Norway is fully engaged in the process before it gets anywhere near the EU. They are at the top tables with full rights of veto...
Being a witness in court is a very nerve wracking experience. Being asked questions by a lawyer, even outside the courtroom, is pretty frightening for most people however lovely the lady lawyer (for it is I) may be. Questioning is not the normal way most people talk to each other and is inherently aggressive, however gently it may be done.
Lawyers are apt to forget this and it is good sometimes to be on the other side, as I was recently when I had to be questioned as a potential witness in a recent high profile trial after an overnight flight from the US and on ca. 3 hours sleep! I spent most of the flight watching Suite Francaise, which was perhaps not the most sensible preparation for interrogation by the SFO!!
I have given evidence in the Crown Court. As far as I was concerned I was there doing my duty as a good citizen to say what I had seen and heard, I had no axe to grind. Once the defence council found that he could not shake me on my evidence (I was telling the truth, how could he) he went for me personally and attacked my character, accused me of inventing my evidence, of being mentally impaired and so forth. He didn't get any change from me but the experience left me very, very angry and, if I am honest, quite traumatised.
The criminal law really does need a massive reform. What was good enough in 1164, or whatever the date is, is no longer fit for purpose. The lawyers won't like it so I don't suppose it will happen but we really do need to move on a system that exists to discover what happened and who was to blame ,rather than the current game played between two professionals where the truth is not even an issue.
Presumably any party advocating calls for another referendum would be happy to pay for it, then? I would not be happy for it to come out of taxpayers money after the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.
Oh, and OIL!!!!
No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.
You should be warned that my wife, born and raised in Scotland, has threatened to take the saltire off the front license plate of her SUV if Scotland votes for independence (in Georgia you only have a rear license plate).
A sword of Damocles such as that ought to tamp down any further referendum talk
Brave man, marrying a Scot
Oddly enough - and it is tough to get your head around - her family thought she was the foolish one committing the ultimate sin of marrying a sassenach.
Several elderly members of her family would say "Aye, it's yourself." and then refuse to talk to me.
When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time, and to this day when we get together we do the "Does your wife do.....so and so?".
Once her family realized we were leaving the UK for good, after 18 months of marriage, suddenly I was flavor of the month.
... A recent EFTA report shows that more than 90 percent of the laws of the single market include policy areas covered by UN or other global bodies.
I've never understood these claims about "X% of laws". How on earth does anyone measure laws by the percentage? Does 100 pages of technical regulations about fire extinguishers count as more or less than 10 pages of stuff about workers' rights?
Rubbish, the PQ and then the BQ twice delivered a referendum in 1980 and 1995 and both times they lost it. There was never any mood for a third referendum in 1999, indeed the Liberals got more votes in the 1998 elections albeit the PQ won more seats.
Scots themselves when polled do not want another referendum for at least 5-10 years, so the SNP cannot force something on Scots they themselves do not want. Even the SNP still backs the monarchy
If you are so committed to regular consultation of the people even if Scotland did vote for independence presumably you would allow for another vote to rejoin the Union if the public mood desired?
One of the biggest problems with reading anything into Canada (beyond its uniqueness in the debate) is that the situation is quite complicated with no single party at a single time representing the national movement (as happened in, for example, Ireland).
You do seem to love misrepresenting polls as completely without nuance. But still, I hate to stop you when you're making such spectacular errors.
As for Loyalists, if they wish to form a party and get elected on a Quisling ticket, they are free to do so. I suspect it would start with little support and gradually diminish into nothing. I don't see any parties in Ireland standing on a ticket to rejoin the UK or movement in Norway to rejoin with Denmark.
But please, keep up the straw men and non-sequitors they continue to amuse.
My view at the time was that the politicians and media did not understand what 'normal' people can be like. I fear public speaking (one of the many reasons I could never be a politician), and would absolutely hate to be put in the position Kelly was, being interviewed by hostile MPs on camera.
If I'd been subjected to that, and the vilification he received from some of the press (if I remember correctly), then it might break me. I'd hate the experience.
People in the media and politicians are used to giving, and answering questions, often on camera. For them it would have been normal. For the rest of us, it could be very upsetting.
(Arguing with the above slightly, I think Kelly was used to giving evidence in committees and talking to the media occasionally, just off camera. But he was under the spotlight as a hostile witness at the select committee hearings. ISTR that a couple of Labour MPs were particularly harsh).
There is a big difference between a 'subject matter expert' talking head on TV and radio, and being put in the spotlight to give evidence. In the former, your points are taken almost as gospel, and you are treated with a great deal of respect, even when your opinions are being questioned. This is nothing like a hostile interrogation in front of the cameras.
I have done a lot of the former, and thoroughly enjoy it. I have done Hard Talk once (it became clear only once I was on air that the interviewer wanted me to admit that UNSCOM was a den of CIA spies) and been a witness subject to cross examination once. Neither was enjoyable.
Being a witness in court is a very nerve wracking experience. Being asked questions by a lawyer, even outside the courtroom, is pretty frightening for most people however lovely the lady lawyer (for it is I) may be. Questioning is not the normal way most people talk to each other and is inherently aggressive, however gently it may be done.
Lawyers are apt to forget this and it is good sometimes to be on the other side, as I was recently when I had to be questioned as a potential witness in a recent high profile trial after an overnight flight from the US and on ca. 3 hours sleep! I spent most of the flight watching Suite Francaise, which was perhaps not the most sensible preparation for interrogation by the SFO!!
You're right about being questioned being an unpleasant experience. I was stopped by a customs officer getting off the Eurostar last year and it was horrible. I'd put my passport away somewhere because on the train they'd said it wouldn't be needed again, and when I couldn't find it immediately I got questioned rather aggresively and had my bags searched.
No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.
You should be warned that my wife, born and raised in Scotland, has threatened to take the saltire off the front license plate of her SUV if Scotland votes for independence (in Georgia you only have a rear license plate).
A sword of Damocles such as that ought to tamp down any further referendum talk
This is the sort of bizarre inanity that I really don't understand. Someone with enough affinity to being Scottish that while living overseas likes to graphically display that allegiance but would choose not to if people living in Scotland chose to set their own destiny. It's an utter nonsense outside the realms of credible logic.
It suggests a deep rooted mental health issue.
No you dummy, it suggests I have a sense of humor.
You need to stop opening your mouth and having your stomach speak.
Chill and acquire an ability to laugh or smile.
That's two days in a row you have jumped in and had (politically correct) deferred success.
No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.
You should be warned that my wife, born and raised in Scotland, has threatened to take the saltire off the front license plate of her SUV if Scotland votes for independence (in Georgia you only have a rear license plate).
A sword of Damocles such as that ought to tamp down any further referendum talk
This is the sort of bizarre inanity that I really don't understand. Someone with enough affinity to being Scottish that while living overseas likes to graphically display that allegiance but would choose not to if people living in Scotland chose to set their own destiny. It's an utter nonsense outside the realms of credible logic.
It suggests a deep rooted mental health issue.
Scottish Independence - It's an utter nonsense outside the realms of credible logic.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Oh, and that kind of talk about a poster's wife/anyone is just not nice Dair. Were you not taught manners?
You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.
Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.
Tick Tock.
Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared
Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.
The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).
The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.
Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.
Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.
Presumably any party advo... the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.
Oh, and OIL!!!!
No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.
You should be warned that my wife, born and raised in Scotland, has threatened to take the saltire off the front license plate of her SUV if Scotland votes for independence (in Georgia you only have a rear license plate).
A sword of Damocles such as that ought to tamp down any further referendum talk
Quite. If only everyone was so civic minded, Dair and Malc would mind their loose talk.
It most certainly is not fine by me, Mr Llama. I cannot have my Garden (special Rose section) fund depleted in such a cause. I am sure, being the honourable gentleman you are, you will pay my share.
Mrs Free, as, I hope, a gentleman my first reaction was to say of course I will pay your share. Then I remembered that you are in fact a lawyer and did some quick sums in my head. Alas, ma'am, I am afraid that if I paid your extra penny in income tax it would stretch my meagre pension beyond the point where I can afford to buy Thomas the Rescue his roast chicken, prawns and tuna. He would in fact be reduced to eating cat food and he would not like that.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. Wake me up when Richard Tyndall has understood the effect of an EEA member refusing to implement an EU directive affecting areas covered by the EEA agreement.
This is the sort of bizarre inanity that I really don't understand. Someone with enough affinity to being Scottish that while living overseas likes to graphically display that allegiance but would choose not to if people living in Scotland chose to set their own destiny. It's an utter nonsense outside the realms of credible logic.
It suggests a deep rooted mental health issue.
No you dummy, it suggests I have a sense of humor.
You need to stop opening your mouth and having your stomach speak.
Chill and acquire an ability to laugh or smile.
That's two days in a row you have jumped in and had (politically correct) deferred success.
The punchline did invoke a smile but the set up was and is bizarrre.
It's no clearer if you made it up or not but there are people who behave in this manner - the likes of JK Rowling, those who seem to believe they can pretend to be Scottish (albeit by adoption in her case but that in itself is perfectly legitimate) while supporting the Union.
Sadly the media panders to this attitude (and the SNP does nothing to stop the attitude from spreading). This is a glaring problem with them as a party and a vehicle to Independence, they accept Quislings as legitimate when they are not.
My view at the time was that the politicians and media did not understand what 'normal' people can be like. I fear public speaking (one of the many reasons I could never be a politician), and would absolutely hate to be put in the position Kelly was, being interviewed by hostile MPs on camera.
If I'd been subjected to that, and the vilification he received from some of the press (if I remember correctly), then it might break me. I'd hate the experience.
People in the media and politicians are used to giving, and answering questions, often on camera. For them it would have been normal. For the rest of us, it could be very upsetting.
(Arguing with the above slightly, I think Kelly was used to giving evidence in committees and talking to the media occasionally, just off camera. But he was under the spotlight as a hostile witness at the select committee hearings. ISTR that a couple of Labour MPs were particularly harsh).
There is a big difference between a 'subject matter expert' talking head on TV and radio, and being put in the spotlight to give evidence. In the former, your points are taken almost as gospel, and you are treated with a great deal of respect, even when your opinions are being questioned. This is nothing like a hostile interrogation in front of the cameras.
I have done a lot of the former, and thoroughly enjoy it. I have done Hard Talk once (it became clear only once I was on air that the interviewer wanted me to admit that UNSCOM was a den of CIA spies) and been a witness subject to cross examination once. Neither was enjoyable.
Being a witness in court is a very nerve wracking experience. Being asked questions by a lawyer, even outside the courtroom, is pretty frightening for most people however lovely the lady lawyer (for it is I) may be. Questioning is not the normal way most people talk to each other and is inherently aggressive, however gently it may be done.
Lawyers are apt to forget this and it is good sometimes to be on the other side, as I was recently when I had to be questioned as a potential witness in a recent high profile trial after an overnight flight from the US and on ca. 3 hours sleep! I spent most of the flight watching Suite Francaise, which was perhaps not the most sensible preparation for interrogation by the SFO!!
My then business partner was sued by the IRS for income tax evasion. Testifying was a harrowing and exhausting experience, even though I was told in advance by the IRS and the US attorney that I was not a 'person of interest'. He did 5 years in the federal penitentiary.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. Wake me up when Richard Tyndall has understood the effect of an EEA member refusing to implement an EU directive affecting areas covered by the EEA agreement.
... A recent EFTA report shows that more than 90 percent of the laws of the single market include policy areas covered by UN or other global bodies.
I've never understood these claims about "X% of laws". How on earth does anyone measure laws by the percentage? Does 100 pages of technical regulations about fire extinguishers count as more or less than 10 pages of stuff about workers' rights?
"..When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time ..."
Well, of course that was the case. Obviously a man from Sussex is going to stand well with any prospective in-laws. From Sussex, you see, the clue is right there in the name.
This is the sort of bizarre inanity that I really don't understand. Someone with enough affinity to being Scottish that while living overseas likes to graphically display that allegiance but would choose not to if people living in Scotland chose to set their own destiny. It's an utter nonsense outside the realms of credible logic.
It suggests a deep rooted mental health issue.
No you dummy, it suggests I have a sense of humor.
You need to stop opening your mouth and having your stomach speak.
Chill and acquire an ability to laugh or smile.
That's two days in a row you have jumped in and had (politically correct) deferred success.
The punchline did invoke a smile but the set up was and is bizarrre.
It's no clearer if you made it up or not but there are people who behave in this manner - the likes of JK Rowling, those who seem to believe they can pretend to be Scottish (albeit by adoption in her case but that in itself is perfectly legitimate) while supporting the Union.
Sadly the media panders to this attitude (and the SNP does nothing to stop the attitude from spreading). This is a glaring problem with them as a party and a vehicle to Independence, they accept Quislings as legitimate when they are not.
How can you get so worked up about whether or not a US citizen in the deep South does or doesn't have a saltire on the front of her car?
Even more ludicrous, how can you deduce from that her mental state?
After this combined with last night's blockheaded blunder I am seriously wondering about you.
This is the sort of bizarre inanity that I really don't understand. Someone with enough affinity to being Scottish that while living overseas likes to graphically display that allegiance but would choose not to if people living in Scotland chose to set their own destiny. It's an utter nonsense outside the realms of credible logic.
It suggests a deep rooted mental health issue.
No you dummy, it suggests I have a sense of humor.
You need to stop opening your mouth and having your stomach speak.
Chill and acquire an ability to laugh or smile.
That's two days in a row you have jumped in and had (politically correct) deferred success.
The punchline did invoke a smile but the set up was and is bizarrre.
It's no clearer if you made it up or not but there are people who behave in this manner - the likes of JK Rowling, those who seem to believe they can pretend to be Scottish (albeit by adoption in her case but that in itself is perfectly legitimate) while supporting the Union.
Sadly the media panders to this attitude (and the SNP does nothing to stop the attitude from spreading). This is a glaring problem with them as a party and a vehicle to Independence, they accept Quislings as legitimate when they are not.
Are you saying that you don't think anyone who supports the Union is Scottish?
"..When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time ..."
Well, of course that was the case. Obviously a man from Sussex is going to stand well with any prospective in-laws. From Sussex, you see, the clue is right there in the name.
My dad went to school there, as you know. Why couldn't I be 'honorary Sussex'?
Rubbish, the PQ and then the BQ twice delivered a referendum in 1980 and 1995 and both times they lost it. There was never any mood for a third referendum in 1999, indeed the Liberals got more votes in the 1998 elections albeit the PQ won more seats.
Scots themselves when polled do not want another referendum for at least 5-10 years, so the SNP cannot force something on Scots they themselves do not want. Even the SNP still backs the monarchy
If you are so committed to regular consultation of the people even if Scotland did vote for independence presumably you would allow for another vote to rejoin the Union if the public mood desired?
One of the biggest problems with reading anything into Canada (beyond its uniqueness in the debate) is that the situation is quite complicated with no single party at a single time representing the national movement (as happened in, for example, Ireland).
You do seem to love misrepresenting polls as completely without nuance. But still, I hate to stop you when you're making such spectacular errors.
As for Loyalists, if they wish to form a party and get elected on a Quisling ticket, they are free to do so. I suspect it would start with little support and gradually diminish into nothing. I don't see any parties in Ireland standing on a ticket to rejoin the UK or movement in Norway to rejoin with Denmark.
But please, keep up the straw men and non-sequitors they continue to amuse.
The PQ and BQ were virtually identical and basically sister parties, the PQ ran in provincial elections the BQ at general elections.
Nations have reunited before, look at Germany and of course Ireland had Northern Ireland, perfectly possible unionist parties in the Borders could win on a ticket to reunite with the UK
"..When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time ..."
Well, of course that was the case. Obviously a man from Sussex is going to stand well with any prospective in-laws. From Sussex, you see, the clue is right there in the name.
My dad went to school there, as you know. Why couldn't I be 'honorary Sussex'?
All matter of presentation I suppose. If your missus had first introduced you on the lines of, "Mummy, this is Tim. His father went to school in Sussex" it might have established the right links given that said mother would actually probably only register "Tim" and "Sussex". However, very few young people think along such calculating lines, thank God.
Fred Thompson, who died the other day, asked the key question in the Watergate hearings, asking Alexander Butterfield if he was aware of any recording devices installed at the White House. Butterfield's confirmation meant Nixon's resignation or impeachment was inevitable.
"..When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time ..."
Well, of course that was the case. Obviously a man from Sussex is going to stand well with any prospective in-laws. From Sussex, you see, the clue is right there in the name.
My dad went to school there, as you know. Why couldn't I be 'honorary Sussex'?
All matter of presentation I suppose. If your missus had first introduced you on the lines of, "Mummy, this is Tim. His father went to school in Sussex" it might have established the right links given that said mother would actually probably only register "Tim" and "Sussex". However, very few young people think along such calculating lines, thank God.
I think the truth is that after both marrying a sassenach, and one who said up front he was leaving the UK with his wife, merely being a man from Sussex was harmless, particularly if he was a wuss with a roses fetish
Rubbish, the PQ and then the BQ twice delivered a referendum in 1980 and 1995 and both times they lost it. There was never any mood for a third referendum in 1999, indeed the Liberals got more votes in the 1998 elections albeit the PQ won more seats.
Scots themselves when polled do not want another referendum for at least 5-10 years, so the SNP cannot force something on Scots they themselves do not want. Even the SNP still backs the monarchy
If you are so committed to regular consultation of the people even if Scotland did vote for independence presumably you would allow for another vote to rejoin the Union if the public mood desired?
One of the biggest problems with reading anything into Canada (beyond its uniqueness in the debate) is that the situation is quite complicated with no single party at a single time representing the national movement (as happened in, for example, Ireland).
You do seem to love misrepresenting polls as completely without nuance. But still, I hate to stop you when you're making such spectacular errors.
As for Loyalists, if they wish to form a party and get elected on a Quisling ticket, they are free to do so. I suspect it would start with little support and gradually diminish into nothing. I don't see any parties in Ireland standing on a ticket to rejoin the UK or movement in Norway to rejoin with Denmark.
But please, keep up the straw men and non-sequitors they continue to amuse.
The PQ and BQ were virtually identical and basically sister parties, the PQ ran in provincial elections the BQ at general elections.
Nations have reunited before, look at Germany and of course Ireland had Northern Ireland, perfectly possible unionist parties in the Borders could win on a ticket to reunite with the UK
The existence of the BQ (founded 1990 and by a Tory) is just another great example of the long run of political failures by the Quebec national movement in general and the PQ in particular.
It's understandable why you want to try and equate the SNP to such an incompetent political group as the PQ but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
Good to see another couple of straw men being brought in too. Without de-Prussiafication in Germany the integrity of the state would be nowhere near as coherent as it is today and indeed in 300 years it is hard to believe that at least some of the historic nations it contains will not have decided to forge their own path.
"..When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time ..."
Well, of course that was the case. Obviously a man from Sussex is going to stand well with any prospective in-laws. From Sussex, you see, the clue is right there in the name.
My dad went to school there, as you know. Why couldn't I be 'honorary Sussex'?
All matter of presentation I suppose. If your missus had first introduced you on the lines of, "Mummy, this is Tim. His father went to school in Sussex" it might have established the right links given that said mother would actually probably only register "Tim" and "Sussex". However, very few young people think along such calculating lines, thank God.
I think the truth is that after both marrying a sassenach, and one who said up front he was leaving the UK with his wife, merely being a man from Sussex was harmless, particularly if he was a wuss with a roses fetish
There is that, I suppose. Anyway, let us give thanks that it all has gone well for both sisters.
P.S. I trust your sister-in-law did not suffer any lasting harm from her stay in the third-world hospital that is the RSCH and has now made a full recovery.
Rubbish, the PQ and then the BQ twice delivered a referendum in 1980 and 1995 and both times they lost it. There was never any mood for a third referendum in 1999, indeed the Liberals got more votes in the 1998 elections albeit the PQ won more seats.
Scots themselves when polled do not want another referendum for at least 5-10 years, so the SNP cannot force something on Scots they themselves do not want. Even the SNP still backs the monarchy
If you are so committed to regular consultation of the people even if Scotland did vote for independence presumably you would allow for another vote to rejoin the Union if the public mood desired?
One of the biggest problems with reading anything into Canada (beyond its uniqueness in the debate) is that the situation is quite complicated with no single party at a single time representing the national movement (as happened in, for example, Ireland).
But please, keep up the straw men and non-sequitors they continue to amuse.
The PQ and BQ were virtually identical and basically sister parties, the PQ ran in provincial elections the BQ at general elections.
Nations have reunited before, look at Germany and of course Ireland had Northern Ireland, perfectly possible unionist parties in the Borders could win on a ticket to reunite with the UK
The existence of the BQ (founded 1990 and by a Tory) is just another great example of the long run of political failures by the Quebec national movement in general and the PQ in particular.
It's understandable why you want to try and equate the SNP to such an incompetent political group as the PQ but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
Good to see another couple of straw men being brought in too. Without de-Prussiafication in Germany the integrity of the state would be nowhere near as coherent as it is today and indeed in 300 years it is hard to believe that at least some of the historic nations it contains will not have decided to forge their own path.
This is the same SNP who lost the last referendum by a ten percent margin, the PQ lost the last Quebec referendum by barely 1%!
In theory almost every large nation in the world could break up, Canada losing Quebec, the US Texas, Spain Catalonia, France Corsica, Germany Bavaria, Italy Venice, the UK Scotland etc not to mention all the divisions in the Middle East, the tensions in China etc however in reality federal structures and global and international bodies will maintain bonds. Night
"..When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time ..."
Well, of course that was the case. Obviously a man from Sussex is going to stand well with any prospective in-laws. From Sussex, you see, the clue is right there in the name.
My dad went to school there, as you know. Why couldn't I be 'honorary Sussex'?
All matter of presentation I suppose. If your missus had first introduced you on the lines of, "Mummy, this is Tim. His father went to school in Sussex" it might have established the right links given that said mother would actually probably only register "Tim" and "Sussex". However, very few young people think along such calculating lines, thank God.
I think the truth is that after both marrying a sassenach, and one who said up front he was leaving the UK with his wife, merely being a man from Sussex was harmless, particularly if he was a wuss with a roses fetish
There is that, I suppose. Anyway, let us give thanks that it all has gone well for both sisters.
P.S. I trust your sister-in-law did not suffer any lasting harm from her stay in the third-world hospital that is the RSCH and has now made a full recovery.
She is doing fine - Thank You for asking. She is getting ever more mobility in her elbow and is planning on coming here next April.
My mother loved growing roses and was the most ruthless pruner I have ever seen. She would cut them back until they were mere stumps above ground. But they always grew back with enthusiasm and gave a glorious display.
Being a witness in court is a very nerve wracking experience. Being asked questions by a lawyer, even outside the courtroom, is pretty frightening for most people however lovely the lady lawyer (for it is I) may be. Questioning is not the normal way most people talk to each other and is inherently aggressive, however gently it may be done.
Lawyers are apt to forget this and it is good sometimes to be on the other side, as I was recently when I had to be questioned as a potential witness in a recent high profile trial after an overnight flight from the US and on ca. 3 hours sleep! I spent most of the flight watching Suite Francaise, which was perhaps not the most sensible preparation for interrogation by the SFO!!
I have given evidence in the Crown Court. As far as I was concerned I was there doing my duty as a good citizen to say what I had seen and heard, I had no axe to grind. Once the defence council found that he could not shake me on my evidence (I was telling the truth, how could he) he went for me personally and attacked my character, accused me of inventing my evidence, of being mentally impaired and so forth. He didn't get any change from me but the experience left me very, very angry and, if I am honest, quite traumatised.
The criminal law really does need a massive reform. What was good enough in 1164, or whatever the date is, is no longer fit for purpose. The lawyers won't like it so I don't suppose it will happen but we really do need to move on a system that exists to discover what happened and who was to blame ,rather than the current game played between two professionals where the truth is not even an issue.
I've cut a few of them down to size in my time.
Helps to have some smart-ass, tricksy lawyers in the family to practice on first, of course...
"..When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time ..."
Well, of course that was the case. Obviously a man from Sussex is going to stand well with any prospective in-laws. From Sussex, you see, the clue is right there in the name.
My dad went to school there, as you know. Why couldn't I be 'honorary Sussex'?
All matter of presentation I suppose. If your missus had first introduced you on the lines of, "Mummy, this is Tim. His father went to school in Sussex" it might have established the right links given that said mother would actually probably only register "Tim" and "Sussex". However, very few young people think along such calculating lines, thank God.
I think the truth is that after both marrying a sassenach, and one who said up front he was leaving the UK with his wife, merely being a man from Sussex was harmless, particularly if he was a wuss with a roses fetish
There is that, I suppose. Anyway, let us give thanks that it all has gone well for both sisters.
P.S. I trust your sister-in-law did not suffer any lasting harm from her stay in the third-world hospital that is the RSCH and has now made a full recovery.
She is doing fine - Thank You for asking. She is getting ever more mobility in her elbow and is planning on coming here next April.
My mother loved growing roses and was the most ruthless pruner I have ever seen. She would cut them back until they were mere stumps above ground. But they always grew back with enthusiasm and gave a glorious display.
Herself is like that in the garden. I don't understand the business at all but always thought that gardening was about nurturing growing things where as what she mostly seems to do is cut things back - hard. Yet I have to say the place does look nice and we have lots of bees and butterflies every summer.
Anyway 0100 coming up and so time for beddy-byes. Spare room job tonight as Herself claimed she had sufficient evidence to afford her reasonable suspicion that I would snore and, anyway, Thomas has already bagged my half of the bed.
It most certainly is not fine by me, Mr Llama. I cannot have my Garden (special Rose section) fund depleted in such a cause. I am sure, being the honourable gentleman you are, you will pay my share.
Mrs Free, as, I hope, a gentleman my first reaction was to say of course I will pay your share. Then I remembered that you are in fact a lawyer and did some quick sums in my head. Alas, ma'am, I am afraid that if I paid your extra penny in income tax it would stretch my meagre pension beyond the point where I can afford to buy Thomas the Rescue his roast chicken, prawns and tuna. He would in fact be reduced to eating cat food and he would not like that.
Mr Llama: you spoil that cat. Thomas is a very lucky feline. He eats better than me!
But I will let you off.
Perhaps the Weekly Scotland Independence Referendum could be paid for by a special tax on PBers insulting each other about their knowledge of EU treaties. There would probably be enough money left over to pay off the deficit.
Interesting Thatcher fact from Chapter 14 ("Helicopter Crash") in Volume 2 of the Margaret Thatcher biography, by Charles Moore:
The index to John Nott's autobiography includes references to Gianni Agnelli, Lord Hanson and Sir James Goldsmith, referring to page 338, but there is no mention of those people in the text on page 338. Possibly Nott had written something critical about their role in the Westland affair, and then edited it out of the book for fear of being sued for libel. But the index was not trimmed accordingly.
Moore says that Hanson bought 15% of Westland shares shortly before the shareholders were due to make a decision about which rescue package to choose to save the company (the American Sikorsky/Fiat bid or the European consortium).
It's just a very quiet morning on here. 3 posts in 6 hours.
Well personally I am finding the EU threads almost unbearable and we seem to be having a lot of them of late. Its worse than trying to debate with Nats.
It's just a very quiet morning on here. 3 posts in 6 hours.
Well personally I am finding the EU threads almost unbearable and we seem to be having a lot of them of late. Its worse than trying to debate with Nats.
Agree with that entirely. If we are in for 18 months of yesterday's threads then it will make the Scotttish referendum seem like a civilised discussion at a WI coffee morning. Talking about who said what in some escalating circular whataboutery takes the discussion nowhere.
Both sides of the debate need to be positive as - unlike Scotland - there's a large undecided pool of voters waiting to be persuaded.
Never saw his adventures repeated (as a child I watched a lot of the Third and Fourth Doctors that way), but saw a couple recently and he came across as a rather likeable fellow.
Interesting that both Cameron and Osborne are now consistently headlining with an opt-out from ever closer union. Presumably they've got assurances from other EU leaders that a rider clause exempting the UK from this in any future Lisbon revision isn't a problem. Not that it means very much.
More interesting on free movement: looks like Cameron may be going for stronger transitional controls for new EU states, now, in exchange for approving an increase in the EU budget. But I expect most other EU states would agree with that anyway and there aren't many future EU members in the pipeline.
Of course, neither of those do very much to alter the relationship we currently have.
The real (only) bit of meat is protecting Britain from being outvoted by eurozone interests using QMV. I'm yet to see anything on this.
Bit worrying if the talk is now of an 'emergency brake' rather than a 'red card'.
Interesting that both Cameron and Osborne are now consistently headlining with an opt-out from ever closer union. Presumably they've got assurances from other EU leaders that a rider clause exempting the UK from this in any future Lisbon revision isn't a problem. Not that it means very much.
More interesting on free movement: looks like Cameron may be going for stronger transitional controls for new EU states, now, in exchange for approving an increase in the EU budget. But I expect most other EU states would agree with that anyway and there aren't many future EU members in the pipeline.
Of course, neither of those do very much to alter the relationship we currently have.
The real (only) bit of meat is protecting Britain from being outvoted by eurozone interests using QMV. I'm yet to see anything on this.
Bit worrying if the talk is now of an 'emergency brake' rather than a 'red card'.
It's just a very quiet morning on here. 3 posts in 6 hours.
Well personally I am finding the EU threads almost unbearable and we seem to be having a lot of them of late. Its worse than trying to debate with Nats.
What possible consultation can there be? The clue is in the title. They are against any war where the UK or the US take action, are seen as "aggressors". The leader of the Labour Party is their chair.
So either they will follow that view. Or they will ignore it. Which will doubtless annoy a lot of the three quidders and other Corbynistas. My money is on the former.
To be fair to Labour, she didn't say "consult" - that was the BBC. She said "we'll want to talk to you about your view"
It's just a very quiet morning on here. 3 posts in 6 hours.
Well personally I am finding the EU threads almost unbearable and we seem to be having a lot of them of late. Its worse than trying to debate with Nats.
There is a discernible divide in the polling along age lines.
45+ tending towards leave. The especially young tending towards remain.
The usual issues of voter eligibility, registration and propensity to vote will come into play. Large chunks of EU-Remain in London won't be getting a vote.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
Mr. Chestnut, a few weeks ago Jacqui Smith and a former adviser to John Major were both very pro-EU doing the Sky paper review, and both wanted the young to get the vote in the referendum. Not that they're trying to gerrymander it to their advantage, of course. It's because 16 year olds will have to live with the decision for longer. Ahem.
There is a discernible divide in the polling along age lines.
45+ tending towards leave. The especially young tending towards remain.
The usual issues of voter eligibility, registration and propensity to vote will come into play. Large chunks of EU-Remain in London won't be getting a vote.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
Would you be surprised if 16 yr olds get the vote as we get nearer the date. I am sure the Lords would happily insist on it!
Osborne must have his crusade... We are happy to play along
Yes, our government more or less admits the renegotiation is a sham, releasing ever less impressive lists of meaningless goals, and our European neighbours say so openly as well.
But apparently the pro-EU side thinks this process will convince people to vote their way. You certainly can't accuse them of a lack of confidence. Or perhaps that is not quite the right word.
It's just a very quiet morning on here. 3 posts in 6 hours.
Well personally I am finding the EU threads almost unbearable and we seem to be having a lot of them of late. Its worse than trying to debate with Nats.
agree EEA this, EFTA that - and the referendum is miles away.
I appreciate this is PB, emphasis on the B but it is deadly.
I'm not sure if excursions into Hollywood prequels and origin stories is the way forward, either.
Meanwhile, Peter Donaldson has died. There is something about R4 news presenters (and R3 continuity announcers) that is so very special and a quietly valuable part of our lives here in the UK. Very sad.
Mr. Topping, don't worry, there's another race soon. Brazil's practice is about 10 days away.
Always like Brazil. It's perhaps my single favourite circuit. It's good in the wet or the dry, fast, twisty, not much room for error, plenty of excitement every time, it's a great place to go racing.
As I mentioned previously, I think Hulkenberg may be one to watch due to a combination of the Force India perhaps being suited (relatively) to the track and his own good history there.
I think Williams won't have as much fun as they did last time, though.
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, perhaps so
That said, imagine Rosberg had pitted and Hamilton hadn't. And the German had been told Hamilton would pit.
There is a discernible divide in the polling along age lines.
45+ tending towards leave. The especially young tending towards remain.
The usual issues of voter eligibility, registration and propensity to vote will come into play. Large chunks of EU-Remain in London won't be getting a vote.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
They loathe the English, you should read malcolmg and Dair
As the debate on these matters proceeds it will become perfectly obvious to anyone who wishes to see that only EU exit can get the British people to a place where they will feel comfortable. Actually this was pretty clear 40 years ago, too, but the intervening period has proved the point beyond any doubt.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
It's just a very quiet morning on here. 3 posts in 6 hours.
Well personally I am finding the EU threads almost unbearable and we seem to be having a lot of them of late. Its worse than trying to debate with Nats.
David
are you going to accept that you made a fundamental mistake with your reading of the EEA Agreement and that there is no provision for the suspension of member states? The articles you quoted made absolutely no mention what so ever of suspension of states which I assume was due to a misreading on your part.
Osborne must have his crusade... We are happy to play along
Yes, our government more or less admits the renegotiation is a sham, releasing ever less impressive lists of meaningless goals, and our European neighbours say so openly as well.
But apparently the pro-EU side thinks this process will convince people to vote their way. You certainly can't accuse them of a lack of confidence. Or perhaps that is not quite the right word.
I just luuuv people like you, so quick to judge and smear. You have no idea of the outcome of negotiations and neither does anyone else.. What you are frightened of is that Dave gets and sells a deal that voters buy, that's why you are smearing him and his efforts before the negotiations are complete.
Your stunning and willful ignorance of the workings of the EEA and EU make your utterly unfit to even comment on what Eurosceptics might say. you deserve to be treated with nothing but derision.
LOL! Talk about winning friends and influencing people.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm very happy to discuss the EEA and EU with anyone sensible, but not with people like Richard.
We know how you hate having to face facts and having your opponents use actual documentary evidence rather than just your wild ill informed theorising .
So it is no surprise you are unwilling to discuss these matters with someone who actually knows what they are talking about and shows how ignorant you are.
OK, I'll bite, once more, for a laugh. Are you still seriously suggesting that Norway has a veto on EU regulations which affect it, with no consequences to its access to the Single Market? Really? You're seriously saying that?
Yes. It is right there in black and white as I have referred to on numerous occassions.DavidL tried to claim the EEA Agreement said this would lead to suspension but when he actually quoted the articles he was referring to it turned out he had completely misread them and then referred to suspension of the contentious laws not suspension of the states.
As the debate on these matters proceeds it will become perfectly obvious to anyone who wishes to see that only EU exit can get the British people to a place where they will feel comfortable. Actually this was pretty clear 40 years ago, too, but the intervening period has proved the point beyond any doubt.
That's not true and polling doesn't back you up if you believe You Gov,
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
Not when you remember that
I am always right; You are often mistaken; They are always up to no good
It's just a very quiet morning on here. 3 posts in 6 hours.
Well personally I am finding the EU threads almost unbearable and we seem to be having a lot of them of late. Its worse than trying to debate with Nats.
Agree with that entirely. If we are in for 18 months of yesterday's threads then it will make the Scotttish referendum seem like a civilised discussion at a WI coffee morning. Talking about who said what in some escalating circular whataboutery takes the discussion nowhere.
Both sides of the debate need to be positive as - unlike Scotland - there's a large undecided pool of voters waiting to be persuaded.
Actually, if you look back to a couple of years before indyref, at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement, the biggest opinion poll support was for home rule/federalism, with much smaller groupings for independence and for the status quo. Mr Cameron risked the Union by not offering a federal/home rule option, thereby creating a huge pool of undecided voters in an instant.
As someone commented on here a day or two ago [edit], the fact that the Better Together campaign managed to increase support for independence from a small minority to something approaching a majority is food for thought for those considering the EU referendum.
I'm in danger of going over old ground but I don't believe the undecided on here are, I think they're committed Europhiles posturing over these ridiculous negotiations (I see the Germans ridiculing Osborne this morning).
When the time comes the vast majority of fence sitters on here will say:
On reflection better the devil.....
That's fine, but why not be honest, its only silly party loyalty that's stopping you.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
Bear in mind that some of us were pro Independence for Scotland. I always found it illogical to support BOO and yet be opposed to Scottish independence when the philosophical basis of both movements was the same.
I'm in danger of going over old ground but I don't believe the undecided on here are, I think they're committed Europhiles posturing over these ridiculous negotiations (I see the Germans ridiculing Osborne this morning).
When the time comes the vast majority of fence sitters on here will say:
On reflection better the devil.....
That's fine, but why not be honest, its only silly party loyalty that's stopping you.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
Bear in mind that some of us were pro Independence for Scotland. I always found it illogical to support BOO and yet be opposed to Scottish independence when the philosophical basis of both movements was the same.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
That doesn't explain the logic of wanting to recover sovereignty and then give it away again.
Piece by piece the euro-superstate will come into being because it has to in order to cope with the variety of pressures that are, or will be, exerted from banking to asylum seeking to tax and trade policy.
It can only be a matter of time before full-blown common welfare policy is suggested as an answer to free movement.
As the debate on these matters proceeds it will become perfectly obvious to anyone who wishes to see that only EU exit can get the British people to a place where they will feel comfortable. Actually this was pretty clear 40 years ago, too, but the intervening period has proved the point beyond any doubt.
That's not true and polling doesn't back you up if you believe You Gov,
Mr. Tyndall, depends whether a Scotsman considers himself British or not.
I think it's possible to want the UK to leave the EU, but not Scotland the UK. What utterly baffles me is the reverse, wanting Scotland to leave the UK but be in the EU (especially when you consider longevity of states and the direction of travel, power from the UK to Scotland, and from the UK to the EU).
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
It isn't if you think everyone on this island of ours shares a nationality.
Mr. Tyndall, depends whether a Scotsman considers himself British or not.
I think it's possible to want the UK to leave the EU, but not Scotland the UK. What utterly baffles me is the reverse, wanting Scotland to leave the UK but be in the EU (especially when you consider longevity of states and the direction of travel, power from the UK to Scotland, and from the UK to the EU).
Agreed. I was happy for the Scots to go their own way. In the end, however, it sounded to me like the SNP wanted the Pound to become like the Euro. Had Scotland voted for independence I'd have expected all English/Welsh/NI politicians to come together to tell them to get stuffed.
I do wonder if some pro-independence Scots might vote Out to try and provoke the circumstances that might justify a second referendum [on Scotland being part of the UK].
Geoff Boycott was the lunchtime guest on TMS today. Interesting as always. His general view was that the game is going to the dogs, which I'm sure is a huge surprise to everyone.
Tom Harris was one of the most down-to-earth and clear-sighted Labour MPs between 2001 and 2015. A pretty bad loss for Labour if he's indeed left the party.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
That doesn't explain the logic of wanting to recover sovereignty and then give it away again.
Piece by piece the euro-superstate will come into being because it has to in order to cope with the variety of pressures that are, or will be, exerted from banking to asylum seeking to tax and trade policy.
It can only be a matter of time before full-blown common welfare policy is suggested as an answer to free movement.
Given the SNP was advocating a currency union and continuing fiscal control from London a Yes vote would have secured independence in name only. Like all nationalist movements, though, what inspires the SNP is flags and borders, not actual control.
I know the feeling. Still, this is what NickP and 250,000 other Labour supporters voted for, so you have to respect it. They are better off without us and we without them.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
It's to do with the existence of a single demos or not.
I think it's pretty clear that there is no European demos - hence the view on BOO.
Whether there is a Scottish or a UK-wide demos is at the heart of the independence debate
I know the feeling. Still, this is what NickP and 250,000 other Labour supporters voted for, so you have to respect it. They are better off without us and we without them.
Tom Harris was one of the most down-to-earth and clear-sighted Labour MPs between 2001 and 2015. A pretty bad loss for Labour if he's indeed left the party.
Undermines Rosberg and seeks to reduce his victory to a pat on the head from the team as consolation for not winning the title.
Um! Have to agree with you. But, obviously something I missed on the replay, after he was back on the track after being ordered in for tyre change for safety reasons, Hamilton radioed back for a report on the condition of his old tyres, did he get one and what were the results?
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
It isn't if you think everyone on this island of ours shares a nationality.
I know the feeling. Still, this is what NickP and 250,000 other Labour supporters voted for, so you have to respect it. They are better off without us and we without them.
It's like watching a slow, five year car crash.
It's a total implosion. And NickP and his mates let the Tories off the hook completely as a result. But it feels wonderful and liberating and gets lots of likes on Facebook, so it's worth it. Sod the losers who actually could benefit from a moderate Labour government. It's all about the reTweets these days.
Prediction in todays DT that house prices will rise by average of 22% by 2020 due to pent up demand and shortage. With core inflation at 1 or 2% that is a hell of a lot.
Mr. Eye, I didn't hear it, though not every message is broadcast (drivers sometimes pepper their messages with strong swearing deliberately to avoid the messages being broadcast).
After the race, Hamilton maintained it was the wrong call. Of course, that could be more mind games to screw with Rosberg.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
Bear in mind that some of us were pro Independence for Scotland. I always found it illogical to support BOO and yet be opposed to Scottish independence when the philosophical basis of both movements was the same.
I do remember that Richard, but I'm guessing you were in a minority! I should have said some/many/most BOOers.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
That doesn't explain the logic of wanting to recover sovereignty and then give it away again.
Piece by piece the euro-superstate will come into being because it has to in order to cope with the variety of pressures that are, or will be, exerted from banking to asylum seeking to tax and trade policy.
It can only be a matter of time before full-blown common welfare policy is suggested as an answer to free movement.
There's nothing confusing about it, it's only the rabid xenophobes who see the EU as some occupational power imposing its will with individual governments holding no recourse.
At the most fundamental level, whether it is the EU or trade or welfare or redistribution or lowering taxes or anything you can imagine, while Scotland is not sovereign, Scotland does not get the final say in what it decides to do.
The EU has no mechanism to enforce membership. Succession is always left in the hands of individual nation states. If they don't like the club, they can leave or can make the decision that on balance it is worth staying. Scotland is denied that choice, denied by the Union.
Prediction in todays DT that house prices will rise by average of 22% by 2020 due to pent up demand and shortage. With core inflation at 1 or 2% that is a hell of a lot.
Fantastic news for all those folk who are about to get a government subsidy to buy their housing association accommodation. And for the buy to let landlords they'll then sell on to.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why BOOers rail against UK loss of control to the EU while thinking Scotland should just suck up a far greater sovereignty deficit within the UK. Isn't the world a wonderfully mysterious place?
That doesn't explain the logic of wanting to recover sovereignty and then give it away again.
Piece by piece the euro-superstate will come into being because it has to in order to cope with the variety of pressures that are, or will be, exerted from banking to asylum seeking to tax and trade policy.
It can only be a matter of time before full-blown common welfare policy is suggested as an answer to free movement.
There's nothing confusing about it, it's only the rabid xenophobes who see the EU as some occupational power imposing its will with individual governments holding no recourse.
At the most fundamental level, whether it is the EU or trade or welfare or redistribution or lowering taxes or anything you can imagine, while Scotland is not sovereign, Scotland does not get the final say in what it decides to do.
The EU has no mechanism to enforce membership. Succession is always left in the hands of individual nation states. If they don't like the club, they can leave or can make the decision that on balance it is worth staying. Scotland is denied that choice, denied by the Union.
Blimey - and there was me thinking that there was an independence referendum in Scotland last year.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_general_election,_1998
Scots themselves when polled do not want another referendum for at least 5-10 years, so the SNP cannot force something on Scots they themselves do not want. Even the SNP still backs the monarchy
If you are so committed to regular consultation of the people even if Scotland did vote for independence presumably you would allow for another vote to rejoin the Union if the public mood desired?
It suggests a deep rooted mental health issue.
The criminal law really does need a massive reform. What was good enough in 1164, or whatever the date is, is no longer fit for purpose. The lawyers won't like it so I don't suppose it will happen but we really do need to move on a system that exists to discover what happened and who was to blame ,rather than the current game played between two professionals where the truth is not even an issue.
Several elderly members of her family would say "Aye, it's yourself." and then refuse to talk to me.
When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time, and to this day when we get together we do the "Does your wife do.....so and so?".
Once her family realized we were leaving the UK for good, after 18 months of marriage, suddenly I was flavor of the month.
You do seem to love misrepresenting polls as completely without nuance. But still, I hate to stop you when you're making such spectacular errors.
As for Loyalists, if they wish to form a party and get elected on a Quisling ticket, they are free to do so. I suspect it would start with little support and gradually diminish into nothing. I don't see any parties in Ireland standing on a ticket to rejoin the UK or movement in Norway to rejoin with Denmark.
But please, keep up the straw men and non-sequitors they continue to amuse.
You need to stop opening your mouth and having your stomach speak.
Chill and acquire an ability to laugh or smile.
That's two days in a row you have jumped in and had (politically correct) deferred success.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Oh, and that kind of talk about a poster's wife/anyone is just not nice Dair. Were you not taught manners?
It's no clearer if you made it up or not but there are people who behave in this manner - the likes of JK Rowling, those who seem to believe they can pretend to be Scottish (albeit by adoption in her case but that in itself is perfectly legitimate) while supporting the Union.
Sadly the media panders to this attitude (and the SNP does nothing to stop the attitude from spreading). This is a glaring problem with them as a party and a vehicle to Independence, they accept Quislings as legitimate when they are not.
http://www.efta.int/media/publications/bulletins/EFTA-Bulletin-2012.pdf
The vast vast majority of the policy areas listed are covered by international bodies.
"..When her identical twin sister married a man from Sussex 2 years later, he had a much easier time ..."
Well, of course that was the case. Obviously a man from Sussex is going to stand well with any prospective in-laws. From Sussex, you see, the clue is right there in the name.
Even more ludicrous, how can you deduce from that her mental state?
After this combined with last night's blockheaded blunder I am seriously wondering about you.
OIL - HA!
Nations have reunited before, look at Germany and of course Ireland had Northern Ireland, perfectly possible unionist parties in the Borders could win on a ticket to reunite with the UK
It's understandable why you want to try and equate the SNP to such an incompetent political group as the PQ but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
Good to see another couple of straw men being brought in too. Without de-Prussiafication in Germany the integrity of the state would be nowhere near as coherent as it is today and indeed in 300 years it is hard to believe that at least some of the historic nations it contains will not have decided to forge their own path.
P.S. I trust your sister-in-law did not suffer any lasting harm from her stay in the third-world hospital that is the RSCH and has now made a full recovery.
In theory almost every large nation in the world could break up, Canada losing Quebec, the US Texas, Spain Catalonia, France Corsica, Germany Bavaria, Italy Venice, the UK Scotland etc not to mention all the divisions in the Middle East, the tensions in China etc however in reality federal structures and global and international bodies will maintain bonds. Night
My mother loved growing roses and was the most ruthless pruner I have ever seen. She would cut them back until they were mere stumps above ground. But they always grew back with enthusiasm and gave a glorious display.
Helps to have some smart-ass, tricksy lawyers in the family to practice on first, of course...
(^_-)
Anyway 0100 coming up and so time for beddy-byes. Spare room job tonight as Herself claimed she had sufficient evidence to afford her reasonable suspicion that I would snore and, anyway, Thomas has already bagged my half of the bed.
Good night all
But I will let you off.
Perhaps the Weekly Scotland Independence Referendum could be paid for by a special tax on PBers insulting each other about their knowledge of EU treaties. There would probably be enough money left over to pay off the deficit.
The index to John Nott's autobiography includes references to Gianni Agnelli, Lord Hanson and Sir James Goldsmith, referring to page 338, but there is no mention of those people in the text on page 338. Possibly Nott had written something critical about their role in the Westland affair, and then edited it out of the book for fear of being sued for libel. But the index was not trimmed accordingly.
Moore says that Hanson bought 15% of Westland shares shortly before the shareholders were due to make a decision about which rescue package to choose to save the company (the American Sikorsky/Fiat bid or the European consortium).
Both sides of the debate need to be positive as - unlike Scotland - there's a large undecided pool of voters waiting to be persuaded.
TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC
FPT: Mr. Whaley, that would be Troughton, yes?
Never saw his adventures repeated (as a child I watched a lot of the Third and Fourth Doctors that way), but saw a couple recently and he came across as a rather likeable fellow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34706265
Undermines Rosberg and seeks to reduce his victory to a pat on the head from the team as consolation for not winning the title.
More interesting on free movement: looks like Cameron may be going for stronger transitional controls for new EU states, now, in exchange for approving an increase in the EU budget. But I expect most other EU states would agree with that anyway and there aren't many future EU members in the pipeline.
Of course, neither of those do very much to alter the relationship we currently have.
The real (only) bit of meat is protecting Britain from being outvoted by eurozone interests using QMV. I'm yet to see anything on this.
Bit worrying if the talk is now of an 'emergency brake' rather than a 'red card'.
45+ tending towards leave. The especially young tending towards remain.
The usual issues of voter eligibility, registration and propensity to vote will come into play. Large chunks of EU-Remain in London won't be getting a vote.
Quite why some Scots want independence whilst wanting to join the EU remains a mystery.
Yes, our government more or less admits the renegotiation is a sham, releasing ever less impressive lists of meaningless goals, and our European neighbours say so openly as well.
But apparently the pro-EU side thinks this process will convince people to vote their way. You certainly can't accuse them of a lack of confidence. Or perhaps that is not quite the right word.
I appreciate this is PB, emphasis on the B but it is deadly.
I'm not sure if excursions into Hollywood prequels and origin stories is the way forward, either.
Meanwhile, Peter Donaldson has died. There is something about R4 news presenters (and R3 continuity announcers) that is so very special and a quietly valuable part of our lives here in the UK. Very sad.
Always like Brazil. It's perhaps my single favourite circuit. It's good in the wet or the dry, fast, twisty, not much room for error, plenty of excitement every time, it's a great place to go racing.
As I mentioned previously, I think Hulkenberg may be one to watch due to a combination of the Force India perhaps being suited (relatively) to the track and his own good history there.
I think Williams won't have as much fun as they did last time, though.
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, perhaps so
That said, imagine Rosberg had pitted and Hamilton hadn't. And the German had been told Hamilton would pit.
are you going to accept that you made a fundamental mistake with your reading of the EEA Agreement and that there is no provision for the suspension of member states? The articles you quoted made absolutely no mention what so ever of suspension of states which I assume was due to a misreading on your part.
I am always right;
You are often mistaken;
They are always up to no good
As someone commented on here a day or two ago [edit], the fact that the Better Together campaign managed to increase support for independence from a small minority to something approaching a majority is food for thought for those considering the EU referendum.
When the time comes the vast majority of fence sitters on here will say:
On reflection better the devil.....
That's fine, but why not be honest, its only silly party loyalty that's stopping you.
Labour loses a sensible moderate.
Piece by piece the euro-superstate will come into being because it has to in order to cope with the variety of pressures that are, or will be, exerted from banking to asylum seeking to tax and trade policy.
It can only be a matter of time before full-blown common welfare policy is suggested as an answer to free movement.
I think it's possible to want the UK to leave the EU, but not Scotland the UK. What utterly baffles me is the reverse, wanting Scotland to leave the UK but be in the EU (especially when you consider longevity of states and the direction of travel, power from the UK to Scotland, and from the UK to the EU).
I do wonder if some pro-independence Scots might vote Out to try and provoke the circumstances that might justify a second referendum [on Scotland being part of the UK].
Eh? Labour will consult with Stop the War over Syria. Why bother - they know what the answer will be.
I think it's pretty clear that there is no European demos - hence the view on BOO.
Whether there is a Scottish or a UK-wide demos is at the heart of the independence debate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34707749
After the race, Hamilton maintained it was the wrong call. Of course, that could be more mind games to screw with Rosberg.
I should have said some/many/most BOOers.
At the most fundamental level, whether it is the EU or trade or welfare or redistribution or lowering taxes or anything you can imagine, while Scotland is not sovereign, Scotland does not get the final say in what it decides to do.
The EU has no mechanism to enforce membership. Succession is always left in the hands of individual nation states. If they don't like the club, they can leave or can make the decision that on balance it is worth staying. Scotland is denied that choice, denied by the Union.