It is up to the UK government to decide. And the UK government has decided this change does not warrant another independence referendum.
What can the SNP do about it? Absolutely fuck all. They can, I suppose, use it to fire up grievance against Westminster, and stoke the desire of the Scots for indy, but the SNP already does that with every single possible issue, so the UK government loses nothing.
The Scots need to get a new British government if they want a new referendum. It's that simple.
I'm just saying there is a strong case for another vote asap because of the 2014 misrepresentation and subsequent material change in circumstances pertaining to EU membership.
But I agree with your summary of the hard politics - the government can and probably will refuse it.
Regardless, independence before the 20s are out is a 75% clear favourite IMO.
My guess is the next referendum will be around 2028-2030, and it will be lost again, by the SNP.
Scotland is a large part of our family and my opinion is a referendum should be granted if the SNP gain a majority in Holyrood in 2021 and request it again
However, as someone who became aware of Scots Independence in the early 1960's living in Berwick on Tweed at the time and having married a northern Scot, I remain totally convinced that Scotland will not vote for Independence for the forceable future
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
Having a majority doesn’t mean you can act like tyrants with scant regard for democracy or human rights.
Our democracy is based on Westminster sovereignty
So you are saying you are justified in abusing human rights because you have a majority? Is that what you are saying? Please be clear.
Is Boris yet sending in armed police to Scotland to arrest Sturgeon and prevent any referendum taking place as the Spanish did in Catalonia? No. So stop whinging about human rights
What on earth are you talking about.
As a conservative there are times your comments make me ashamed to think we are in the same party
It is up to the UK government to decide. And the UK government has decided this change does not warrant another independence referendum.
What can the SNP do about it? Absolutely fuck all. They can, I
I'm just saying there is a strong case for another vote asap because of the 2014 misrepresentation and subsequent material change in circumstances pertaining to EU membership.
But I agree with your summary of the hard politics - the government can and probably will refuse it.
Regardless, independence before the 20s are out is a 75% clear favourite IMO.
My guess is the next referendum will be around 2028-2030, and it will be lost again, by the SNP.
Scotland is a large part of our family and my opinion is a referendum should be granted if the SNP gain a majority in Holyrood in 2021 and request it again
However, as someone who became aware of Scots Independence in the early 1960's living in Berwick on Tweed at the time and having married a northern Scot, I remain totally convinced that Scotland will not vote for Independence for the forceable future
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
Your statement is factual, but upsetting enough Scottish people between now and an inevitable second vote sometime this decade or the next would be counter productive in the grand scheme of things.
As long as there is a Tory government there will be no second vote anyway
There is a point, probably in the next ten years where even if things are bobbing along nicely voters will get fed up with the Tories, just because they can. If circumstances unravel sooner then Indyref2 is not out of the question earlier than that. If the Scottish people at that point think they have been taken for a ride by their hubristic English overlords they will be off!
By which point we would likely be back in the single market at least under say a Labour led Government under PM Starmer anyway, in which case the original SNP whinge about hard Brexit no longer applies
So the previous ten or fifteen years will be like Bobby coming out of the shower in Dallas. It was all a (bad) dream.
If there is one, I expect independence to win. No-one much will speak for the Union. The Tories have comprehensively poisoned the unionism well.
The Tories have just won a majority on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term and that is what they will do and block it regardless of what Sturgeon says.
Though of course 54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election last month anyway
From Johnson'se Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.
Well that is up to you but any indyref2 needs the consent of the UK government and this Tory government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 whatever the circumstances.
2014 was said by the SNP to be a 'once in a generation referendum' and they must be held alist leaders and stop any referendum taking place
You and Johnson are not making it easy for me. I'm a d threat of violence, it's time to get out.
The anger and aggression is coming from the SNP side.
I accept some liberal wet, pro EU, vaguely Unionist but not really bothered people might not like standing up to Sturgeon so aggressively but Boris will do it anyway and could not care less
Quite. Boris has nothing to lose. He has a ltically they want indy, but right here right now? Hmm.
Sturgeon I suspect is also just going through the motions, she is not as fanatical a nationalist as Salmond was and quite enjoys the perks and trappings of being First Minister she would lose if she had to resign if No won any indyref2.
She is just trying to show her base she is committed to the cause but in reality there is nothing the SNP can do as the UK government has refused indyref2, the 2014 referendum only occurred as the UK Cameron and Clegg coalition government consented
I don't disagree with you on this - but I recall discussions on here within the last year in which you raised the possibility of Sturgeon calling a Referendum in defiance of Westminster - and even the prospect of UDI!. I always took the view that Sturgeon would have more sense than to go down that road - and - to date - events appear to support my judgement. You no longer appear to see this as an option available to her.
If she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
Has this scheme to move HoL, been dreamt up to justify throwing more money at HS2 on the basis that there is great demand for a faster rail service to and from York?
It is up to the UK government to decide. And the UK government has decided this change does not warrant another independence referendum.
What can the SNP do about it? Absolutely fuck all. They can, I suppose, use it to fire up grievance against Westminster, and stoke the desire of the Scots for indy, but the SNP already does that with every single possible issue, so the UK government loses nothing.
The Scots need to get a new British government if they want a new referendum. It's that simple.
I'm just saying there is a strong case for another vote asap because of the 2014 misrepresentation and subsequent material change in circumstances pertaining to EU membership.
But I agree with your summary of the hard politics - the government can and probably will refuse it.
Regardless, independence before the 20s are out is a 75% clear favourite IMO.
My guess is the next referendum will be around 2028-2030, and it will be lost again, by the SNP.
Scotland is a large part of our family and my opinion is a referendum should be granted if the SNP gain a majority in Holyrood in 2021 and request it again
However, as someone who became aware of Scots Independence in the early 1960's living in Berwick on Tweed at the time and having married a northern Scot, I remain totally convinced that Scotland will not vote for Independence for the forceable future
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
Having a majority doesn’t mean you can act like tyrants with scant regard for democracy or human rights.
Our democracy is based on Westminster sovereignty
So you are saying you are justified in abusing human rights because you have a majority? Is that what you are saying? Please be clear.
Is Boris yet sending in armed police to Scotland to arrest Sturgeon and prevent any referendum taking place as the Spanish did in Catalonia? No. So stop whinging about human rights
Didn't the SNP actually put in the White Paper that one of the reasons Scotland should vote Yes, was that it could end up being dragged out of the EU by England (if Cameron won the GE and staged the Brexit referendum he was planning on having)? If that's the case, then surely by the SNP's own logic, the people of Scotland voted No even though they knew Scotland might well end up leaving the EU as a result... At the very least, the 'material change in circumstances' line probably would more a convincing argument if the prospect of Brexit had only been on the agenda after Sindyref 1. But given Cameron's Bloomberg speech in 2013, UKIP winning the EU parliament elections etc... it very much was before.
Yes I well remember Better Together highlighting the prospect of Brexit.
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
'Once in a generation' really was a stupid promise wasn't it.
It is up to the UK government to decide. And the UK government has decided this change does not warrant another independence referendum.
What can the SNP do about it? Absolutely fuck all. They can, I suppose, use it to fire up grievance against Westminster, and stoke the desire of the Scots for indy, but the SNP already does that with every single possible issue, so the UK government loses nothing.
The Scots need to get a new British government if they want a new referendum. It's that simple.
I'm just saying there is a strong case for another vote asap because of the 2014 misrepresentation and subsequent material change in circumstances pertaining to EU membership.
But I agree with your summary of the hard politics - the government can and probably will refuse it.
Regardless, independence before the 20s are out is a 75% clear favourite IMO.
My guess is the next referendum will be around 2028-2030, and it will be lost again, by the SNP.
Scotland is a large part of our family and my opinion is a referendum should be granted if the SNP gain a majority in Holyrood in 2021 and request it again
However, as someone who became aware of Scots Independence in the early 1960's living in Berwick on Tweed at the time and having married a northern Scot, I remain totally convinced that Scotland will not vote for Independence for the forceable future
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
Having a majority doesn’t mean you can act like tyrants with scant regard for democracy or human rights.
Our democracy is based on Westminster sovereignty
And common sense, not a dictatorship
It is not a dictatorship, the UK government was elected with a UK wide majority, Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 on the basis of a 'once in a generation' referendum in Diamond's own words
I think we have better things to spend money on right now tbh but getting more government out of London and more of the government spend up north is clearly a good idea.
Why is the Supreme Court in London, for example?
Why wouldnt it be? You say clearly moving things out is a good idea - why? It isn't clear to me at all.
I must be the only non londoner who doesnt have a problem with major national institutions being centred in our capital and largest city.
Government departments? Sure. But parliament? The supposed benefits look iffy, and definitely so if it's only half.
Too much of our government spend is focused on London which is already the most prosperous and economically vibrant part of the country. Moving out functions with lots of well paid jobs reduces the pressure cooker of London itself and can give a boost to the region that they move to. The BBCs move of much of its functions to Manchester is a good example and the Media village that it has created has done a lot for that city. If this also creates the space for more expansion of private businesses in London to earn yet more money it really is a win win.
Having said that I take the point about Parliament itself which is why I suggested an alternative.
House of Lords to Edinburgh/Glasgow/Stirling/Dundee. Park the tanks on Nicola's lawn, and sort out who is turning up to do the job and who is turning up because it's handy for the Atheneum/Garrick.
Scottish parliament building would make a decent venue.
It's a Marxist concept which was rather suddenly embraced by the conservative party for contingent reasons in 1982. Nothing positively wrong with it, though it's more compelling in some cases than others.
From Johnson'se Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.
I don't disagree with you on this - but I recall discussions on here within the last year in which you raised the possibility of Sturgeon calling a Referendum in defiance of Westminster - and even the prospect of UDI!. I always took the view that Sturgeon would have more sense than to go down that road - and - to date - events appear to support my judgement. You no longer appear to see this as an option available to her.
If she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
From Johnson'se Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.
You and Johnson are not making it easy for me. I'm a d threat of violence, it's time to get out.
The anger and aggression is coming from the SNP side.
Quite. Boris has nothing to lose. He has a ltically they want indy, but right here right now? Hmm.
I don't disagree with you on this - but I recall discussions on here within the last year in which you raised the possibility of Sturgeon calling a Referendum in defiance of Westminster - and even the prospect of UDI!. I always took the view that Sturgeon would have more sense than to go down that road - and - to date - events appear to support my judgement. You no longer appear to see this as an option available to her.
If she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
That is what I suggested at the time - but was unaware that you agreed with my view.
From Johnson'se Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.
I don't disagree with you on this - but I recall discussions on here within the last year in which you raised the possibility of Sturgeon calling a Referendum in defiance of Westminster - and even the prospect of UDI!. I always took the view that Sturgeon would have more sense than to go down that road - and - to date - events appear to support my judgement. You no longer appear to see this as an option available to her.
If she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
From Johnson'se Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.
You and Johnson are not making it easy for me. I'm a d threat of violence, it's time to get out.
The anger and aggression is coming from the SNP side.
Quite. Boris has nothing to lose. He has a ltically they want indy, but right here right now? Hmm.
I don't disagree with you on this - but I recall discussions on here within the last year in which you raised the possibility of Sturgeon calling a Referendum in defiance of Westminster - and even the prospect of UDI!. I always took the view that Sturgeon would have more sense than to go down that road - and - to date - events appear to support my judgement. You no longer appear to see this as an option available to her.
If she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
That is what I suggested at the time - but was unaware that you agreed with my view.
There is no mandate for a second sindy referendum.
Haven’t we learned by now that a referendums should be used to sanction the opinion of a majority, not to throw up supreme constitutional questions to the flip of a coin?
You also don’t hold such referendums every five minutes.
Having said that, what on Earth is Johnson - Minister for the Union - going to do to win hearts and minds in Scotland?
I actually agree with this. Oddly, I was in favour of staying in the EU until asked the question because I knew we would never get another chance.
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
'Once in a generation' really was a stupid promise wasn't it.
'The key and original source of the comment appears to be an interview by Jeremy Paxman with then-First Minister Alex Salmond who says, in response to questioning, that it was his “view” that the question would be asked once in a generation. He also said that the circumstances under which Scotland would have another referendum are when an extra mandate for one is provided by a subsequent general election.'
Your conception of a 'promise' may be different from mine.
It is up to the UK government to decide. And the UK government has decided this change does not warrant another independence referendum.
What can the SNP do about it? Absolutely fuck all. They can, I suppose, use it to fire up grievance against Westminster, and stoke the desire of the Scots for indy, but the SNP already does that with every single possible issue, so the UK government loses nothing.
The Scots need to get a new British government if they want a new referendum. It's that simple.
I'm just saying there is a strong case for another vote asap because of the 2014 misrepresentation and subsequent material change in circumstances pertaining to EU membership.
But I agree with your summary of the hard politics - the government can and probably will refuse it.
Regardless, independence before the 20s are out is a 75% clear favourite IMO.
My guess is the next referendum will be around 2028-2030, and it will be lost again, by the SNP.
Scotland is a large part of our family and my opinion is a referendum should be granted if the SNP gain a majority in Holyrood in 2021 and request it again
However, as someone who became aware of Scots Independence in the early 1960's living in Berwick on Tweed at the time and having married a northern Scot, I remain totally convinced that Scotland will not vote for Independence for the forceable future
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
Having a majority doesn’t mean you can act like tyrants with scant regard for democracy or human rights.
Our democracy is based on Westminster sovereignty
So you are saying you are justified in abusing human rights because you have a majority? Is that what you are saying? Please be clear.
Is Boris yet sending in armed police to Scotland to arrest Sturgeon and prevent any referendum taking place as the Spanish did in Catalonia? No. So stop whinging about human rights
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
"Fine but morally its not your place to decide for them. The SNP and the Scottish Greens were already elected with a mandate to hold another Referendum."
++++
Yes it is my place, as a British citizen with a vote. As long as we are a unified country - the UK - it is the UK government, as a whole, which decides when constituent parts of it may have a referendum to secede.
This is only sensible. Otherwise the SNP Scots government could call a vote every six minutes, on any pretext, in the hope of a YES.
Similarly Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Hay-on-Wye and my mad Auntie Mable in Tooting who thinks she is the nation of Andorra. No government can allow endless votes, in various bits of the country, on whether the country should break up.
I suspect that's what Lisa Nandy was trying to say in her reference to Spain/Catalunya, tho she phrased it badly.
No, Nandy was corectly pointing out that support for Catalan independcence has fallen since the right lost power in Madrid and the new government showed it was willing to talk to the separatist parties. In fact, the PSOE?Podemos coalition was only made possible with the tacit support of ERC, the largest of the nationalist parties in Catalonia.
And ERC still want an Independence referendum in Catalonia, now they hold the balance of power over the minority Socialist Spanish government they are now arguably in a stronger position than the SNP given the comfortable UK wide Tory majority
Not sure about that. The UK has an unwritten constititution. An indy vote is in the gift of the government in the UK. It is not in Spain.
In reality it is, the Spanish Parliament can change the Spanish constitution
Actually, the Senate's consent is needed for a change to the constitution and the seats in the Senate are not controlled by the government or reflective of the seat allocations in the lower house. What's more, the constitution states that only the Spanish people, via referendum, can change Spain's geographical scope.
So as I said the Spanish Parliament can change the Spanish constitution, as the Senate is part of the Spanish Parliament, thanks for confirming.
Nice idea. Don't fully see the point/benefit. You're gifting the recipient town a few jobs, some building work, restaurant business. All good but does York need that? Also seems like you're increasing costs more then just moving them - their Lordships already have offices and a chamber in the Palace of Westminster.
It only makes sense to me if they have plans for the second chamber. For example, making the Commons into an English Parli and the Lords into the UK Parli. Which if that is planned, seems like that should be the thing that goes elsewhere. Perhaps that's it. Build it for the Lords, then use it for something else longer term.
York does not need these benefits. But there are places that do - Barrow, for instance, or Carlisle. Moving a major institution to places like these would really help them and it might teach some of our legislators a thing or two about the country they want to govern.
Moving from one metropolis to another is a PR gimmick. Moving to a place that the likes of Lady Morgan and Zac Goldsmith would not normally be seen dead in would really shake things up.
But in any case I think this is more about limiting the powers of the Lords and a distraction technique rather than a serious attempt to transfer centres of power away from London. The Tories have already rowed back from their recent suggestion to move CCHQ out of London.
It is up to the UK government to decide. And the UK government has decided this change does not warrant another independence referendum.
What can the SNP do about it? Absolutely fuck all. They can, I suppose, use it to fire up grievance against Westminster, and stoke the desire of the Scots for indy, but the SNP already does that with every single possible issue, so the UK government loses nothing.
The Scots need to get a new British government if they want a new referendum. It's that simple.
I'm just saying there is a strong case for another vote asap because of the 2014 misrepresentation and subsequent material change in circumstances pertaining to EU membership.
But I agree with your summary of the hard politics - the government can and probably will refuse it.
Regardless, independence before the 20s are out is a 75% clear favourite IMO.
My guess is the next referendum will be around 2028-2030, and it will be lost again, by the SNP.
Scotland is a large part of our family and my opinion is a referendum should be granted if the SNP gain a majority in Holyrood in 2021 and request it again
However, as someone who became aware of Scots Independence in the early 1960's living in Berwick on Tweed at the time and having married a northern Scot, I remain totally convinced that Scotland will not vote for Independence for the forceable future
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
Having a majority doesn’t mean you can act like tyrants with scant regard for democracy or human rights.
Our democracy is based on Westminster sovereignty
And common sense, not a dictatorship
It is not a dictatorship, the UK government was elected with a UK wide majority, Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 on the basis of a 'once in a generation' referendum in Diamond's own words
Sad, sad days for Broon, I remember when even PB Tories were waxing lyrical over him saving the Union, now no one cares when he makes an 'intervention'.
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
It will be politically impossible to refuse a referendum if the SNP gain a majority in next years Holyrood election
Does that still apply if there is a pro-Independence majority Greens + SNP (+ Scottish Labour?) or is that your loophole to wiggle out?
I do not need a loophole.
If there is a majority in Holyrood elected on a second referendum next year, a second referendum needs to be approved by the HOC later in 2021
In that subsequent referendum Scotland will vote to remain in the union
I agree on both points. The simple issue is that an independence referendum was supposed to be resolved for a generation so that the damage that it did is not repeated within a sensible time but if the Scottish people exercise their democratic right to vote otherwise and elect a party committed to going through that again with a majority of the electorate that majority view has to be respected. It's the same as Brexit. The vote of the people must be respected. To do otherwise is to undermine our democracy.
HY doing everything possible to encourage Scottish independence.
He has lost it this morning
As the 14th Earl of Derby almost said of General Jonathan Peel, ‘you will find him very reasonable on any question until somebody mentions a second Scottish independence referendum, whereat his eye lights up with a kind of insanity.’
But I guess we've taken this argument as far as we can.
Boris isn't likely to lose a wink of sleep over Scotland. If it stays, that's a win for the Union. If it goes, his majority increases by over 50% (+41 net on my reckoning).
How ever will he cope with either of these terrible outcomes?
Exactly this.
Johnson might nominally be the Prime Minister of the UK, but he only represents England. In fact only the nationalist part of England
That you can levy a similar accusation against Sturgeon is irrelevant. The new Conservative Party and the SNP resemble v each other much more than either is prepared to admit.
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
But in any case I think this is more about limiting the powers of the Lords and a distraction technique rather than a serious attempt to transfer centres of power away from London. The Tories have already rowed back from their recent suggestion to move CCHQ out of London.
I imagine the move is to package it with a bunch of other reforms to reduce checks on the government, make the Lords block reform of themselves, then put it in the manifesto and run on it as the government sticking up for ordinary people against the establishment, as they did with the Get Brexit Done thing.
I think we have better things to spend money on right now tbh but getting more government out of London and more of the government spend up north is clearly a good idea.
Why is the Supreme Court in London, for example?
Why wouldnt it be? You say clearly moving things out is a good idea - why? It isn't clear to me at all.
I must be the only non londoner who doesnt have a problem with major national institutions being centred in our capital and largest city.
Government departments? Sure. But parliament? The supposed benefits look iffy, and definitely so if it's only half.
Too much of our government spend is focused on London which is already the most prosperous and economically vibrant part of the country. Moving out functions with lots of well paid jobs reduces the pressure cooker of London itself and can give a boost to the region that they move to. The BBCs move of much of its functions to Manchester is a good example and the Media village that it has created has done a lot for that city. If this also creates the space for more expansion of private businesses in London to earn yet more money it really is a win win.
Having said that I take the point about Parliament itself which is why I suggested an alternative.
Yes but that is about money and not nebulous but fundamental considerations like the zeitgeist of left behind towns or Leaverstan or Scotland. Money matters. This is one problem with the idea sometimes expressed here that local authorities should combine. If council A currently spends money in town A, and council B spends money in town B, then amalgamating authorities so the new council saves money by only spending in town A is good for A but bad for town B. Sure, there might be offsetting benefits for B but there might not. No-one appears to wonder about it though. Some feel there has already been too much centralisation in Scotland in recent years.
The BBC's media city in Salford means more salaries being spent in the Manchester area, more local businesses being contracted, more opportunities for local production talent and entrepreneurs and so on. Then all these effects are multiplied by cluster effects.
Would all this follow from moving the House of Lords to York? Maybe. But whether it would make the upper house more responsive to northern concerns is far less obvious. There is no clear mechanism for it.
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
'Once in a generation' really was a stupid promise wasn't it.
'The key and original source of the comment appears to be an interview by Jeremy Paxman with then-First Minister Alex Salmond who says, in response to questioning, that it was his “view” that the question would be asked once in a generation. He also said that the circumstances under which Scotland would have another referendum are when an extra mandate for one is provided by a subsequent general election.'
Your conception of a 'promise' may be different from mine.
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
'Once in a generation' really was a stupid promise wasn't it.
'The key and original source of the comment appears to be an interview by Jeremy Paxman with then-First Minister Alex Salmond who says, in response to questioning, that it was his “view” that the question would be asked once in a generation. He also said that the circumstances under which Scotland would have another referendum are when an extra mandate for one is provided by a subsequent general election.'
Your conception of a 'promise' may be different from mine.
Putting it in their White Paper “Scotland’s Future” doesn’t count as a “promise”?
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
"Fine but morally its not your place to decide for them. The SNP and the Scottish Greens were already elected with a mandate to hold another Referendum."
++++
Yes it is my place, as a British citizen with a vote. As long as we are a unified country - the UK - it is the UK government, as a whole, which decides when constituent parts of it may have a referendum to secede.
This is only sensible. Otherwise the SNP Scots government could call a vote every six minutes, on any pretext, in the hope of a YES.
Similarly Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Hay-on-Wye and my mad Auntie Mable in Tooting who thinks she is the nation of Andorra. No government can allow endless votes, in various bits of the country, on whether the country should break up.
I suspect that's what Lisa Nandy was trying to say in her reference to Spain/Catalunya, tho she phrased it badly.
No, Nandy was corectly pointing out that support for Catalan independcence has fallen since the right lost power in Madrid and the new government showed it was willing to talk to the separatist parties. In fact, the PSOE?Podemos coalition was only made possible with the tacit support of ERC, the largest of the nationalist parties in Catalonia.
And ERC still want an Independence referendum in Catalonia, now they hold the balance of power over the minority Socialist Spanish government they are now arguably in a stronger position than the SNP given the comfortable UK wide Tory majority
Not sure about that. The UK has an unwritten constititution. An indy vote is in the gift of the government in the UK. It is not in Spain.
In reality it is, the Spanish Parliament can change the Spanish constitution
Actually, the Senate's consent is needed for a change to the constitution and the seats in the Senate are not controlled by the government or reflective of the seat allocations in the lower house. What's more, the constitution states that only the Spanish people, via referendum, can change Spain's geographical scope.
So as I said the Spanish Parliament can change the Spanish constitution, as the Senate is part of the Spanish Parliament, thanks for confirming.
That applies to referendums too
The Spanish government does not control the Spanish Parliament and cannot override the Senate. Therefore, contrary to your previous claim, an independence referendum is not in the gift of the Spanish government. I know it's hard for you to accept that people might know more about a subject than you do, but sometimes it is the case.
But in any case I think this is more about limiting the powers of the Lords and a distraction technique rather than a serious attempt to transfer centres of power away from London. The Tories have already rowed back from their recent suggestion to move CCHQ out of London.
I imagine the move is to package it with a bunch of other reforms to reduce checks on the government, make the Lords block reform of themselves, then put it in the manifesto and run on it as the government sticking up for ordinary people against the establishment, as they did with the Get Brexit Done thing.
Your comment rather makes the point that the more obvious question remains why we have a House of Lords at all. Personally, I would be looking to reduce its membership by approximately 800 and use the vacated accommodation in the Palace of Westminster to seriously beef up the committees of the House of Commons.
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit the cause of Scottish independence but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch Brexit question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU United Kindom denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause aspire to be of an organisation where laws are ultimately decided by structures in which Scotland has 6 out of 736 MEPs, not 59 out of 650. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Didn't the SNP actually put in the White Paper that one of the reasons Scotland should vote Yes, was that it could end up being dragged out of the EU by England (if Cameron won the GE and staged the Brexit referendum he was planning on having)? If that's the case, then surely by the SNP's own logic, the people of Scotland voted No even though they knew Scotland might well end up leaving the EU as a result... At the very least, the 'material change in circumstances' line probably would more a convincing argument if the prospect of Brexit had only been on the agenda after Sindyref 1. But given Cameron's Bloomberg speech in 2013, UKIP winning the EU parliament elections etc... it very much was before.
Yes I well remember Better Together highlighting the prospect of Brexit.
Didn't Davidson also argue that it was unlikely the Tories were going to win the next GE, when campaigning for Better Together? But I don't recall anyone from the No campaign *promising* that Scotland would remain in the EU for the foreseeable future, or that Ed would become PM... even though the likelihood of these things happening were used as arguments to vote No.
"Fine but morally its not your place to decide for them. The SNP and the Scottish Greens were already elected with a mandate to hold another Referendum."
++++
Yes it is my place, as a British citizen with a vote. As long as we are a unified country - the UK - it is the UK government, as a whole, which decides when constituent up.
I suspect that's what Lisa Nandy was trying to say in her reference to Spain/Catalunya, tho she phrased it badly.
No, Nandy was corectly pointing out that support s in Catalonia.
And ERC still want an Independence referendum in Catalonia, now they hold the balance of power over the minority Socialist Spanish government they are now arguably in a stronger position than the SNP given the comfortable UK wide Tory majority
Not sure about that. The UK has an unwritten constititution. An indy vote is in the gift of the government in the UK. It is not in Spain.
In reality it is, the Spanish Parliament can change the Spanish constitution
Actually, the Senate's consent is needed for a change to the constitution and the seats in the Senate are not controlled by the government or reflective of the seat allocations in the lower house. What's more, the constitution states that only the Spanish people, via referendum, can change Spain's geographical scope.
So as I said the Spanish Parliament can change the Spanish constitution, as the Senate is part of the Spanish Parliament, thanks for confirming.
That applies to referendums too
The Spanish government does not control the Spanish Parliament and cannot override the Senate. Therefore, contrary to your previous claim, an independence referendum is not in the gift of the Spanish government. I know it's hard for you to accept that people might know more about a subject than you do, but sometimes it is the case.
I said the Spanish Parliament controls the Spanish constitution, that stands absolutely.
The Catalan nationalists already have the balance of power in the Lower House, they just need to persuade the Senate.
They are in a stronger position than when the PP had a majority in the Lower House and imposed direct rule on Catalonia to prevent an Independence referendum and UDI declaration
HY doing everything possible to encourage Scottish independence.
HYUFD, like the rest of us, is a random dude on the internet, but he does appear to have insight into the way Johnson thinks and acts.
Whether Johnson will actually send in the troops remains to be seen, but he doesn't seem interested in addressing any Scottish issue or concern. Other thinking Tories (they do exist) reckon this is playing with fire.
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
It will be politically impossible to refuse a referendum if the SNP gain a majority in next years Holyrood election
Does that still apply if there is a pro-Independence majority Greens + SNP (+ Scottish Labour?) or is that your loophole to wiggle out?
I do not need a loophole.
If there is a majority in Holyrood elected on a second referendum next year, a second referendum needs to be approved by the HOC later in 2021
In that subsequent referendum Scotland will vote to remain in the union
I agree on both points. The simple issue is that an independence referendum was supposed to be resolved for a generation so that the damage that it did is not repeated within a sensible time but if the Scottish people exercise their democratic right to vote otherwise and elect a party committed to going through that again with a majority of the electorate that majority view has to be respected. It's the same as Brexit. The vote of the people must be respected. To do otherwise is to undermine our democracy.
The British government is about to play hardball. And say no to a vote even if the SNP wins Holyrood next year. It’s obvious.
Will that fire up a majority for INDY? Maybe. But if it does it means there is no majority for London rule in Scotland, so the Union is lost anyway.
The Tories are betting that 5 years into Brexit, quitting the UK to join the EU will look much much harder than it does now. They are right.
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
But in any case I think this is more about limiting the powers of the Lords and a distraction technique rather than a serious attempt to transfer centres of power away from London. The Tories have already rowed back from their recent suggestion to move CCHQ out of London.
I imagine the move is to package it with a bunch of other reforms to reduce checks on the government, make the Lords block reform of themselves, then put it in the manifesto and run on it as the government sticking up for ordinary people against the establishment, as they did with the Get Brexit Done thing.
Your comment rather makes the point that the more obvious question remains why we have a House of Lords at all. Personally, I would be looking to reduce its membership by approximately 800 and use the vacated accommodation in the Palace of Westminster to seriously beef up the committees of the House of Commons.
Number 10, especially under Boris but probably under most prime ministers, has no interest in boosting Commons committees or any other measures to enhance accountability of or control over the executive.
I think we have better things to spend money on right now tbh but getting more government out of London and more of the government spend up north is clearly a good idea.
Why is the Supreme Court in London, for example?
Why wouldnt it be? You say clearly moving things out is a good idea - why? It isn't clear to me at all.
I must be the only non londoner who doesnt have a problem with major national institutions being centred in our capital and largest city.
Government departments? Sure. But parliament? The supposed benefits look iffy, and definitely so if it's only half.
Too much of our government spend is focused on London which is already the most prosperous and economically vibrant part of the country. Moving out functions with lots of well paid jobs reduces the pressure cooker of London itself and can give a boost to the region that they move to. The BBCs move of much of its functions to Manchester is a good example and the Media village that it has created has done a lot for that city. If this also creates the space for more expansion of private businesses in London to earn yet more money it really is a win win.
Having said that I take the point about Parliament itself which is why I suggested an alternative.
Yes but that is about money and not nebulous but fundamental considerations like the zeitgeist of left behind towns or Leaverstan or Scotland. Money matters. This is one problem with the idea sometimes expressed here that local authorities should combine. If council A currently spends money in town A, and council B spends money in town B, then amalgamating authorities so the new council saves money by only spending in town A is good for A but bad for town B. Sure, there might be offsetting benefits for B but there might not. No-one appears to wonder about it though. Some feel there has already been too much centralisation in Scotland in recent years.
The BBC's media city in Salford means more salaries being spent in the Manchester area, more local businesses being contracted, more opportunities for local production talent and entrepreneurs and so on. Then all these effects are multiplied by cluster effects.
Would all this follow from moving the House of Lords to York? Maybe. But whether it would make the upper house more responsive to northern concerns is far less obvious. There is no clear mechanism for it.
I would abolish the Lords altogether but moving the Supreme Court to York would give a boost to the local economy bringing in many Chambers and solicitors firms as well as directly employed employees.
A point I find interesting re Scottish independence -
Ripping them out of the EU makes the case for it stronger yet at the same time the task of achieving it without damage and disruption more daunting.
It is rather fiendish in this respect. To offer a lurid and borderline offensive analogy, it is as though the domineering husband, faced with demands from his wife that they talk seriously about separation, has chosen instead to lock her in the basement.
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
Your response to Justin talking about UDI or a referendum without Westminster permission was to suspend Holyrood. As we’ve discovered Boris can’t do that in a timely manner. You’re going round in circles.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit the cause of Scottish independence but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch Brexit question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU United Kindom denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause aspire to be of an organisation where laws are ultimately decided by structures in which Scotland has 6 out of 736 MEPs, not 59 out of 650. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
The out of the UK into the EU faction, which seems to be in the overwhelming majority, makes no sense.
I believe that England's vote to leave the EU should be respected. I believe Scotland should be allowed to decide if it wants another vote on membership of the UK. I believe in an indy Scotland, if there's a demand for it, that there should be a vote on EU membership and/or a return to the UK. What about you?
I used to have a lot of respect for Sillars (I spent a day campaigning with him before the 2014 indy ref) but now it just seems that he'll take one of his aspirations (Scotland being out of the EU) at the cost of what should be the superior principle, that people in Scotland should be able to decide their own future.
HYUFD is in one of his periodic tankie moods. The reality, as Big G and David L have patiently explained, is that if the SNP (plus Greens) make a second referendum front and centre of their 2021 campaign and are returned with a majority at Holyrood, it will be granted by the UK government. Timing would be negotiated but probably sometime in 2022 would be my guess.
Naturally, I'd prefer the SNP to lose in which case problem solved.
Anyway, as this is political betting, how about £100 with HYUFD that he is wrong on this one?
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit the cause of Scottish independence but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch Brexit question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU United Kindom denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause aspire to be of an organisation where laws are ultimately decided by structures in which Scotland has 6 out of 736 MEPs, not 59 out of 650. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
The out of the UK into the EU faction, which seems to be in the overwhelming majority, makes no sense.
I believe that England's vote to leave the EU should be respected. I believe Scotland should be allowed to decide if it wants another vote on membership of the UK. I believe in an indy Scotland, if there's a demand for it, there should be a vote on EU membership and/or a return to the UK. What about you?
I used to have a lot of respect for Sillars (I spent a day campaigning with him before the 2014 indy ref) but now it just seems he'll take one of his aspirations (Scotland being out of the EU) at the cost of what should be the superior principle, that people in Scotland should be able to decide their own future.
Your argument is rendered utterly preposterous by the fact you were pro-YES in 2014, a YES vote which, if it had won, would have instantly torn Scotland out of the EU, with no quick and obvious route back. Like the other Nats, you prefer to ignore this, and hope no one else notices. And now you say you’re ‘anti-Brexit’.
HYUFD is in one of his periodic tankie moods. The reality, as Big G and David L have patiently explained, is that if the SNP (plus Greens) make a second referendum front and centre of their 2021 campaign and are returned with a majority at Holyrood, it will be granted by the UK government. Timing would be negotiated but probably sometime in 2022 would be my guess.
Naturally, I'd prefer the SNP to lose in which case problem solved.
Anyway, as this is political betting, how about £100 with HYUFD that he is wrong on this one?
I will happily hand HYUFD 10 euros as he rolls past my house on top of his Challenger 2 if Boris does intend to quash a rebellion.
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
It will be politically impossible to refuse a referendum if the SNP gain a majority in next years Holyrood election
Does that still apply if there is a pro-Independence majority Greens + SNP (+ Scottish Labour?) or is that your loophole to wiggle out?
I do not need a loophole.
If there is a majority in Holyrood elected on a second referendum next year, a second referendum needs to be approved by the HOC later in 2021
In that subsequent referendum Scotland will vote to remain in the union
I agree on both points. The simple issue is that an independence referendum was supposed to be resolved for a generation so that the damage that it did is not repeated within a sensible time but if the Scottish people exercise their democratic right to vote otherwise and elect a party committed to going through that again with a majority of the electorate that majority view has to be respected. It's the same as Brexit. The vote of the people must be respected. To do otherwise is to undermine our democracy.
The British government is about to play hardball. And say no to a vote even if the SNP wins Holyrood next year. It’s obvious.
Will that fire up a majority for INDY? Maybe. But if it does it means there is no majority for London rule in Scotland, so the Union is lost anyway.
The Tories are betting that 5 years into Brexit, quitting the UK to join the EU will look much much harder than it does now. They are right.
If that's what Tories are betting, I am nearly sure they're wrong. If Brexit turns out a total disaster and there's a move to mitigate it, maybe that would act as a stark warning. If Brexit turns out ordinarily mediocre and Tories are crowing about it (like they're doing now), it just becomes Project Fear. Most Scots want their country to take its rightful place amongst the nations of Europe. Not many want Johnson and his brand of English nationalism.
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit the cause of Scottish independence but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch Brexit question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU United Kindom denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause aspire to be of an organisation where laws are ultimately decided by structures in which Scotland has 6 out of 736 MEPs, not 59 out of 650. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
The out of the UK into the EU faction, which seems to be in the overwhelming majority, makes no sense.
I believe that England's vote to leave the EU should be respected. I believe Scotland should be allowed to decide if it wants another vote on membership of the UK. I believe in an indy Scotland, if there's a demand for it, there should be a vote on EU membership and/or a return to the UK. What about you?
I used to have a lot of respect for Sillars (I spent a day campaigning with him before the 2014 indy ref) but now it just seems he'll take one of his aspirations (Scotland being out of the EU) at the cost of what should be the superior principle, that people in Scotland should be able to decide their own future.
Your argument is rendered utterly preposterous by the fact you were pro-YES in 2014, a YES vote which, if it had won, would have instantly torn Scotland out of the EU, with no quick and obvious route back. Like the other Nats, you prefer to ignore this, and hope no one else notices. And now you say you’re ‘anti-Brexit’.
Ludicrous. And insulting.
Well, if it's insulted an underpant model with no vote or influence in Scotland, my day has not been entirely wasted
It was the Labour policy at the general election to give Scotland another independence referendum if Labour won the general election and the SNP won the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Holyrood then voted for indyref2.
However the Tories won the general election with a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term whatever the circumstances
It will be politically impossible to refuse a referendum if the SNP gain a majority in next years Holyrood election
Does that still apply if there is a pro-Independence majority Greens + SNP (+ Scottish Labour?) or is that your loophole to wiggle out?
I do not need a loophole.
If there is a majority in Holyrood elected on a second referendum next year, a second referendum needs to be approved by the HOC later in 2021
In that subsequent referendum Scotland will vote to remain in the union
I agree on both points. The simple issue is that an independence referendum was supposed to be resolved for a generation so that the damage that it did is not repeated within a sensible time but if the Scottish people exercise their democratic right to vote otherwise and elect a party committed to going through that again with a majority of the electorate that majority view has to be respected. It's the same as Brexit. The vote of the people must be respected. To do otherwise is to undermine our democracy.
The British government is about to play hardball. And say no to a vote even if the SNP wins Holyrood next year. It’s obvious.
Will that fire up a majority for INDY? Maybe. But if it does it means there is no majority for London rule in Scotland, so the Union is lost anyway.
The Tories are betting that 5 years into Brexit, quitting the UK to join the EU will look much much harder than it does now. They are right.
If that's what Tories are betting, I am nearly sure they're wrong. If Brexit turns out to be a total disaster and there's a move to mitigate it, maybe. If Brexit turns out ordinarily mediocre and Tories are crowing about it (like they're doing now), it just becomes Project Fear. Most Scots want their country to take its rightful place amongst the nations of Europe. Not many want Johnson and his brand of English nationalism.
Except that most polls show that most Scots, still, prefer to stay in the UK. Otherwise, good point
@Byronic if the polls show that most Scots would prefer to stay in the UK then why are you frit?
Because referendums are fucking risky and unpredictable. Surely that is one thing we have ALL learned from 2016?
I believe Scots will vote NO whenever the next indyref is called, but I am I sure? Of course not. It’s a risk. Why take that risk if there’s a good moral argument for denying a vote until the next generation arrives (as the SNP promised)
SNP arguments about the EU are specious crap, as I have pointed out, given that a YES vote in 2014 would have immediately expelled Scotland from the EU.
Boris had two choices only from a Tory viewpoint: Go for IndyRef2 pretty much right now, following the December election, or close the door firmly. I slightly wish he had dared the first and try to kill the whole thing, keeping the timing in his hands, but there is a good case for door closing too. As long as he sticks to it come what may.
HYUFD is in one of his periodic tankie moods. The reality, as Big G and David L have patiently explained, is that if the SNP (plus Greens) make a second referendum front and centre of their 2021 campaign and are returned with a majority at Holyrood, it will be granted by the UK government. Timing would be negotiated but probably sometime in 2022 would be my guess.
Naturally, I'd prefer the SNP to lose in which case problem solved.
Anyway, as this is political betting, how about £100 with HYUFD that he is wrong on this one?
No it would not.
The Tory manifesto was quite clear a Tory government would not grant indyref2 as the first one was 'once in a generation' and both Alister Jack and Therese Coffey have confirmed the PM and Cabinet have agreed that applies even with another nationalist majority at Holyrood.
There is nothing to bet about, that is the policy of the Tory government as set out in its 2019 manifesto
The British government is about to play hardball. And say no to a vote even if the SNP wins Holyrood next year. It’s obvious.
Will that fire up a majority for INDY? Maybe. But if it does it means there is no majority for London rule in Scotland, so the Union is lost anyway.
The Tories are betting that 5 years into Brexit, quitting the UK to join the EU will look much much harder than it does now. They are right.
If that's what Tories are betting, I am nearly sure they're wrong. If Brexit turns out to be a total disaster and there's a move to mitigate it, maybe. If Brexit turns out ordinarily mediocre and Tories are crowing about it (like they're doing now), it just becomes Project Fear. Most Scots want their country to take its rightful place amongst the nations of Europe. Not many want Johnson and his brand of English nationalism.
Except that most polls show that most Scots, still, prefer to stay in the UK. Otherwise, good point
In which case there's no danger in Johnson holding a second independence referendum. Except there is, and Johnson is aware of it.
He doesn't have to concede another referendum every ten minutes. He can say to the Scottish government, I don't agree with this referendum, but recognising Scotland voted to remain in the EU, if YOU wish to hold a referendum in that one circumstance only, you may, within the next two years, or whatever
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
Your response to Justin talking about UDI or a referendum without Westminster permission was to suspend Holyrood. As we’ve discovered Boris can’t do that in a timely manner. You’re going round in circles.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
You can refuse consent to indyref2 or UDI until the legislation for direct rule is passed
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
HYUFD is in one of his periodic tankie moods. The reality, as Big G and David L have patiently explained, is that if the SNP (plus Greens) make a second referendum front and centre of their 2021 campaign and are returned with a majority at Holyrood, it will be granted by the UK government. Timing would be negotiated but probably sometime in 2022 would be my guess.
Naturally, I'd prefer the SNP to lose in which case problem solved.
Anyway, as this is political betting, how about £100 with HYUFD that he is wrong on this one?
No it would not.
The Tory manifesto was quite clear a Tory government would not grant indyref2 as the first one was 'once in a generation' and both Alister Jack and Therese Coffey have confirmed the PM and Cabinet have agreed that applies even with another nationalist majority at Holyrood.
There is nothing to bet about, that is the policy of the Tory government as set out in its 2019 manifesto
Just like there wont be a border in the Irish Sea?
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
Your response to Justin talking about UDI or a referendum without Westminster permission was to suspend Holyrood. As we’ve discovered Boris can’t do that in a timely manner. You’re going round in circles.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
You can refuse consent to indyref2 or UDI until the legislation for direct rule is passed
You do realise the nature of a UDI or indyref2 without consent is that consent is not required?
The British government is about to play hardball. And say no to a vote even if the SNP wins Holyrood next year. It’s obvious.
Will that fire up a majority for INDY? Maybe. But if it does it means there is no majority for London rule in Scotland, so the Union is lost anyway.
The Tories are betting that 5 years into Brexit, quitting the UK to join the EU will look much much harder than it does now. They are right.
If that's what Tories are betting, I am nearly sure they're wrong. If Brexit turns out to be a total disaster and there's a move to mitigate it, maybe. If Brexit turns out ordinarily mediocre and Tories are crowing about it (like they're doing now), it just becomes Project Fear. Most Scots want their country to take its rightful place amongst the nations of Europe. Not many want Johnson and his brand of English nationalism.
Except that most polls show that most Scots, still, prefer to stay in the UK. Otherwise, good point
In which case there's no danger in Johnson holding a second independence referendum. Except there is, and Johnson is aware of it.
He doesn't have to concede another referendum every ten minutes. He can say to the Scottish government, I don't agree with this referendum, but recognising Scotland voted to remain in the EU, if YOU wish to hold a referendum in that one circumstance only, you may, within the next two years, or whatever
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
Your response to Justin talking about UDI or a referendum without Westminster permission was to suspend Holyrood. As we’ve discovered Boris can’t do that in a timely manner. You’re going round in circles.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
You can refuse consent to indyref2 or UDI until the legislation for direct rule is passed
You do realise the nature of a UDI or indyref2 without consent is that consent is not required?
Scotland is not going to declare UDI, any more than Boris is gonna send the SAS into Glasgae. Get a grip
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
Your response to Justin talking about UDI or a referendum without Westminster permission was to suspend Holyrood. As we’ve discovered Boris can’t do that in a timely manner. You’re going round in circles.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
You can refuse consent to indyref2 or UDI until the legislation for direct rule is passed
You do realise the nature of a UDI or indyref2 without consent is that consent is not required?
Of course it is as Westminster would refuse to recognise it, continue to legislate for Scotland and once the legislation has passed Parliament (using the Parliament Act if the Lords are difficult) formally suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
HYUFD is in one of his periodic tankie moods. The reality, as Big G and David L have patiently explained, is that if the SNP (plus Greens) make a second referendum front and centre of their 2021 campaign and are returned with a majority at Holyrood, it will be granted by the UK government. Timing would be negotiated but probably sometime in 2022 would be my guess.
Naturally, I'd prefer the SNP to lose in which case problem solved.
Anyway, as this is political betting, how about £100 with HYUFD that he is wrong on this one?
No it would not.
The Tory manifesto was quite clear a Tory government would not grant indyref2 as the first one was 'once in a generation' and both Alister Jack and Therese Coffey have confirmed the PM and Cabinet have agreed that applies even with another nationalist majority at Holyrood.
There is nothing to bet about, that is the policy of the Tory government as set out in its 2019 manifesto
Just like there wont be a border in the Irish Sea?
No winning manifesto commitment for avoiding that and it protects the GFA, Northern Ireland also is technically leaving the EU
HYUFD is in one of his periodic tankie moods. The reality, as Big G and David L have patiently explained, is that if the SNP (plus Greens) make a second referendum front and centre of their 2021 campaign and are returned with a majority at Holyrood, it will be granted by the UK government. Timing would be negotiated but probably sometime in 2022 would be my guess.
Naturally, I'd prefer the SNP to lose in which case problem solved.
Anyway, as this is political betting, how about £100 with HYUFD that he is wrong on this one?
No it would not.
The Tory manifesto was quite clear a Tory government would not grant indyref2 as the first one was 'once in a generation' and both Alister Jack and Therese Coffey have confirmed the PM and Cabinet have agreed that applies even with another nationalist majority at Holyrood.
There is nothing to bet about, that is the policy of the Tory government as set out in its 2019 manifesto
Just like there wont be a border in the Irish Sea?
No winning manifesto commitment for avoiding that and it protects the GFA, Northern Ireland also is technically leaving the EU
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
Your response to Justin talking about UDI or a referendum without Westminster permission was to suspend Holyrood. As we’ve discovered Boris can’t do that in a timely manner. You’re going round in circles.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
You can refuse consent to indyref2 or UDI until the legislation for direct rule is passed
You do realise the nature of a UDI or indyref2 without consent is that consent is not required?
Scotland is not going to declare UDI, any more than Boris is gonna send the SAS into Glasgae. Get a grip
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
Your response to Justin talking about UDI or a referendum without Westminster permission was to suspend Holyrood. As we’ve discovered Boris can’t do that in a timely manner. You’re going round in circles.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
You can refuse consent to indyref2 or UDI until the legislation for direct rule is passed
You do realise the nature of a UDI or indyref2 without consent is that consent is not required?
Scotland is not going to declare UDI, any more than Boris is gonna send the SAS into Glasgae. Get a grip
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
On the contrary, they reinforce norms that "piccaninnies", "bumboys", "gender identity blah blah", and above all non-English people are people worthy of disdain. The norms they challenge are few, institutional and democratic ones, but the democratic veneer of the UK is thin. Citizenship is revoked by majority ballot; Parliament is suspended by an untested minority government; the media bray and cheer; life goes on.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
she did Boris would just suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule
He can’t do that. Read the Scotland Act. Namely this section:
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
The Tories have a majority, they can amend the Scotland Act if needed
Good luck with that. Literally the stupidest thing they could do.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The Parliament Act can be used if needed to overrule the Lords
Yeah. With a 1 year delay.
So what, Westminster consent is needed for any Scottish referendum or independence declaration in the meantime which would not be granted
Your response to Justin talking about UDI or a referendum without Westminster permission was to suspend Holyrood. As we’ve discovered Boris can’t do that in a timely manner. You’re going round in circles.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
You can refuse consent to indyref2 or UDI until the legislation for direct rule is passed
You do realise the nature of a UDI or indyref2 without consent is that consent is not required?
Scotland is not going to declare UDI, any more than Boris is gonna send the SAS into Glasgae. Get a grip
He’d be mad to do that.
For a start, they’d be massacred.
Not in the Glasgow Rangers, Orange Order part they would not, in fact they would join them!
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
On the contrary, they reinforce norms that "piccaninnies", "bumboys", "gender identity blah blah", and above all non-English people are people worthy of disdain. The norms they challenge are few, institutional and democratic ones, but the democratic veneer of the UK is thin. Citizenship is revoked by majority ballot; Parliament is suspended by an untested minority government; the media bray and cheer; life goes on.
Who has had their citizenship revoked by majority ballot? That would be quite an extraordinary event im sure i would have heard about it.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
Of course it won't happen. Boris's mates in the Lords aren't going to give up the closeness to Whites and the pad in Chelsea to relocate to Yorkshire of all places. Get a grip. The likes of Cummings come and go. The serious players, whose palms Boris needs to grease to continue the life he's accustomed to when he ceases to be PM, will have a quite word in his shell-like. I doubt this 'proposal' will ever be heard of again.
There is no mandate for a second sindy referendum.
Haven’t we learned by now that a referendums should be used to sanction the opinion of a majority, not to throw up supreme constitutional questions to the flip of a coin?
You also don’t hold such referendums every five minutes.
Having said that, what on Earth is Johnson - Minister for the Union - going to do to win hearts and minds in Scotland?
Something tangible has changed since the last Scottish Independence referendum though, namely a referendum on the UK's EU membership where Scotland voted to stay but have to Leave, so I think that is a mandate and it is fair enough to have another go at it ; Would they rather be an Independent Nation that is a member of the EU, or part of the UK outside of the EU?
Corbyn nominates for the H/L a man who faces allegations of bullying his former staff and a woman under investigation for anti-semitism oh and the nonce finder general. Way to go JC!
Resignation honours are about looking after loyal friends and allies - that's just a fact, if you look at past ones. I'd have liked to see him nominate Seumas Milne too, if only to enjoy the fuss. But anyway Boris should have nominated Bercow hiself - the breach of precedent is undesirable, becuase it implies the Speakers need to please the Government of the day in order to receive the normal honos on retirement.
Even allies with serious allegations against them - both RLB and Philips have already come out against Bercow.
Quite striking on here that Unionists in Scotland at least largely (not sure about Luckyguy1983) accept the principle of Scotland deciding whether it should have another referendum, whereas all the ultras live in distant places.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
All these are cases where some unquantified share of people under-estimated his popularity, not cases where he took a risk with potential wide range of outcomes. For example, trying to win elections is not taking a risk. The two types of behaviour are qualitatively different and it means risk-taker is the wrong perspective to apply. Ambitious, go with the flow, media charm is a better description.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
There is no mandate for a second sindy referendum.
Haven’t we learned by now that a referendums should be used to sanction the opinion of a majority, not to throw up supreme constitutional questions to the flip of a coin?
You also don’t hold such referendums every five minutes.
Having said that, what on Earth is Johnson - Minister for the Union - going to do to win hearts and minds in Scotland?
Something tangible has changed since the last Scottish Independence referendum though, namely a referendum on the UK's EU membership where Scotland voted to stay but have to Leave, so I think that is a mandate and it is fair enough to have another go at it ; Would they rather be an Independent Nation that is a member of the EU, or part of the UK outside of the EU?
The problem is the first isn’t strictly speaking on offer. They would have to become first an independent nation outside the UK *and* the EU, as before. From that point of view the dynamic would not have changed. Which would definitely be a suboptimal situation economically for Scotland.
In five years, they might be able to accede to the EU. But it would feel a very long five years with brutal austerity and difficulties establishing trading links.
The question therefore, is whether it would be worth it to gain independence? In 2014 the answer was no. Perhaps there has been a change of heart, perhaps not. But the fundamentals haven’t really changed.
Yes it is my place, as a British citizen with a vote. As long as we are a unified country - the UK - it is the UK government, as a whole, which decides when constituent parts of it may have a referendum to secede.
This is only sensible. Otherwise the SNP Scots government could call a vote every six minutes, on any pretext, in the hope of a YES.
Similarly Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Hay-on-Wye and my mad Auntie Mable in Tooting who thinks she is the nation of Andorra. No government can allow endless votes, in various bits of the country, on whether the country should break up.
I suspect that's what Lisa Nandy was trying to say in her reference to Spain/Catalunya, tho she phrased it badly.
No, Nandy was corectly pointing out that support for Catalan independcence has fallen since the right lost power in Madrid and the new government showed it was willing to talk to the separatist parties. In fact, the PSOE?Podemos coalition was only made possible with the tacit support of ERC, the largest of the nationalist parties in Catalonia.
And ERC still want an Independence referendum in Catalonia, now they hold the balance of power over the minority Socialist Spanish government they are now arguably in a stronger position than the SNP given the comfortable UK wide Tory majority
Not sure about that. The UK has an unwritten constititution. An indy vote is in the gift of the government in the UK. It is not in Spain.
In reality it is, the Spanish Parliament can change the Spanish constitution
Actually, the Senate's consent is needed for a change to the constitution and the seats in the Senate are not controlled by the government or reflective of the seat allocations in the lower house. What's more, the constitution states that only the Spanish people, via referendum, can change Spain's geographical scope.
So as I said the Spanish Parliament can change the Spanish constitution, as the Senate is part of the Spanish Parliament, thanks for confirming.
That applies to referendums too
The Spanish government does not control the Spanish Parliament and cannot override the Senate. Therefore, contrary to your previous claim, an independence referendum is not in the gift of the Spanish government. I know it's hard for you to accept that people might know more about a subject than you do, but sometimes it is the case.
Both Houses currently have effective PSOE majorities.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
Unlike at the bookies, when you gamble in politics losing is often fatal. Dave gambled with the EU referendum. When he lost there was no second chance.
I'm not too bothered about the House of Lords in York - had history developed differently, York might have been England's capital. Norwich was once England's second city.
Not quite sure how the State Opening would work if the Commons was in London and the Lords in York - would we see Black Rod walk to York Station, get on a train to London, tube to Westminster and then drag the MPs back up the line? Might be a bit long-winded and 643 MPs would fill a train.
My only thought on matters Scottish is to ask IF Boris Johnson would offer the SNP a referendum as a price for C&S in a future Parliament? I'll assume the Tory activists on here will say no but as we know circumstances can quickly lead to policy changes.
FWIW, I do think a Starmer-led Labour party would be in a stronger position to collaborate with the SNP, LDs and others to forge an anti-Conservative majority but we'll see.
Other thoughts - I'd love to know if there are any statistics for sickness currently - everyone I know seems to have been ill since Christmas with a persistent cold/chesty cough or worse. Damn this ludicrous mild winter - 14 days of severe cold would deal with these germs.I'd also be interested to know if there has been any change in the mortality numbers.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
Unlike at the bookies, when you gamble in politics losing is often fatal. Dave gambled with the EU referendum. When he lost there was no second chance.
He gambled on offering one and won a majority at the 2015 election on the back of it in all likelyhood
In Italy, the steady decline of Lega continues as they reach 30% in the latest Bidi Poll. The rise of Giorgia Meloni's FdL continues as they reach 10% (11% in other polls) with the Social Democrats on 19% and M5 on 16%.
A fascinating poll from Ireland showing Fianna Fail opening a 12-point lead over Fine Gael (32-20). SF a close third on 19% and the Greens on 7%. If this turns out to be accurate, it would be a disastrous error by Varadkar and he would be gone with Michael Martin taking over as Taoiseach.
The latest Kantar poll in Germany has the CDU/CSU on 26%, the Greens on 21%, the SPD on 15%, AfD on 14% and both the FDP and Linke on 9%. I suppose the question is whether, as in Austria, a coalition between the centre-right and the Greens will be the outcome of the next federal election.
The Union is down 7%, the SPD down 6% and the Greens up 12% from the last Bundestag election.
An interesting and accurate take on Boris from Michael Martin and it will be interesting to see how an FF-led Government will react to the coming exit of Britain from the EU and the new trading position this will cause.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
Comments
As a conservative there are times your comments make me ashamed to think we are in the same party
HY doing everything possible to encourage Scottish independence.
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”
You gonna send the tank battalions?
https://twitter.com/UK_Together/status/506899714923843584?s=20
Having said that I take the point about Parliament itself which is why I suggested an alternative.
Scottish parliament building would make a decent venue.
He also said that the circumstances under which Scotland would have another referendum are when an extra mandate for one is provided by a subsequent general election.'
Your conception of a 'promise' may be different from mine.
That applies to referendums too
Moving from one metropolis to another is a PR gimmick. Moving to a place that the likes of Lady Morgan and Zac Goldsmith would not normally be seen dead in would really shake things up.
But in any case I think this is more about limiting the powers of the Lords and a distraction technique rather than a serious attempt to transfer centres of power away from London. The Tories have already rowed back from their recent suggestion to move CCHQ out of London.
https://twitter.com/naebD/status/1218864967048486912?s=20
The Great Gigha in the Skye
Johnson might nominally be the Prime Minister of the UK, but he only represents England. In fact only the nationalist part of England
That you can levy a similar accusation against Sturgeon is irrelevant. The new Conservative Party and the SNP resemble v each other much more than either is prepared to admit.
I can’t imagine the House of Lords would be accommodating.
The BBC's media city in Salford means more salaries being spent in the Manchester area, more local businesses being contracted, more opportunities for local production talent and entrepreneurs and so on. Then all these effects are multiplied by cluster effects.
Would all this follow from moving the House of Lords to York? Maybe. But whether it would make the upper house more responsive to northern concerns is far less obvious. There is no clear mechanism for it.
The out of the UK into the EU faction, which seems to be in the overwhelming majority, makes no sense.
The Catalan nationalists already have the balance of power in the Lower House, they just need to persuade the Senate.
They are in a stronger position than when the PP had a majority in the Lower House and imposed direct rule on Catalonia to prevent an Independence referendum and UDI declaration
Whether Johnson will actually send in the troops remains to be seen, but he doesn't seem interested in addressing any Scottish issue or concern. Other thinking Tories (they do exist) reckon this is playing with fire.
Will that fire up a majority for INDY? Maybe. But if it does it means there is no majority for London rule in Scotland, so the Union is lost anyway.
The Tories are betting that 5 years into Brexit, quitting the UK to join the EU will look much much harder than it does now. They are right.
Ripping them out of the EU makes the case for it stronger yet at the same time the task of achieving it without damage and disruption more daunting.
It is rather fiendish in this respect. To offer a lurid and borderline offensive analogy, it is as though the domineering husband, faced with demands from his wife that they talk seriously about separation, has chosen instead to lock her in the basement.
You’re just exposing yourself as the tyrant you really are. The very class of people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
I used to have a lot of respect for Sillars (I spent a day campaigning with him before the 2014 indy ref) but now it just seems that he'll take one of his aspirations (Scotland being out of the EU) at the cost of what should be the superior principle, that people in Scotland should be able to decide their own future.
Naturally, I'd prefer the SNP to lose in which case problem solved.
Anyway, as this is political betting, how about £100 with HYUFD that he is wrong on this one?
Ludicrous. And insulting.
I believe Scots will vote NO whenever the next indyref is called, but I am I sure? Of course not. It’s a risk. Why take that risk if there’s a good moral argument for denying a vote until the next generation arrives (as the SNP promised)
SNP arguments about the EU are specious crap, as I have pointed out, given that a YES vote in 2014 would have immediately expelled Scotland from the EU.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18159096.fact-check-claim-snp-vowed-indyref-once-lifetime-opportunity/
At least they have the good grace not to pretend it was an off-the-cuff remark in a TV interview....
The Tory manifesto was quite clear a Tory government would not grant indyref2 as the first one was 'once in a generation' and both Alister Jack and Therese Coffey have confirmed the PM and Cabinet have agreed that applies even with another nationalist majority at Holyrood.
There is nothing to bet about, that is the policy of the Tory government as set out in its 2019 manifesto
He doesn't have to concede another referendum every ten minutes. He can say to the Scottish government, I don't agree with this referendum, but recognising Scotland voted to remain in the EU, if YOU wish to hold a referendum in that one circumstance only, you may, within the next two years, or whatever
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
Or he may not do that. Whatever. Yawn
For a start, they’d be massacred.
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
In five years, they might be able to accede to the EU. But it would feel a very long five years with brutal austerity and difficulties establishing trading links.
The question therefore, is whether it would be worth it to gain independence? In 2014 the answer was no. Perhaps there has been a change of heart, perhaps not. But the fundamentals haven’t really changed.
https://twitter.com/raphaeldogg/status/1218860933646364673?s=20
I'm not too bothered about the House of Lords in York - had history developed differently, York might have been England's capital. Norwich was once England's second city.
Not quite sure how the State Opening would work if the Commons was in London and the Lords in York - would we see Black Rod walk to York Station, get on a train to London, tube to Westminster and then drag the MPs back up the line? Might be a bit long-winded and 643 MPs would fill a train.
My only thought on matters Scottish is to ask IF Boris Johnson would offer the SNP a referendum as a price for C&S in a future Parliament? I'll assume the Tory activists on here will say no but as we know circumstances can quickly lead to policy changes.
FWIW, I do think a Starmer-led Labour party would be in a stronger position to collaborate with the SNP, LDs and others to forge an anti-Conservative majority but we'll see.
Other thoughts - I'd love to know if there are any statistics for sickness currently - everyone I know seems to have been ill since Christmas with a persistent cold/chesty cough or worse. Damn this ludicrous mild winter - 14 days of severe cold would deal with these germs.I'd also be interested to know if there has been any change in the mortality numbers.
In Italy, the steady decline of Lega continues as they reach 30% in the latest Bidi Poll. The rise of Giorgia Meloni's FdL continues as they reach 10% (11% in other polls) with the Social Democrats on 19% and M5 on 16%.
A fascinating poll from Ireland showing Fianna Fail opening a 12-point lead over Fine Gael (32-20). SF a close third on 19% and the Greens on 7%. If this turns out to be accurate, it would be a disastrous error by Varadkar and he would be gone with Michael Martin taking over as Taoiseach.
The latest Kantar poll in Germany has the CDU/CSU on 26%, the Greens on 21%, the SPD on 15%, AfD on 14% and both the FDP and Linke on 9%. I suppose the question is whether, as in Austria, a coalition between the centre-right and the Greens will be the outcome of the next federal election.
The Union is down 7%, the SPD down 6% and the Greens up 12% from the last Bundestag election.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/michael-martin-hit-out-boris-21164526
An interesting and accurate take on Boris from Michael Martin and it will be interesting to see how an FF-led Government will react to the coming exit of Britain from the EU and the new trading position this will cause.