Zern
-
Posts
598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Zern
-
-
5 hours ago, MacDuffman said:Tory MP, Andrew Rosindell. You might not have heard of him. but you might remember that some dingbat Tory MP wanted the "National Anthem" played at closedown on BBC1 everynight (y'know, like the old days). Well that was him.More recently he said of the Universal Credit up lift, "I think there are people that quite like getting the extra £20 but maybe they don't need it." And of MP's having second jobs, he said "We have to realise that we’re dealing with human beings who have families and responsibilities".He was a friend of Chilean Dictator Pinochet and is a friend of Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. He was vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Russia. He believes that abortion should be illegal, he would bring back the death penalty, and thinks that rapist should be castrated.And in TOTALLY UNRELATED news a Tory MP, has been charged with multiple instances of rape, sexual assault and abuse of position of trust and misconduct in public office, over a 7 year period.The Tory MP has been banned from attending Parliament but has NOT had the Tory whip removed.In other news, Andrew Rosindell did not attend Parliament today.
I wonder if his policy on castration for rapists has changed recently?
0 -
Worst game of guess who ever.
0 -
3 hours ago, Antlion said:
But what to dress up as? What symbols to use? Wait - this should help: all things deeply connected with and seen in 2020s Scotland. A post box it is - or is does cosplaying as an umbrella scream “British”?
Weird graphic, the doubling up of Union fleg and Pound signs suggests a limited pool of symbols. Telephone box and Routemaster bus are extremely dated no?
Turning a cup of tea into three items, that smacks of a Friday afternoon decision. The more i look the worse it gets. Are umbrellas a national symbol? The angel of the North would been better inclusion. imo
If you ask anyone outside the UK to give you an example of a British accent, you get shown an English accent.
Rangers fans wearing England tops is just a bit more honest about that.
0 -
Got no problem with people seeking a "sense of Britishness identity" and celebrating whatever that means to them. Dress up, speak with a pretend British accent and do whatever you like. Cosplay is an incredibly popular outlet and i'm sure your will have plenty of crossover with the Harry Potter stans and the futanari fanbase. Just play nice.
-1 -
-
1 hour ago, Antlion said:
Nice. Cue the proud Scots-AND-Brits howling, “what’s NIPPY doing - we’re not a real country - the UK is! We don’t have a real parliament - the UK does! She should be fixing potholes and not pretending Scotland exists!”
She gave a speech to the Brookings Institute and announced formation of a think-tank, independent of government, involving 3 universities charged with exploring foreign policy objectives amongst other things.
1 -
3 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Good point about cashless society. The way things are going leaves me feeling uneasy. Same with ‘hate speech’ laws.
You're fine with the internet though.
1 -
Your word of the day is; bonkeroony
0 -
2 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
A bit more complicated than that Zern.
It really isn't. Lord Frost has been lying about the NIP since he, and the government that appointed him, negotiated, signed and ratified it. They lied about there being a border in the Irish Sea. He continues to lie about it because he is not bound by any sense of responsibility or shame. It is a litany of complaints that ignore the fact that THEY were the ones pushing towards a deadline and did not care what the consequences were.
It continues today with the UK Government threatening to "trigger article 16" or abolish it completely every few weeks. An empty threat, but one they love to trot out in order to animate the Brexit fantasists.
0 -
2 hours ago, welshbairn said:
I'm not about to watch an hour long video from the man who negotiated the protocol unless you point me to the time when he proves it wasn't his fault.
Frost whinges continually. Never accepts any responsibility for an agreement that he, and his entire party, pushed through on a timeline of their choosing.
It is all the EU/Ireland and everyone's else's fault!
Transcript here if you don't wanna watch the bloviating tit.
0 -
2 hours ago, strichener said:
I think the point was that if you were inclined to use the election results to backup your position that there is not a majority in favour of Indy, this is how to do it. You can be damned sure it is exactly what Ross, Bojo and crew will be doing.
I think i object to its dishonesty. The way it was presented you would no clue as the how the results played out and could come away with the impression that the unionist trio had in fact won. Rather than the absolute hiding they got. To the extent that they are
2 hours ago, Ad Lib said:Precisely this.
As I've said several times now, a respectable argument can be made, and someone like me would make it, that the most virtuous constitutional arrangement would be one whereby a UK Government accepted a Holyrood Parliamentary majority was sufficient to justify the holding of a referendum on this reserved matter.
It does not rely on you demonstrating that "the majority of Scots" want a referendum or indeed independence.
Instead of trying to claim the split ballot of 2021 as proof that "the majority of Scots" want a referendum (it isn't) the pro-referendum side should focus on:
- ensuring there is no split ballot and that majority support for an independence referendum is unambiguous
- ensuring that support for independence is at a high enough level that, if and when a second referendum happens, they've actually got a good shot at winning it.
Trying to tell Unionists that you already have majority support, when the evidence suggests that you don't (or at least that it isn't clear that you do) is a futile and self-discrediting strategy and won't be taken seriously by the people you need to be taken seriously by.
More hoops.
We have majority support of our elected representatives in both Westminster and Holyrood,
How is this not a clear majority?
In the absence of a referendum vote there are only local and national elections available to gauge support.
Under this electoral framework the SNP/Greens have secured all the majorities required to pursue their political aims.
So when i say they have majority support i am pointing to those majorities.
When you say there isn't, you're referring to what exactly?
0 -
4 hours ago, Ad Lib said:
But it’s only true within matters of devolved competence and:
(a) a referendum (almost certainly) isn’t within devolved competence and
(b) Westminster has the legal power unilaterally to change that competence (see the UK Internal Market Act re-reserving state aid).
No. You are wrong. The powers that secessionist government can lay claim to are far greater than you appear to recognise. They can, and have included powers outside their competence. It is one of the more defining features of how states secede.
QuoteUDI is a complete non-starter and would not be recognised by vast swathes of the international community. It would violate domestic constitutional law, would frustrate the operation of several key international treaties, and would make unviable functioning international relations with either the rump UK or the European Union. It is not a sensible proposition and Sturgeon is absolutely right to reject it out of hand.
You personal dislike of the idea does not make that idea invalid. UDI is an option. That is a power not devolved but seized. That is valid when it comes to secessionary states. Real world examples demonstrate this. That was the point made that you appear determined to miss.
QuoteGood, because only a moron would do that.
Okay but you’re a moron then. Any international law that provides a “route” for the Scottish Government by definition must “bind” the UK Government to respect that route. They are two sides of the same coin.
Sorry, you are going to have to explain to me your line of reasoning here. I've affirmed that Westminster is not bound by Holyrood. You've agreed. Now you have done a volte face and declared that Westminster would be bound by Holyrood. Which is it? My position is that no matter what route to independence was taken that Westminster would affirm its superiority and not find itself bound, or obligated by anything.
QuoteThe UK is not an oppressive totalitarian regime, mate. It is a liberal democracy. The two situations are completely non-comparable.
I wasn't comparing them, i providing you with a refutation of your bald-assed assertion that civil disobedience plays no role in constitutional change.
In that respect your issue not with me but with reality. I can provide you with more, real world examples until either acknowledge your are wrong or you disappear up your own backside.
QuoteThey are. And that is a legitimate (if foolish) constitutional policy choice in a liberal democracy.
To paraphrase; "those who make legal revolution impossible, make illegal revolution inevitable."
QuoteWhich is absolutely fine if Holyrood already has the constitutional authority. Because then the political question is simply “should Holyrood legislate”. As I’ve said before there’s a perfectly respectable argument that those representing a minority of voters should be able to legislate with the majority of legislators (it happens all the time in the UK Parliament).
They have a clear majority in favour and the constitutional authority to press for their political aims.
Quote
But that’s not the relevant question here. The relevant question is: should the UK Parliament, which represents UK-wide interests, change the law to allow a referendum given the Scottish Parliamentary elections results.
My answer is yes, but “no” is also a legitimate answer to that question.
I agree that this is legitimate, but that doesn't change the availability of other options in the face of obstruction.
QuoteBecause all three parties ran on an explicit platform to oppose a second referendum in any circumstances, they organised an explicit tactical voting campaign to prevent the SNP winning a single party overall majority, and voters cannot have been ignorant of those stances when they cast their ballots.
This is ridiculous. The elections and vote share you are using delivered a clear majority and a plurality of parties in favour a referendum. You are ignoring the results and abusing the data in favour of some personal metric. That is not valid.
QuoteBecause the popular vote is a better proxy for whether “the people” want a second referendum than the returned representatives under the additional members system. This isn’t complicated.
You are not using data from a popular vote on single issue here. You are using data from party votes in a general election. If you want such data, you need to hold a referendum on that single issue. That would be valid.
This becomes especially silly when you realise that the ACTUAL results derived from the voting data leads to a 55% majority in parliament of parties in favour of holding a referendum. A clear majority.
QuoteI agree with you that actual votes matter more. But the actual votes in 2021 and 2019 do not provide robust evidence that majority opinion in Scotland favours a second referendum in the near term. At best it is split right down the middle, even six years on from the Brexit vote
I don’t define an electoral majority differently from you. I question the relevance of a Scottish Parliamentary election result (in terms of members returned, as opposed to raw popular vote) to the question of whether there is a majority sentiment among the general public for another referendum.
You are not phrasing this as question or querying the results though you are cherrypicking data and using it to reach an invalid conclusion.
QuoteThe solution here is actually very simple: go and convince (say) another 40,000 or so non-voting Scots to vote SNP or Green on the constituency ballot or get about 20,000 Unionists to flip their vote.
Instead of whinging to no avail, go change minds. You’ll find it helps you as and when a second referendum comes around.
I would hesitate to take you advice, mostly because it does not appear to have helped your own political party.
Accept the results and stop trying to twist them into being something they are not. By any reasonable measure there is the political will in Scotland to push for a referendum and more. That is because they are able to secure enough of the vote to for a government. It is both democratic and representative of Scottish attitudes.
You appear to be taking polls as representative rather than indicative and using the representative results as indicative. That is plain weird to me
-3 -
1 hour ago, williemillersmoustache said:
Clinging to the constituency popular vote in a multiparty election is just desperate. Particularly when the proportional vote gave the opposite result. Which is just so inconvenient for this above whinge.
Reading his posts you would come away with the mistaken impression that the unionist parties won the majority in Holyrood and were not outnumbered by SNP members on their own, and overwhelmingly outnumbered in coalition.
But no... i should not count elected representatives as being in any representative of the electorate apparently.
Instead pick out select percentages of the vote combine in a way that's invalid and then declare a majority off of that. lol
Fucking bizarre way to count support.
0 -
7 hours ago, Ad Lib said:
Wow, this is full of non-sequiturs and falsehoods.
(1) The Scottish Parliament is not a government. The Scottish Government is a government. The Scottish Parliament is a legislature of limited competence which owes its existence to and depends upon a statute for its powers.
(2) That the Scottish Parliament is "European-style" whatever that means is constitutionally irrelevant.
(3) The Prime Minister cannot dismiss the First Minister because of section 45 of the Scotland Act 1998, which the UK Parliament passed, provides all of the rules for the appointment and dismissal of First Ministers. The only person who can dismiss a First Minister is the Queen, as the First Minister holds office at "Her Majesty's pleasure".
In any case, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if the Prime Minister could sack the First Minister.
The fact that the First Minister is outwith the control of Westminster shows that aspects of Holyrood are independent of Westminster and rather demonstrates that this elective legislative body in indeed constitutionally relevant in it own right.
QuoteThe only thing that matters, as a matter of constitutional law, is that the Scottish Parliament cannot do anything beyond its legislative competence and that the Scottish Government cannot exercise functions that do not belong to it.
That is untrue. The Scottish government does have that ability to go beyond is bounds and claim independence. The UDI route. It chooses to pursue a co-operational agreement but retains the ability to go outside if necessary.
QuoteAgain with a load of salad and nonsense. It's not relevant to international law whether Westminster is being "obstructionist". International law allows sovereign states to be obstructionist towards internal secession movements. You and I agree there is a lack of wisdom in such an approach, but it's allowed, and nothing in international law is going to change that.
You do good line in condescension and dismissal, but if you take nothing else away from this conversation it should be this; i do not point to international law as obligating Westminster in this matter, in any way.
International law is instead a possible route for the Scottish Government. Because not all forms of secession are granted, or negotiated; some are seized.
QuoteI am passing absolutely no judgment on anyone who has protested anything. I'm simply saying that their protest is irrelevant to the role of international law in secession disputes.
There was a political movement in Poland called Solidarity, it began as civil resistance to the communist authority, grew and initiated elections and a transition away from the Warsaw Pact. That is an example of the role protest can play in constitutional change. It is not irrelevant at all. You appear to have very very narrow view of how these changes may be brought about. History is your friend here.
QuoteIt's just as well no one is saying that "Westminster" lacks the ability to do anything, then, isn't it?
What matters is what it decides it wants to do.
And right now, it wants to deny the Scottish Government a second referendum on Scottish independence.
That would suggest that all legal routes are barred.
QuoteAt the Scottish Parliamentary Elections in 2021, at which there was 63% turnout, the combined constituency vote of the three largest pro-Union anti-referendum parties was 50.42% or 1,364,734. I readily accept that on the regional list, the picture was the reverse (the three largest pro-referendum parties polled 50.12% or 1,359,611.
Share of elected representatives: Green - 8 SNP - 64 Other - 57
QuoteAt the last UK Parliamentary Elections in 2019, at which there was a 68% turnout, the three largest Unionist parties polled 53.2% of the popular vote or 1,468,194.
Share of elected representatives: SNP - 35 Other - 24
QuoteWhether you like it or not, this suggests that there is not clear majority support for a second independence referendum.
There appears to be a clear majority of both MPs and MSPs returned from these elections.
May i ask why you are combing three separate political parties that campaigned in competition with each other as if it where one unified voting block when it was nothing of the sort? There was no coalition. What you actually have are three distinct parties that were only able to garner a small proportion of electoral representation each. It not valid to smash those three together and claim them as one, and even less valid to portray that as being representative of votes for/against a referendum.
Why would you ignore the amount elected representatives each party gained and ignore that the anti-referendum parties are in fact the minority?
QuoteWe could also look to recent opinion polling, such as the YouGov poll from a month ago which suggested that just 36% of people in Scotland want an independence referendum in 2023 (40% if you strip out don't knows).
Or the five ComRes polls carried out between September 2021 and March 2022 in which, after stripping out don't knows, there has been a consistent preference against the holding of a second independence referendum at all, let alone with a given timescale.
Pollsters are at great pains to point out that their polls are indicative, come with caveats, margins for error along with a straight up admission that these polls a not be considered authoritative. i really can not repeat that enough. Votes matter, polls do not.
QuoteWhatever the rights and wrongs of this, and Holyrood is entirely within its rights to seek a section 30 Order, it has no right to be granted it and it does not have clear majority support of the Scottish people behind it. Now there are plenty of things that Governments can and should be able to do without clear majority support behind it (whether at Bute House or Downing Street) because we live in a representative democracy without absolute proportional representation.
But the fundamental reason why another referendum isn't progressing is because there isn't clear majority support for it. In those circumstances, UK Governments feel able to reject it (whether or not that is a wise thing to do).
I think i can at least agree with you that it would be unwise for any parent nation to ignore or dismiss independence movements without due consideration.
Can't agree with you on the majority thing though. You definition of what makes for an electoral majority appears to be quite novel.
0 -
16 hours ago, Ad Lib said:
This is complete word salad. The Scottish Parliament was deliberately created to be a body of limited legislative competence, and those limits were explicitly set out with reference to purposes and effects of legislative provisions.
And, as a starting position, aspects of the constitution were explicitly reserved, including the Union and the Westminster Parliament.
You clearly don’t understand the difference between the way that international law treats colonies and similar territories, compared to how it treats sub-state nations which are not colonies.
Go and read the Quebec Secession Reference, where it makes completely clear that international law does not require constitutions to recognise a right of secession for their states’ constituent parts.
At no point i have argued that Westminster is required to recognise a right to secession or that Holyrood wasn't created to operate within legislative bounds. I am happy to correct your misunderstanding on this. What i was criticising was the attitude that cast its net wide for objections to any sort of referendum on independence specifically without any consideration of what the Scottish Parliament is; namely a European-style democratic government with elected representatives. These are not functionaries appointed to some extended Scottish Office and as such it is worth some consideration within the constitutional debate. I think this is only reinforced by Boris Johnson's official response which contained no reference to the law they were exercising.
To illustrate this i would ask you a simple question. Is the Prime Minister able to dismiss the First Minister of Scotland?
At present it is hard to fault Holyrood's actions, they've constantly engaged with Westminster on this issue and it is Westminster who are being obstructionist. I point to international law and examples of secession to acknowledge that those other routes exist and not controversial to note that those begin with civil disobedience of legal restrictions. Am i to think badly of those who protested because technically what they did was against the law?
QuoteOnly a total denial of self-determination could even begin to engage those expectations. Scotland is not even close to that, as the very existence of the Scottish Parliament is testament.
The provisions of the Northern Ireland Act (a) aren’t about secession, but of replacing one union with another (b) are the product of an international treaty and (c) are specific to its own conditions.
Not to be cheeky, but i've yet to encounter a treaty that wasn't specific to its own conditions. Conditions and specificity are what they are all about.
I'm also old enough to remember when political divides led to car-bombs and executions, with no reference to law. We negotiated a peace by recognising the other side not ignoring them. And whilst i would like everything to be remain peaceful that doesn't appear to be an attitude shared by Westminster. Who, let me remind you, has had to be FORCED to comply with the GFA and NIP by combined pressure from the USA, EU and Ireland. Something that sets such precedent would seem to apply with the situation in Scotland especially since it is so readily recognised. I don't think you can argue that Westminster lacks the ability to do such things.
QuoteThe bottom line is that a narrow majority of Scots don’t want independence and a slightly bigger majority don’t particularly want a referendum in the this Scottish Parliamentary term.
Until that changes you’re not going to get much sympathy from Unionists about demands for another referendum, or for that matter the international community. It may well be foolish for UK Governments to adopt this position, and it may prove self-fulfilling, but it’s not illegitimate or unlawful.
I would love to see how you reach that conclusion that the majority are against, when last time i checked the anti-referendum parties only managed to secure 45% of the seats in Holyrood. I would argue that this result is more accurate representation of the public attitudes towards an independence referendum especially given that is not outside the error margins of most polls that have been conducted.
On that basis it is legitimate for Holyrood to press for the powers to do this.
0 -
15 hours ago, Ad Lib said:
It’s not the job of judges to rule on morality. It’s the job of judges to rule on what the law is.
There is no relevant international law in this dispute. Whether or not Scotland has a legal right to hold a secession referendum, just as with Quebec and Catalonia, is a question of domestic constitutional law.
We can argue until the cows come home about whether that domestic constitutional law is virtuous (and I think it isn’t) but they are the rules of the game Scotland accepted when it ratified the Treaty of Union.
It is legitimate for constitutional structures to include what are known as precommitment strategies. Sometimes they produce harmonious outcomes. Sometimes they clearly don’t. But ultimately that’s a political question, not a legal one.
In an ideal world i am certain there are judgements rendered with purity of law and no regard to mundane realities, but we know this is not the case. Legal history is littered with judgements that are little more than thinly disguised political objectives. The attitude i was taking issue with was one where the widening of consideration goes far beyond what would be expressed in a law itself, to purpose and ramifications without giving due weight to the proposition that the intent of the parliament itself was for Scottish political expression to be given representative recognition.
I disagree that there is no international law on this, as there are plenty of examples of where a states secede and gain recognition against the constitutional wishes of their former states. The UK has practically defined itself with such examples. Such routes exist, but are only done when all other paths are blocked.
We have a situation where the UK Government is staffed with bad actors armed with bad faith and i am aware that that won't be addressed legally. It does appear that there is limited room for political means to resolve. That not something that is desirable. Stymieing the political means of expression only leads to alternate routes being pursued. We don't have to look far to see what that can lead to. With Sin Fein gaining political ground in Northern Ireland we can soon see another devolved parliament demanding a border poll. Theirs is guaranteed. The UK, through the the GFA, has ratified and described under what terms these polls should be conducted. They have set the time between the holding of such polls as 7 years. That would seem to be relevant piece of UK law when widening the discussion, but it is ignored. 7 years seem a good compromise between those who want a decade and those who want one every session of parliament.
0 -
2 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:
It's one thing to wear your gardeners utility gilet when gardening with your standard issue family labrador but, to wear it in a studio for interview suggests oddball sex case imo.
Also the rapid switch from "let's wait and see what the enquiry says" to "I'm so sorry I resign" is a bit suspicious. I hope they're still planning to look in his hard drive and under his patio tbh.
I watched that interview, he really did try to bullshit his way through it with the "we have to wait for the inquiry" but was just so unconvincing. Even dragged his wife into it. Great Stuff
I honestly expected an announcement about his recent diagnosis of "porn addiction", his booking for treatment, with donations and wellwishers welcomed for the victim. But i think the last Tory MP caught with drugs and sex workers already exhausted that wheeze.
1 -
15 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Yeah, you can roughly tell what's going on by them. Although they were generous to you in 2014, they were only a few percent off the mark for the final result, which is why I'd like them to show at least more than 60% support for a long period.
I think it'd be foolish to equate support for a party with support for their constitutional stance. Plenty people will vote for them for other reasons. You also have consistently far lower turnouts for general elections, so to say it'd be more representative than opinion polls is disingenuous at best.
Whether you care what the Tories say or not is irrelevant. The fact is they are in power with a majority with a mandate to say 'NO TO INDYREF 2'. They don't have to take Holyrood in order to do anything.
Polls are inaccurate, by application, they extrapolate from a tiny minority and are not representative. They are indicative only. To claim the actual votes cast during a general election involving several millions of ballots cast against a sample of 500-2000 who never cast a vote is asinine.
The Tories have no mandate in Scotland, they perform as a spoiler party here. Much like the DUP, being obstructive and generally useless. The electorate have cast their votes in favour of a plurality of parties that campaigned for election on holding a referendum. You do not get to declare on why those votes were cast only to deal with the reality that they were.
Quote"I think it'd be foolish to equate support for a party with support for their constitutional stance."
That would carry more weight if hadn't be accompanied and preceded by "Tories... NO TO INDEREF2"
You lack a consistent point.
-1 -
18 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:
I'd agree with that part. Out of pedantic curiosity why do you think a decade is sufficient as opposed to after every Holyrood election?
Actually i am in favour the ability to hold one every once every parliamentary session, if it forms part of a mandate that is secured. That would be an option every political party could access.
So if the Tories where to sweep to Holyrood on a wave of insanity and want to hold a referendum on abolishing the place. Yeah, i am in favour of them holding that referendum. I would campaign against.
-1 -
22 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
No, I'm not suggesting they decide government policy.
They are a decent indicator of how the electorate feel about something though, although it must be said that in 2014 they overstated the support for a break away.
You're calling them decent then pointing towards their lack of accuracy?
We have method of polling the electorate of their preferences don't we? The General Election give fair representation and is more comprehensive than any poll. Since the last referendum polling has been consistently higher than the result of 2014 and we have had several general elections where a majority of our representatives are pro-independence. Why ignore that?
If the support of 45% in 2014 was accurate, then that referendum was called on less support than what it enjoys currently. That would seem to support the argument in favour of one being held.
QuoteIf opinion polling was to consistently sit at 62%ish in support of separation, for around 2 years or so, then I'd accept that a clear majority really want it and that another referendum should take place.
Until then, the Tories should simply flex their muscles like real men and tell them 'NO TO INDYREF 2'
I don't care what the Tories say, they have no mandate in Scotland and consist of a vanishing minority led by a bigoted linesman of no political importance.
You get to set the conditions surrounding the wording and what not of our referendum when you take Holyrood.
-1 -
14 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
That's certainly not how I see it, Welshy.
I think if there was evidence of a clear and large majority of the Scottish electorate wanting a break away for a long period of time then it'd be OK to have another one, once a generation is up of course.
If opinion polls have consistently shown support for separation being 60% of above for 2 years or so, then yes, it'd be clear that it wasn't just flash in the pan.
For such an important, constitutional change, we should really know it's wanted by the people and not just a phase.
Just having successive opportunistic referenda in the hope one gets the Nats over the line is just plain immoral.
You think selected opinions polls of between 500-2000 people is enough to decide government policy?
I think what would be representative is some sort of proportional vote of the electorate over the whole country. If a plurality of political parties persist in power for over a decade that would indicate an electorate that is very much in favour of those policies.
Opinion polls have their place, but representative democracy it preferred.
0 -
21 minutes ago, welshbairn said:
It seems the Unionists are telling us there is no democratic and constitutional pathway to self determination for Scotland, even if the majority wills it. I think they're wrong but it's worrying that they think it would be a good thing if it were so.
There is supposed to be recognition and co-operation between the parliaments; with the UK respecting the will of the electorate in Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland what wasn't anticipated was a UK government intentionally dismissive of the other bodies and intent on turning the clock backwards.
It notable the the present UK Tory administration were forced to respect the GFA and NIP by threats from the USA and EU combined. It is clear that had they gotten their wish a hard border in Ireland would have been initiated.
0 -
"a moment of madness" would be more believable if there wasn't multiple instances, multiple complaints and when confronted with the accusation he pretended it was some other unknown porn-watching MP.
0 -
21 hours ago, Ad Lib said:
Of interest will be this piece from Professor Stephen Tierney. In 2012 he was the prominent lead of a group of Scottish legal academics who said that the legality of an independence referendum (absent a section 30 Order) was an “open question”.
He now thinks it would be clearly ultra vires. So does Aileen McHarg and so does Chris McCorkindale (all three part of the original group who said it was an open question).
Obviously this will come down to what a court actually says, but:
(a) the signs on a generous interpretation, especially in Lord Reed’s court, is not good (he was pretty scathing of “generous” interpretations in the recent UNCRC Bill Reference)
(b) even if a Bill doesn’t get referred to the UK Supreme Court (and it totally would be) the Scottish courts hinted that they were unsympathetic to the arguments in the Keatings case.
My own view for some time now was that the argument was closed off when the UK Supreme Court adopted a plain conception of “purpose” in the Imperial Tobacco v Lord Advocate case in 2013.
Thankyou for the links. Have read the first one already, very comprehensive it is too.
I found the attitude described therein quite appalling but entirely in keeping with their high-handed rhetoric of recent years and the actions of this UK Government in particular. They have a disdain for international law and anything that does not originate entirely within Westminster. It seems to me that Brexit has exacerbated this sense of exceptionalism. Not surprising, but it is rather frustrating to read the opinion of some judge insisting that even the most advisory of polling must be interpreted at the most extreme level. Makes a mockery of nuance in law.
These are the same judges who won't bat an eyelid as human rights are being dismantled, judicial review curtailed and selected migrants are given 1-way tickets to Rwanda for 'processing'. Sure it's legal, but that don't make it moral.
0
BBC bias
in The Politics Forum
Posted
They should respect the result, focus on domestic issues and not try again for at least a generation.