Water John wrote: » That's the Committee whose report was leaked. Opposition have majority on it and no matter what Sturgeon's evidence was, they seemed to have made up their minds before it. Basically they formed the opinion that Sturgeon must have known, as they believe it unlikely that she did not know what her leader was up to.
'If the Tories think an overload of Union Jacks on buildings is the answer to promote the strength of the Union, it shows how thin the case for the Union is."
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » This is the latest Conservative idea to bind the Union together:https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/1374785263851995136https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1374760252567093251 It won't apply to NI because even the Tories seemingly know that's a can of worms not to open. Not sure this idea will work out well in Scotland. I don't get the impression the electorate will be too keen on stunts like this. The SNP's response:
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » In addition to my post above, I looked into it a bit more and found this and it would not appear to harm the independence parties as much as I said earlier. Could be an interesting resulthttps://twitter.com/bnhw_/status/1375461477834973184
Leonard Hofstadter wrote: » So it sounds like if anything, the entry of this party is more likely to damage the unionist parties and thus the parties in favour of another referendum are going to have no trouble getting a majority of the seats in Holyrood, or have I misunderstood?
However, election experts are warning that the political impact of the Alba party is extremely unpredictable and could inflict tactical problems for the pro-independence cause. John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, said Salmond faced a “substantial strategic challenge”. “The success or otherwise of the enterprise will rest heavily on Mr Salmond’s personal popularity,” he added. “Though it might pick up some activists and perhaps SNP politicians the party will have little organisation or resource, and will be heavily reliant on his personality. However, Mr Salmond is not a very popular politician. According to YouGov and Opinium, only 14% of all voters have a favourable view of Mr Salmond. Among current SNP voters the figures are 16% and 18% respectively. “Given [the SNP’s] current standing in the polls, they could well be dependent on picking up a handful of list seats in their weaker regions [to win an overall majority] – most obviously the South of Scotland and the Highlands. Mr Salmond might thus cost the SNP an overall majority – and that may well be much more important than the total number of pro-independence MSPs.”https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/28/alex-salmonds-alba-party-is-a-danger-to-the-union-says-top-tory
Water John wrote: » A Labour party of some fashion can, not only survive but thrive in an Ind Scotland, if it gets its act together. The Tories will disappear.
Leonard Hofstadter wrote: » SNP looking good for 70 seats apparently. Scottish Greens (who are also in favour of independence) also look like they are going to do well. Alba having no impact:https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-still-on-course-for-holyrood-majority-stv-poll?top
cameramonkey wrote: » has the ring of the 1918 elections in Ireland about it.
Update on Peoples Action on Section 30 Dear Backers, While we sit and wait for the judgement of the inner house of the court of session (which unfortunately I cannot give you a clear timescale on but hope it is before the election) there has now been some rumblings from Westminster. You will all recall that I have been warning about a scenario since this case started, that if the SNP failed to ensure that a bill for a referendum was legal to pass (even if it remained ambiguous) then the UK Government would have grounds to challenge it the minute it was introduced to the Scottish Parliament which would prevent it from getting royal assent. No royal assent means it doesn't become law, and while the Scottish Government and the UK Government were battering lumps out of each other, the UK Government would simply use that time to modify laws at Westminster to take parts of that bill out of the competency of the Scottish Parliament. This was based on the fact that it is exactly what the Tories did to Holyrood over the continuity bill. I told you the only way to ensure a referendum bill was to ensure it was completely competent BEFORE it was introduced so then the UK Government would have nothing to challenge, and as long as the Scottish Parliament got that bill through quickly and before the UK Government could mess with the legislation, it would protect the bill. Stopping this scenario playing out was exactly the point of the people's action because by proving the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for a second referendum without Westminster's permission and proving the bill was competent, it would ensure the Tories had nothing to challenge. Well buried deep in an article today in the national, this exact scenario now seems to be coming to pass and the only people to blame are the politicians at Holyrood who had the sheer hubris to believe that feet stomping would somehow offset a UK Government that has zero respect for mandates, or political precedent, or even the law. Understand, I am trying to moderate my language, because, in reality, I am absolutely livid, and with good reason. We should not be in this position, but we are because the politicians were afraid to stick their neck above the wall. It is the equivalent of the weatherman telling someone a hurricane is coming and they should evacuate and the homeowner saying "No it's not, and if it does come, I'll just shake my fist at it really hard!" But yeah..... This case is now more important than it has ever been, because it's not just a case of what came before, it's now a case of it likely being the only way out of the current situation. "No pressure", as they say. As usual, I hope you are all safe and well, and I will update you as we know more. Sincerely Martin
Johnson is said to be adamant in private that he will not be the prime minister who permits a referendum and the Conservatives will hammer home the message that holding such a poll during a pandemic would be deeply irresponsible. Reports in the Sunday Times suggested that, while the UK government’s position remained that it was opposed to granting Holyrood the requisite powers to hold a legal referendum, senior Tories believe this would be hard to sustain should the SNP triumph on 6 May, and that Johnson would be better off forcing a vote during the economic upheaval likely to follow the pandemic to underline the risks of Scotland leaving the UK.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » From The Guardian: If the Tory strategy is to say holding a poll during a pandemic is deeply irresponsible, I'd like the follow-up question to be 'why was going through with Brexit during the pandemic, and rebuffing the possibility of an extension to the transition period, not deeply irresponsible?'
Johnson is said to be adamant in private that he will not be the prime minister who permits a referendum
If they [the Tories] themselves are saying the only way to stop a second referendum is to prevent that majority, then logic says if they get the majority, there will be one.
Water John wrote: » Do I remember in my history class, reading 'now is not the time' for Home Rule in Ireland at the outbreak of the Great War?
Brexit has shown the union is no longer based on consent, but on law. The law is made at Westminster, which is sovereign. England dominates Westminster. The English majoritarian restraint that was so marked when governments were more sensitive to the need to accommodate differences is today like an abandoned house on the top of a crumbling cliff. You can see the consequences in things like the demise of the Sewel convention, which held that devolved powers should not be altered without the consent of devolved governments. Brexit killed that. The Internal Market Act goes even further by enhancing UK government power. This week, the UK began a supreme court challenge against two Scottish bills on the grounds that they exceed Holyrood’s competence. But a decision to refuse a referendum for which Scots had voted would trump that. It would tell Scots there was no lawful way of leaving the UK.
