Jump to content

Ad Lib

Gold Members
  • Posts

    12,932
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Ad Lib

  1. Of course they don't. No bank would ever let them pay with it.
  2. I think that away top is honking. It's like a D-tier Germany away kit. If you swapped the black and white it might actually have been quite decent.
  3. We hope to make an announcement about this soon. We're trying to tie it in with the revamp of the membership package. Watch this space!
  4. For Thistle fans who are not already members of the Foundation, or whose memberships might (understandably) have lapsed, I hope we can persuade you to join or rejoin. It's really easy to do and you can sign up for either a recurring Direct Debit or a recurring card payment on our website at this link https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/sign-up/ Building momentum in numbers is going to be really important in the coming weeks and months and I hope we can count on your support. If you have any questions about your membership or membership status, please email [email protected]
  5. Hello everyone, please find this message from the new Jags Foundation Chair. We're delighted to have the opportunity to reboot this process and try to get fan ownership done. https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/message-from-the-new-jags-foundation-chair/
  6. Politics, yes. Constitutional change? No. This is irrelevant howling at the moon. UDI isn't an appeal to a higher court. It is a decision to act outwith the framework of either domestic or international law, and to hope some other folk go along with it. Unless you're seeking recognition from countries like Russia, it's a terrible idea that no sensible Nationalist should ever contemplate in the 21st century. Scotland would not get the support of the international community if it pursued UDI. Short of there being tanks in George Square again, the international community wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
  7. Sorry Zern, but this is all over the place. You've completely misconstrued the Quebec Secession Reference. In answer to Question 1 of the reference (which was whether Quebec had a right under the Canadian constitution to secede unilaterally) the Court explicitly answered no. It said that a vote on a referendum, which is within the competence of the National Assembly would create a set of conditions in which good faith constitutional negotiations would have to take place to "respond to the desire" of Quebeckers to secede, but it did not compel any particular result or outcome. In answer to Question 2 of the reference (whether Quebec had a right to unilateral secession under international law) the Court answered in the negative as well. It said that there were two established circumstances in which secession could be asserted unilaterally under international law: (a) The right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the "imperial" power (para 132 of the judgment) (b) where a people is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation outside a colonial context (para 133 of the judgment) And it considered, but did not explicitly rule either way on a third situation, namely "when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally, it is entitled, as a last resort, to exercise it by secession". (para 134 of the judgment) On the first and second, it said that sub-state entities like Quebec, which are democratically and constitutionally represented parts of a democratic state, clearly did not fit the criteria. On the third, the same conclusion was reached. The Court said (at para 136): I respectfully submit that, for as long as Scotland has MPs at Westminster, and especially for as long as it has a devolved Parliament, it also cannot plead being prevented from meaningful exercise of self-determination. The Quebec Secession reference also directly addresses the position in international law if constitutional negotiations about a proposed secession break down. This is what it said at para 137: Respectfully, the same position would have applied in the event that the 2014 referendum went the other way in Scotland, and the same would be true if Holyrood somehow found a way to legislate for a second referendum in the next few years. On the point of implementation, you would be relying on the success of political negotiations, albeit with a great deal of constitutional legitimacy if a referendum were lawfully held and especially if it were held with the assistance of Westminster legislation. The Quebec Secession Reference says that unilateral secession would never be permissible for a sub-state entity that was like Quebec, as a matter of international law. It recognises that an unconstitutional secession might be recognised by other sovereign states, to create a "de facto" secession, but it is emphatic that this would be unconstitutional and a breach of international law (by undermining the territorial integrity of an existing sovereign state). The UK Parliament demonstrably can legislate to abolish the Holyrood Parliament. It would face a substantial political price for doing so, not least given the legislative recognition in the Scotland Act 2016 that it should only happen if endorsed by a referendum of the Scottish people. But it can do that. I really don't see where you're going with this. Just because the UK Government currently adopts a cavalier attitude towards respect for its international obligations, doesn't mean that a sub-state entity of the UK can therefore avail itself of rights in international law that are reserved to colonised and militarily occupied peoples and territories. No I didn't. I said the Good Friday Agreement is not relevant, constitutionally, to Scotland's position in the UK. Because it isn't. And, crucially, it applies to the future of Northern Ireland, not Scotland. No it doesn't. It was a treaty text negotiated by the UK and Irish Governments to deal specifically with Northern Ireland and its unique conditions. The border poll provisions are about whether Northern Ireland should reunify with part of an entity that seceded from the UK. It is not about secession of Northern Ireland from the UK simpliciter. The only trigger for a border poll in Northern Ireland is whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes that there is a majority in favour of Irish reunification. There is no analogous constitutional or international law provision applicable either generally to sub-state units in the UK (or more widely) that would include Scotland in that. No this is wrong. The threshold is, and always has been since the Good Friday Agreement and the implementing Northern Ireland Act 1998, an assessment made by the Secretary of State as to whether a majority exists for reunification. There is uncertainty as to exactly what evidence base would underpin this, but the law is clear: it's up to the Secretary of State. Indeed, in recent days Brandon Lewis has ruled-out the possibility of such a poll, relying on evidence including the popular vote share of Nationalist parties, as well as opinion polling in Northern Ireland about the desire, or otherwise, for such a poll to take place. No it isn't. The SSNI is given wide political discretion to assess whether the condition precedent of an apparent majority is met. And he is secondly given absolute discretion, subject to the seven year waiting period, about whether otherwise to call such a poll. No, I'm afraid it patently does not. For two reasons: (1) The Good Friday Agreement doesn't apply to Scotland (2) The test contained in the GFA and NIA 1998 is very clear, and it is the Secretary of State's assessment about whether it appears likely that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for reunification. There is absolutely no reference whatsoever to the passing of a motion by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I'm afraid this doesn't follow. I wish that were our constitutional arrangement, but it isn't. And international law doesn't come to our aid. No. Sorry, but as a matter of international law it really can't.
  8. No it means you’re completely wrong. No one here is disputing that the UK Parliament has constitutional power to make laws for Great Britain or any part of it. This is full of hopeless contradiction. Not even Dicey was this muddled, and unlike you it seems like I’ve read his works on both of the Unions. Either the UK Parliament has unlimited powers, in which case it can legislate to grant Scottish independence. Or the 1707 Union is “perpetual”, in which case the UK Parliament cannot legislate to grant Scottish independence. You can’t argue both. Spoiler: neither is true. The UK Parliament can legislate for Scottish independence, but it does not have unlimited powers. Indeed, I listened to Lord Hope of Craighead say precisely this (in reference to his remarks in Jackson v Attorney General, which you still have not read) at an event in Parliament yesterday evening. No it isn’t. This is what was said by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the Foreword to the UK Government’s consultation on facilitating a Scottish independence referendum: “We want to keep the United Kingdom together. But we recognise that the Scottish Government holds the opposite view. In May 2011, the Scottish National Party won a majority in the Scottish Parliament; this was a significant electoral victory, which the UK Government has openly acknowledged. The Scottish National Party entered the May 2011 election with a manifesto pledge for a referendum on independence. They have campaigned consistently for independence, and while the UK Government does not believe this is in the interests of Scotland, or the rest of the United Kingdom, we will not stand in the way of a referendum on independence: the future of Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom is for people in Scotland to vote on.” This was, very clearly, a recognition that there was a constitutional justification for a referendum, albeit one that had to be agreed through a clear framework that included Westminster legislation. You have about as much credibility here as someone claiming that leaving drinks are “reasonably necessary for work” during a pandemic.
  9. We had booked a cottage in the Lake District for a short break from 13 November 2020 for about a week. My (now late) dad had just finished six months of chemotherapy and this was going to be our first/only opportunity to go as a full family on a short break, to make lasting memories. Then this twat's Government said that Cumbria was at an elevated risk, and that people from outside that area were not allowed to go there. He told them to shut down their self-catered accommodation. On 13 November 2020, this odious little c**t was quaffing back wine with his Vote Leave mates in his office, calling that gathering "reasonably necessary for work". I wish nothing but haemorrhoids on him.
  10. Probably because they understand when their arses have been handed to them on a plate. That self-awareness, something it appears Rangers fans specifically lack, is what redeems them.
  11. I’ll take it from this that you haven’t done any of the recommended reading? Tut tut. 0/10. Except I am denying it, and there are literally reams of peer reviewed academic literature denying it. No it isn’t. Firstly, you are playing fast and loose with the word “Westminster”. Secondly, we have plenty examples of situations where “Westminster” wanting something wasn’t enough, because it was recognised that other constitutional imperatives apply. The (vast) majority of MPs in the UK Parliament who sat between 2010 and 2015 were resolutely opposed to both Scottish independence and a referendum on Scottish independence. Yet following the 2011 Scottish elections, the Prime Minister, the Government, and then those MPs acknowledged there was a constitutional justification for that referendum they didn’t want, and they negotiated, and then legislated, accordingly. You are hopelessly out of your depth here.
  12. Thanks for your support oneteaminglasgow. The thing I’m most heartened by is that the Foundation has managed to persuade 12 people to stand for 9 positions, at relatively short notice, in the close season. Combine that with the fact that membership is up 9% since before the 3BC and Club statements, and it’s clear that there’s a solid and growing desire to make this work. Obviously some of us are running on a slate with Jags For Change and a common platform, but there looks to be some really useful expertise and experience among the other candidates too. This bodes well.
  13. It really isn't. The vast majority of the Act of Union is about the detail of things that will remain different in Scotland and in England and how that difference will be managed. Except, of course, that no court has ever definitively ruled that Parliamentary sovereignty is absolute, or that the Treaties of Union place no limits on them. This informs the extent to which the constitutional conditions giving rise to devolution are the product of pure Westminster sentiments or more fundamental principles of a state founded on the mutual bargaining of formerly independent nations. Go and read Lord Hope in Jackson v Attorney General. Go and read Lord Cooper of Culross in MacCormick v Lord Advocate. Go and read Lord Keith in Gibson v Lord Advocate. These are not unresolved questions. You are indeed correct that you are under no obligation to relieve yourself of your own childish ignorance.
  14. Britain is and always has been a union state, not a unitary state, because its founding Treaty recognised, from the outset, continued asymmetry and special arrangements for its constituent nations, including their legal systems and established churches. Politically, it even less resembles a unitary state than it ever has precisely because of devolution and the sub-state democratic mandates on which those three systems of devolution are based. Go and read some Neil Walker, some Michael Keating too, in fact pretty much any respectable constitutional lawyer or British political scientist from the last sixty years, then get back to me.
  15. This was very very very funny. Enjoy your derbies with lolkirk next season.
  16. I think Bannigan is past his best. He's fine as a squad player at this level but I wouldn't be building a team around him. Docherty is much of a muchness but offers more goal threat and is a better passer of the ball.
  17. I lost my dad to a brain tumour (at 58) just before Christmas and the last few months have if anything felt progressively harder. In the immediate aftermath and even up to the funeral, I had a clear role and things to distract myself with (basically all the financial and legal admin). Then that kind of ran out. Everyone else's lives went back to normal. Except for ours. My sister, who always had a less complicated relationship with dad, grieves very publicly on social media (I don't want to say performatively, but you know what I mean by that). My mum, with bipolar and all manner of physical health problems, is a bit of a mess at the moment and is up to her eyeballs in painkillers for a hip problem. We know she falls into deep depressions when she's not surrounded by other people and being constantly distracted from being alone. And I'm stuck down in London distant and powerless to do anything about it all. In the weeks after the funeral I'd occasionally have teary moments, but having gone back to work I just looked for whatever distractions I could find and to minimise the amount of time I spent alone. But in recent weeks, I've found myself bursting into streams of tears over the tiniest of things, sobbing uncontrollably. There are so many evenings when my brain wanders into thinking "I'd really like to have a video chat with dad" and then I realise I can't. I'll see a Facebook memory come up of him ripping the piss out of my latest haircut and be disconsolate for an hour. The latest incident was when I saw a Facebook post about the Minister's wife at dad's old church replacing the shed he had built in the Manse back garden with a summer house. Sobbing over a fucking shed in a house we haven't even lived in for 5 years. I know this is the spell when they say grief can get to its worst and that it eventually passes, but Christ, it's fucking exhausting. I don't really feel any sustained happiness at anything in my life at the moment, just blips of numbness. Nobody who hasn't been through losing a parent really gets it. So often people try to say a nice thing like that they'd have been proud of you or some such shit like that. But I'd give up 99% of my on paper success in life to have just one more conversation with my dad.
  18. FWIW I think Albus Bulbasaur is quite a good username. It's a shame it had to be wasted on this person(a).
  19. Do you really need me to explain to you in crayon the difference between representative and direct democracy? The popular vote. This isn't fucking hard.
  20. Under international law, there is no right of secession, except in the context of colonies and oppressed peoples. In the words of Alex Salmond in the 2014 White Paper, "Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated". No, it is only valid in the context of what the Quebec Secession Reference correctly described as a "absolute denial" of self-determination for peoples. A constitutional prohibition on secession is not regarded as an "absolute denial" of self-determination. The very existence of democratic sub-state government in Scotland is evidence to the contrary. You might, but even then, only might, just have a point if the Westminster Parliament were actually to legislate to abolish the Scottish Parliament. No, you accepted that Westminster is not bound by international law to enable a referendum to happen or to allow or accept Scottish independence. What I have pointed out to you is that any "rights" that Scotland might have under international law have to come with corresponding "duties", on the part of the UK, to accept, respect and honour those rights. Without those duties there are no rights. If international law says that I have the right not to be tortured, that comes with corresponding duties on (at least) contracting sovereign states (a) to not torture me and (b) to secure in domestic law and practice arrangements that ensure I am not tortured. If those corresponding duties do not exist, then I do not have a meaningful right not to be tortured. Similarly, neither the Scottish Government nor the Scottish people has any rights in international law that do not impose corresponding duties on the UK as an international actor to honour and give effect to those rights. That's what international law is. Otherwise you just sound like Sean Clerkin going into his local police station saying "I'd like to report a crime! An international war crime". The point is that it plays no meaningful or legitimate role in this constitutional dispute. Civil disobedience in secession disputes only advances anything if there is clear evidence of oppression of those being absolutely denied self-determination. Your real-world examples are those where sub-state nations have actually been oppressed. Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated. See above. They have a clear Scottish Parliamentary majority but they do not have a clear popular majority. And they have the authority to pursue their political aims, but they have no constitutional right to achieve them. But your "other options" are highly unlikely to succeed as a matter of realpolitik, even if they did would place an independent Scotland in a terrible starting position, and would not be supported by international law, contrary to what you have claimed. Not in the slightest. A "clear majority" of the popular vote for a second independence referendum would require, at least, being able to demonstrate on both the constituency and the regional list ballots that the majority of voters in Scotland voted for political parties with manifesto commitments to hold a second independence referendum (or of such a ballot at a Westminster election). Since one of those ballots points one way and the other points the other, and the margins are within fractions of a percentage point of 50% no such "clear" majority exists. Go and change the minds of another 20,000 voters. Again, we operate in something vaguely resembling the real world. There is not going to be a referendum on whether Scotland should hold a referendum on Scottish independence. You cannot, on the one hand, dismiss the importance of nation-wide election campaigns fought explicitly and predominantly on the second referendum issue, on the one hand, then claim 50.1% on only one of two ballots in such a "general" election as proof that the majority wants something specific (a second referendum). In a representative democracy, we acknowledge that some things are decided on the basis of the representatives we elect, and that others are decided on the basis of wider national sentiments (with elections used as a partial proxy for whether those questions should be asked). But not everything is decided based on whether there is a Scottish Parliamentary majority for it. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are entities with limited competence. Elections do not automatically provide them with mandates to do whatever they want just because an electoral system has given them a majority. For example, if the Parti Quebecois wins a landslide in the National Assembly elections on a platform to ban all immigration into Quebec, that doesn't mean that the Federal Government of Canada is under any obligation to make concessions to that "clear majority". The matter of immigration is a federal class of subject, and something in respect of which the interests of all of Canada are engaged. Now the other provinces and the Federal Government might consider changing the constitutional law to enable the Quebec administration to fulfil its manifesto promise, but they might not. That's a political dispute for which a sub-state electoral majority, while a potentially relevant consideration, is not a trump card. No I'm not. I'm saying we should be precise about what our argument is. There is a respectable argument that clear majority support from Scottish voters is not a necessary condition for an independence referendum. It is rooted quite firmly in, among other things, the British tradition of representative democracy, and the precedent of 2011. What I am against is unnecessary and unsubstantiated claims about the wishes of the Scottish people (that they as a whole want a second referendum when it's not clear that they do). The lack of a clear majority is indicated by the contradictory ways in which voters voted in the 2021 SP elections and in the narrow but clear way they voted in the 2019 UK elections. They are, in short, our best data, and are supported by other forms of data, including consistent polling evidence. I don't belong to a political party, champ, and haven't done so for almost six years. The sum total amount of time I was a member of a political party is shorter than the unbroken period since when I haven't been. It is a matter of public record that I voted for Scottish independence in 2014. *sigh* For the umpteenth time, I agree with you that there is a political mandate. I was arguing that there was a political mandate back in 2016, when polling support for a second independence referendum was actually higher than it is now and sometimes indicating a majority. But having a political mandate for something, and there being a political will among the people for something, is not the same thing. Let me illustrate with another example. At the 2019 UK General Election, about 52% of the ballots cast were for political parties committed to holding a second referendum on leaving the EU, rather than leaving having ratified Boris Johnson's Brexit deal. However, Boris Johnson won a comfortable 80 or so seat majority in the election. This gave him a clear political mandate to pursue the ratification of his Brexit deal. And since the UK Parliament is sovereign, there are then no constraints on what it can agree to, save where what it is agreeing to is contingent on future negotiations (for example). But only a moron would claim, following that General Election, that there was a "clear" political will in the UK for the country to leave the EU, when a majority of voters backed parties explicitly trying to put the question to another referendum, given that campaign was conducted explicitly in the context of, and indeed predominantly concerned debate on, that policy question. On the contrary, I am taking the inconclusivity of the ballots cast, and the supporting polling evidence, as indicative that you do not have a clear majority of voters with you on this course of action. Such a reality is fine if you are content to be stuck in your bubble where we all believe the UK Government is being foolish on its position, and are content to get absolutely nowhere in actually securing a referendum while preening at how right you are. But it is pretty unhelpful as reality if you want to actually get a second referendum, given that your opposition have no intention of working from your criteria for a mandate.
  21. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...