When will indyref2 happen?

[DublinMagyar]

Of course the UK isn't a basket case, but it does have a lower GDP PPP per capita than Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. This has been the case for a while now. You have to travel quite far to find someone with a weaker economy than ours. Why do you think that is?

Tell him about the state pensions

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

22 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Of course the UK isn't a basket case, but it does have a lower GDP PPP per capita than Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. This has been the case for a while now. You have to travel quite far to find someone with a weaker economy than ours. Why do you think that is?

Tell him about the state pensions

And unemployment benefits. 

[GordonS]

18 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

The point was not about what was likely but what underpins the jurisdiction of the UKSC.

Small problem with this is that the Human Rights Act didn’t come into force until 2000: after devolution had commenced. Before 1999 the Convention wasn’t directly enforceable in domestic courts at all; they had to rely on common law rights providing analogous protection. There wouldn’t have been a “reference” to Strasbourg except after the exhaustion of very limited domestic legal remedies. That’s as true of the English criminal legal system as it is of the Scottish one.

The enforcement of the ECHR in domestic courts effectively did start only from 1999 (and in non devolved contexts from 2000). You’re making my point for me.

 

Maybe it helps to have got the degree before 1999, because there were important referrals to Strasbourg in criminal cases, and IIRC not much less than there have been to the Supreme Court since.

I don't understand how that's 'making your point for you'. Your point is that the Supreme Court does not review acts of the High Court in criminal cases, and my point is that this is a choice of words that carefully avoids the reality that the Supreme Court has overturned the outcome of Scottish criminal cases. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, I'm saying that it gives a partial picture.

Quote

No, they’re saying “the prosecution didn’t have the power to do that. We are the guardians of the constitutional rules that govern the actions of the devolved institutions. It’s irrelevant what the High Court has said because it is not the final arbiter of constitutional rules”.

I know, that's what I said. But they're saying that after the High Court has ruled "ok HMA, our ruling on Conventions rights here is that you're  fine to crack on", so they are, by implication, also telling the High Court they were wrong on a matter of human rights law. And the way you know this is that the High Court has accepted the precedents and ruled on future cases in light of Cadder and Fraser.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

 

[Aufc]

Maybe this is a stupid question

In the GERS figures, there is £4.5bn of debt interest added. I assume this is scotlands share of the national debt interest. However, i am confused because surely that national debt was built up over a good number of years, during which Scotlands figures were positive. So how is that worked out?

[John Lambies Doos]

 

Britain [emoji23]

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

19 minutes ago, Aufc said:

Maybe this is a stupid question

In the GERS figures, there is £4.5bn of debt interest added. I assume this is scotlands share of the national debt interest. However, i am confused because surely that national debt was built up over a good number of years, during which Scotlands figures were positive. So how is that worked out?

Aye, that's one of the ways the union steals from us and tells us we're too poor to be without them. 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Britain

What gets me about that is why aren't people out in the streets protesting about it?  We get ripped off royally, and not only does nobody bother, but pensioners actually go out and vote for it religiously. The answer can only be they don't know, due to us having the worst media on earth.

[Antlion]

24 minutes ago, Aufc said:

Maybe this is a stupid question

In the GERS figures, there is £4.5bn of debt interest added. I assume this is scotlands share of the national debt interest. However, i am confused because surely that national debt was built up over a good number of years, during which Scotlands figures were positive. So how is that worked out?

Poorly.

[John Lambies Doos]

What gets me about that is why aren't people out in the streets protesting about it?  We get ripped off royally, and not only does nobody bother, but pensioners actually go out and vote for it religiously. The answer can only be they don't know, due to us having the worst media on earth.

Unfortunately most people just aren't politically engaged, they don't feel passionate about those things; the've other priorities.
However, if the elections in May are held on an indy 2 mandate and majority seats/votes go to indy parties, with referendum subsequently denied....then.....that's a different matter. If a democratic Scotland is not up in arms about that, we might as well all pull our pants down and bend right over....

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Unfortunately most people just aren't politically engaged, they don't feel passionate about those things; the've other priorities.
However, if the elections in May are held on an indy 2 mandate and majority seats/votes go to indy parties, with referendum subsequently denied....then.....that's a different matter. If a democratic Scotland is not up in arms about that, we might as well all pull our pants down and bend right over....

They would be raging about that if they knew though. But if you try to tell them they don't believe you, if you tell them iScotland plans to double the state pension to bring it in line with OECD average they immediately dismiss it as 'how would we pay for it'. These people are conditioned, there's no getting through to them.

I don't think you'll see mass outrage after May when our democratic wishes are once again ignored, but remember that 3.5% thing, well its about 7% of yessers then, which is realistic.

[Juanhourjoe]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

FWIW I think one of the reasons why the UK stands out is our incredibly Eurosceptic/ pish media. They are obsessed with the most minor characters in American politics, but how much coverage have you seen of the person who will probably replace Merkel as Europe's most powerful person, or when that will happen?

Would love it if our news could be even a little more interested in our closer neighbours and the wider world generally.

Who replaces Merkel. I think should be of particular interest to many here. Seeing as her parties successor, from previous work, would likely be very open to a quick return of Scotland to the EU. Whereas if the leader of the CSU manages to presidential nomination. It's a little more concerning.

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 hour ago, Aufc said:

Maybe this is a stupid question

In the GERS figures, there is £4.5bn of debt interest added. I assume this is scotlands share of the national debt interest. However, i am confused because surely that national debt was built up over a good number of years, during which Scotlands figures were positive. So how is that worked out?

Surely if it was ‘rigged’, the SG would be the first to point it out as apparently the figures belong to the SNP government?

[Baxter Parp]

32 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Surely if it was ‘rigged’, the SG would be the first to point it out as apparently the figures belong to the SNP government?

The estimates are supplied by the ONS, the calculations are done by the Scottish Govt's statistical wonks.

[Dawson Park Boy]

22 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

The estimates are supplied by the ONS, the calculations are done by the Scottish Govt's statistical wonks.

Well, if it’s rubbish, why don’t they say so?

[sophia]

7 hours ago, Glen Sannox said:

propping up basket case member states

 

6 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Greece, Italy, most Southern European states are far worse.

There are 100,000 reasons why this casual racism is as ill conceived as it is to be pitied and consigned to the mindset of a union that is shortly to be wound up.

The fact that Johnson and his cod evocation of Churchill is playing such a part gives me no pleasure but he is directly responsible for grave calumnies and history will bear witness to his ineptitude on a singular human and state level.

[Glen Sannox]

19 minutes ago, sophia said:

 

There are 100,000 reasons why this casual racism is as ill conceived as it is to be pitied and consigned to the mindset of a union that is shortly to be wound up.

The fact that Johnson and his cod evocation of Churchill is playing such a part gives me no pleasure but he is directly responsible for grave calumnies and history will bear witness to his ineptitude on a singular human and state level.

[Ad Lib]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

Maybe it helps to have got the degree before 1999, because there were important referrals to Strasbourg in criminal cases, and IIRC not much less than there have been to the Supreme Court since.

We’re talking at cross purposes here.

There weren’t “referrals” to Strasbourg. Separate applications were made after domestic remedies were exhausted, as still happens. You don’t “appeal” or “refer” to Strasbourg in the way that, say, referrals to the CJEU would happen before the end of the EU transition period.

Strasbourg judgments weren’t directly enforceable in UK courts. The whole point of the Human Rights Act was to change that and therefore to reduce the need for individuals to make applications to Strasbourg in the first place.

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

I don't understand how that's 'making your point for you'. Your point is that the Supreme Court does not review acts of the High Court in criminal cases, and my point is that this is a choice of words that carefully avoids the reality that the Supreme Court has overturned the outcome of Scottish criminal cases. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, I'm saying that it gives a partial picture.

The point is that the role of the Supreme Court (and the Privy Council before it) is a function of devolution rather than a function of the criminal justice system.

Had Scotland rejected devolution in 1997, the Privy Council (and then the Supreme Court) would have had no role in assessing the compatibility of the Lord Advocate’s prosecutorial functions. It is purely because that office is a devolved one that this conversation is being had.

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

I know, that's what I said. But they're saying that after the High Court has ruled "ok HMA, our ruling on Conventions rights here is that you're  fine to crack on", so they are, by implication, also telling the High Court they were wrong on a matter of human rights law. And the way you know this is that the High Court has accepted the precedents and ruled on future cases in light of Cadder and Fraser.

Except you’re conflating two things here. The High Court is applying the law on devolution differently than before (because the law on devolution isn’t a criminal matter and therefore it is bound by the decisions of the UKSC). Any change to rules of criminal procedure are wholly incidental to that.

[sophia]

3 minutes ago, Glen Sannox said:

Any other isms to declare?

[Glen Sannox]

14 minutes ago, sophia said:

Any other isms to declare?

Yeah, you’re a joyless boreism.