As he says about how we have ended up in the position where it looks as if there will be a pro-independence majority in the next Scottish Parliament. Though also worth raising the U.K. Internal Market Act.
But key point about the impact of denying a referendum on the way we think about the Union: if the Scottish Parlt asks for it (whether by an SNP majority or wider pro-referendum majority, however composed) and it is refused, is the Union really voluntary, or is it now imposed?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I suspect that, despite @GoodwinMJ’s excitement, the boring truth is that “I’d be likely to vote for a party that wants to tell the truth about British history, good points, bad points, and all” would sweep all before it.
For those at the back who think that constitutional reform is a luxury a Labour government shouldn’t bother with - note that the root problem is a constitutional problem. For the reasons set out in the paragraphs above.
I don’t think that it’s a question of the “left” having forgotten basic principles. But there is an important point buried in @giles_fraser’s piece about the way in which those who support constitutional checks on executive power/human rights protection frame their discourse.
At a technical level, Magna Carta is mostly no longer law (though the bit Giles quoted still is) and even those bits of it that are law have uncertain legal effect.
It is also far from what anyone would now regard as an adequate statement of limits on executive power: nothing on speech, family life, assembly, freedom of religion (protecting the rights of the C of E excepted)... But lots on arcane property rights (fish weirs...)
Lots of good questions here as to what joining the CPTPP would actually mean for the UK. Talking about “new opportunities” and “forging a leadership position” in world trade is all very well: but we need to be hard-headed on both risks and opportunities.
It is important that the current government is clear in its own mind and frank with Parliament about both opportunities and risks: and that its detailed negotiating mandate is put up for consultation, debate, and Parliamentary approval.
Note: more seriously, I don’t think that trying to associate the central event of Christianity with the currently ruling political party would have been caught by the old blasphemy law: but its gross offensiveness and arrogance - and the fact that it is still up - speaks volumes.