Davie P

I don't disagree with the thrust of what you're saying, but the whole thing rests on the slim majority of a pre-legislative referendum over three years ago. However, the the result of the recent European elections were (arguably) pro-EU - and as you say, the "subsequent election produced what appeared to be a 'remainer' majority parliament", and the Prime Minister doesn't have a working majority to support his plans. Whilst I agree the deadlock should be broken, in this case deadlock = the status quo, and in the absence of any compelling support for a no-deal Brexit I'm not sure suspending parliament to force through a deeply divisive agenda will satisfy any principles of democracy. --- IMHO, the most troublesome aspect of all of this is that a considerable percentage of the population seem willing to accept a Prime Minister acting without the support of parliament. I understand Brexit supporters' willingness to accept this as a short-term fix, but It's a dangerous precedent, and we should carefully consider the wider implications.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you have no problem with Leave trying circumvent parliament's sovereignty to deliver an outcome they didn't mention as a possibility during their campaign. Is there nothing you find concerning about that?

This is quite simply untrue. No-one, not even Farage, was promising a No-Deal scenario at the time of the referendum.

All Leave has is pre-legislative referendum over 3 years ago - off that back of they they have consistently tried to circumvent laws and democratic parliamentary processes to push their agenda through, an agenda that is now a distant relation from what was promised. To accuse people who wish to see laws and democratic processes observed as having an 'extremist viewpoint' is just nonsense.

Are you seriously trying to justify the Prime Minister bypassing parliament on an important constitutional issue because you think MPs get paid too much??

Nah, trying to trivialise it as normal procedure isn't going to cut it. It's a PM trying to close down parliament to force through a constitutional agenda he doesn't have a majority for. We should all be concerned about that, regardless of our opinion on Brexit. And it's a 5 week suspension, not 4 days. Even allowing for conference recess, this is unprecedented.

How so? That's a pretty slack comeback

Urabug, your rhetoric doesn't cut it. The reality is that a proven liar who does not have a Prime-ministerial mandate tested at a General Election is attempting to bypass the seat of our sovereign democracy in order to push through an agenda that was not proposed at the time of an advisory referendum won on a slim majority. It is ridiculous to attempt to justify this scenario by bandying around the word 'democracy'. If you believe it is democratic, I suggest you read some political history and see where this type of scenario leads. Whether or not you support Brexit, Wednesdays events are an affront to parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy.

Boris Johnson is playing a very dangerous game - attempting to "take back control" from the EU by attempting to bypass the sovereign parliament Brexiters wish to have more power. Today's events bode very badly for British democratic processes, and it is ironic that many Brexit supporters seem to be happy about it. Reverting to the tired old 'will of the people' referendum rhetoric is ridiculous when a 'no-deal' agenda that was never proposed during the referendum. Unless, of course, Brexiters are happy with a sovereign parliament that can be switched on and off on the whim of a Prime Minister. We appear to be heading toward dictatorial facism.

Not all all. I hear your point, and your intent is clear. I'm not a fan of folk using their public positions for financial gain either, and would encourage others to call them out on it. Equally, I'm not a fan of folk making insinuations and I'm happy to challenge them on it.

Are you suggesting he is taking a stance on climate change for his own financial benefit? If so, I suggest you take your accusation as a conflict of interest complaint to the Scottish Government. It may be a more effective way forward than making insinuations on a forum. Bahahahahahahaaa........You cannot be serious! Making a complaints to the Scottish Government.......Which is run by the SNP, against an SNP man, for punting the SNP's pet obsession of making Scotland some sort of 'Green Nirvana". Yeah, right.......I can just see that getting wholly unbiased and impartial consideration...........NOT! Splendid. Let's just make accusations on a forum then, instead of using the independent channels set up to deal with your point. That'll do the trick. His background in renewables is well known anyway, so I see no problem. Just perhaps, he does have the good of the voters in mind and his background will be useful rather than it being a ploy to cash in in future?

I'd rather go with the evidence and scientific consensus before someone on the internet who puts 'climate science' and 'experts' in inverted commas and uses 'yadda yadda yadda' in place of a reasoned point. Politics and religion are taught in schools, as subjects in themselves and as part of other subjects such as history. What is it you think they teach in schools? Do you know the rigour subjects go through before they make it into the curriculum? Please use 'brainwashing' in your reply for maximum effect

This is fundamental to party politics though. Candidates for the other parties will be bound by manifestos and the party whip too. I'm open minded re: politics and have a relatively neutral stance, but there are many people who have made up their mind long ago re: SNP and are disproportionately determined to find fault in everything Wills says in order to support their existing opinion.

Agreed Windwalker, and if I were a youngster I might be more inclined to vote for a politician who was urging folk to listen to me. Hey ho indeed!

What? Kids went on a protest about climate change, and Wills, who has already nailed his colours to the mast re: climate change, urged the SIC to “listen to the voice of the next generation”. I see no problem there and he's certainly not the only person in politics to do so. But hey ho, lets continue to find ways to single out Wills and reframe him as a baddie....

Which bit are you complaining about? Kids being taught about climate science and politics, or kids being politically active? Are you suggesting he is taking a stance on climate change for his own financial benefit? If so, I suggest you take your accusation as a conflict of interest complaint to the Scottish Government. It may be a more effective way forward than making insinuations on a forum.

I was looking to do the same thing a few years ago and ended up putting it onto pallets and shipping it via United Pallet Network (UPN) / Northwards http://northwardsltd.com/pallet-network/ It worked out to be a lot cheaper. Some UPN agents will pick it up for you and others will require you to take it to a depot

^ not directed at anyone in particular, but I assume most people understand that things provided for 'free' by the government come from taxes, and 'free' means free to the user. Unless, of course, in the unlikely event the pharmaceutical companies make their products free at source. For the sake of clarity, free prescriptions were introduced with broad cross-party support in 2011 (as I recall, only the Tories opposed it) so credit/blame can't be given solely to the SNP. With regards to prescriptions, I can't recall ever having had a prescription but I'm more than happy for some of my taxes to go toward other peoples'

I'm not sure that the Green Party candidate calling for the end of the North Sea oil industry will win her too many votes in Shetland - https://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2019/08/16/green-candidate-calls-for-beginning-of-the-end-for-oil-industry I think Tom Wills has a more pragmatic view that “As long as oil and gas extraction is continuing then I want to see the benefits to Shetland maximised.” - https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/204857/snp-tidal-energy-hopeful-wants-to-maximise-shetland-oil-and-gas-extraction/ What do you folks think? Make the best of it while we can and/or make a more concerted push for green? Edit: obviously all the candidates will have an opinion on it. The above examples are just for illustration purposes!

I think you must be picking me up wrong as I'm not intending to be sarcastic. But yes, we're all hoping for the best. In the big scheme of things Brexit is really just a bureaucratic and legislative sideshow. We'll end up with another pile of trade deals to replace the ones we're ditching, global capitalism will continue as normal and the whole episode will be an embarrassing historical footnote!

I think the Tories did do a good job of negotiating our entry, and joining was partly responsible for the economic rejuvenation of the UK in the late 70s onwards. But since you seem to be rather fond of sarcasm that's probably not the answer you were hoping for. A big difference is that the Tories under Ted Heath did have a vision. If the current Tory government has a vision, they're keeping a tight lid on it. A casual observer may be forgiven for thinking they are just hoping for the best.

Yes, it's a fundamental problem with elements of our democracy and media - spectacle and sensation grabs people's attention and there's no way to hold liars to account. They just say whatever they think people want to hear, shrug it off if it's proven to be false and carry on. I think they best thing we can do is try not to be hoodwinked by the buggers, inform ourselves rather than get swept up in their rhetoric, and have reasoned discussion that aims to find compromise and consensus rather than take sides and throw buns at each other.

There was plenty of discussion about it at the time, but it tended to be quite dry and academic - I think it just wasn't exciting enough to make headline grabbing news! Nor did it suit any particular party or news organisation - they were all engaged in mobilising and polarising their troops in an effort to gain a clear majority. Adding 'by the way, it's only advisory' to their slogans wouldn't have motivated folk into voting either way! If I was a cynic I'd offer that the Brexiteer politicians and pro-leave media have been aware of the advisory nature of the referendum all along, but sneaked through with a slim majority and tried to rewrite and reframe the rules with an emotive 'will of the people' slant. The Tories trying to implement Article 50 without going through parliament, then being pulled up in the High Court about it, and the Daily Mail declaring the judges as 'Enemies of the people' is a good example. It seems to have worked though. For example, just a few hours ago Urabug called me a '(friends with concerns about Brexit)' who is 'making up stories and stirring the **ite again' when I pointed to the legislation. Folk will believe what they want, particularly if it's backed up by misinformation from the media and less than honest politicians. The alternative is that the media/politicians weren't paying attention when it was discussed in parliament, or hadn't done their legislative homework, which is feasible!

Unbelievable, most people who vote, believe that the decision of that vote will be the outcome, they don’t trawl through the net looking for any clauses hidden in the small print. When you are asked to vote you except that the majority will come out on top. Well that is unless it’s the SNP, who blatantly ignore the vote of the people, stick their fingers in their ears and go nah nah nah, we’re not listening. So, you consider the freely accessible legislation, much of which has been on the statute books for decades and was discussed at length in both houses of parliament pre-referendumn, and the subsequent high profile High Court cases, to be "clauses hidden in the small print"? I think this is symptomatic of one of the fundamental issues with Brexit - more column inches and airtime was given to blatant liars and politicians making undeliverable aspirational claims than was given to discussing the realities of the situation. The legislative detail may not fit with the headline grabbing narratives of Boris' £35m NHS bus, UKIPs anti-imigrant propaganda or promises of new trade deals before breakfast, but if folk didn't understand the legal basis of the referendum, or consider the law of the land to be some sort of inconvenient detail, then perhaps there's a problem with how the information was presented to the public? And if folk didn't understand the fundamental legal underpinnings of the referendum, then perhaps that provides even more impetus to make sure the detail is worked through in parliament?

I don't 'believe' it, I'm going by MSP voting stats, and news reports from the time. You seem to be conflating whether parties supported the actual referendum with whether they supported the vote for 16 year olds After the success of the introduction of votes for 16 year olds for the referendumn, the Scottish Parliament unanimously introduced votes at 16 for all Holyrood and local elections in Scotland in 2015 {source} I suggest you look up what Ruth Davidson said after the referendum - she was very open about how she changed her mind. I suppose you could consider it to be cynical gerrymandering, or you could consider it to be politicians doing what they thought was the right thing and others retrospectively agreeing.