exile

I think that works up to a point, at least to allow some sort of Labour led govt to be palatable. But I think Corbyn himself is simply too much seen to be an extremist on other matters - socialism, not singing the national anthem, pro-Palestinian, Irish nationalism, anti nuclear, ... and now the threat to private schools OMG and private property and... aaargh, the commies are coming. Whereas someone like Margaret Beckett would seem more likely a compromise, with some of the less 'red in tooth and claw' labour stuff, and some actual Tory rebels have been quoted as saying she could be acceptable. (which would surely draw the Lib dems into line)

There was heated language on both sides but it is the government who has the responsibility to uphold the law. Imagine if the Scottish Govt had been "slapped down" by the Supreme Court and Bute House had said the judgement was a "serious mistake". The Unionist media would be howling that the SNP was threatening the courts or threatening to act outside the law. Likewise it is the responsibility of the PM to set the tone in terms of use of language. For the indyref, the Yes movement knew they had to be very careful not to use words like traitor or quisling, and while many indy supporters did, you would not find senior politicians far less the actual leaders of the movement using those words to stoke up antagonism. In fact it was the unionist press and MPs who most often used words like N**is to describe the SNP and independence supporters. Remember Alistair Darling talking of blood and soil nationalism - and he got away with it. Now we have a tinpot Churchill tribute act standing up at the despatch box talking of no surrender, capitulation, vassal state, and so on. About an organisation that we are already in (and send elected reps to - not a foreign dictatorship!) and that has a simple clause to exit from, and with whom we had a 'deal' on the table to leave, and he voted against it! And finally. the whole Brexit mess is firmly the Tory party's responsibility. They 're the ones in power! They called the referendum. They set the question. They failed to have a white paper or any plan for what would happen after a Leave vote. They could have gone for a cross-party compromise from the start, not waited until almost 3 years before reaching out to Labour, by which time May's days were numbered. Theresa May insisted on 'red lines' that made the 'deal' unpalatable to the opposition; the Tory party could have supported some of the 'deal' options that they knew the opposition would support. The opposition may be divided and ineffective in some ways, but you can't blame them when they are not the ones in power. You may as well blame the Yes side for the failure of the Vow/Devo Max.

Where are the Scots Tories when you need someone to stick up for the rule of law?

I see "Robertson" trending on Twitter, something about missing out on a FIFA World XI

OK so... how would you relate the likelihood that some UFOs are alien craft, relative to those two?

Ok... if you had to suggest the most likely (or concede the least unlikely) alternative theory being true, would you put 'no Big Bang' ahead of 'No evolution'?

For alien visitation generally, you could have a more detailed scale, for example 1. Some UFOs really are alien craft. 2. Alien craft have crash-landed, and alien remains taken away and analysed (and covered up) by the authorities. 3. Alien craft have landed and abducted humans (or beamed them up without landing), and put them back. 4. Alien craft have landed, abducted humans, in order to have sex and reproduce with them, and put them back. 5. Alien lizard humanoids are secretly running the world. Which implies they exist, found us, managed to get here, landed without crashing, made secret contact with world authorities (or whoever they are supposed to control), and took control...

I don't know. I put that one above the others only because (i) it would only do harm to a very small number of people, and (ii) it would be relatively easy and inexpensive to do. Compared with the thousands of innocents affected by the Trade Centre, and the difficulties of flying (or faking) planes, etc. I originally had UFOs at the top, but then on reflection, I think the chances that they are alien craft more unlikely. Although the chances of alien life and 'civilisation' must be good, given there are apparently a billion trillion stars in the observable universe, the chances they would notice our solar system our of those billion trillion stars, and find and decide to target us, seems improbable, on top of having the technology to bother actually crossing interstellar space to get here (and then fly around a bit and disappear again). Whereas politically inspired mass murder and cover-up are definitely known to happen, reasonably regularly (a probability that is small but less than astronomically so).

Where would you place that in terms of likelihood of being a conspiracy, relative to the others?

Which conspiracy theories, or other unexplained phenomena, are more likely true than others, and why? For example out of this lot, I'd put these from most to least likely: 1. Princess Diana car crash wasn't an accident but was deliberately crafted. 2. 9/11 didn't happen the way US officials say (hostile jihadi hijackers) but was devised by the US / CIA / whoever. 3. Some UFOs are alien craft. Or, here are some more scientific ones 1. There was no Big Bang 2. Darwinian evolution is mistaken 3. The Earth is flat The idea is not to challenge people's beliefs or promote/suppress conspiracy theories but to see how differently people try to judge the likelihoods

Will the Telegraph stand up for the Law ahead of a partisan Government? Will Charlie Falconer stand up for Scots Law? Will Ed Davey stand up for the democratic right for a referendum? Will the BBC hold them to account?

Calling a referendum was not the problem, but take your pick from - a question that didn't specify what leave meant - no plan for Leave - complacent, better together-like campaign, that didn't take account that this time he couldn't rely on sycophantic one sided press backing, a vocal Queen, lack of votes for EU nationals and 16-17 Yr olds - failure to get any meaningful concessions out of the EU (also a EU failure not to give more) - promise that brexit would be implemented and article 50 triggered immediately (then reneging on it) - as you say, failing to grasp the quadruple lock...

Can't remember any time when the next PM was less clear. It's almost looking 4-way choice in England (therefore, UK). Quite apart from the possibility of the current PM either being in jail, or deciding not to resign, so no need for a next PM...

This week, the Supreme Court must come of age (New Statesman) " If the court decides that it has no jurisdiction.... it would go against the grain of the court’s evolving image of its own role in the constitutional landscape. It would also be, in my view, a dereliction of responsibility." Supreme court to hear claims suspension of parliament is unlawful (Guardian) Apparently proceedings are available live - due to start tomorrow morning.

The option 1 just suggested does respect the referendum result. The 2016 vote instructed us to leave the EU, but not how. The option 2 is just suggested in case "the whole country" is not leaving the EU on the same basis.

Have you not seen the shape of the Earth, in the form of its round shadow on the moon? I don't think anyone has ever refuted that shape, at least, never on here. Anyway, I have a question over on the Lunar Eclipse thread...

Oh dear.

How about: 1. New UK referendum, soft Brexit (single market and customs union) versus No Deal. 2. New Scottish referendum, with question, should Scotland remain in EU / single market and customs union? For the purpose of leverage with UK/EU n event of same or similar being granted to NI. Which side would supposedly pro-EU unionists parties campaign for?

Nice one. However.... I couldn't help notice that on this day when the Scottish judges slammed the PM for misleading the Queen, the BBC led its 10 o'clock news with an extended feature on Syria, and Newsnight led with some Democratic party convention in Texas. They seem intent to normalise the Johnson regime as if the context is normal. You can almost imagine BoJo in the slammer, still PM, taking calls, Laura K asking him how his #PeoplesPMQ facebook wheeze is going, and Johnson getting to remind the world Corbyn is a chicken.

Craig Murray asks how come no one is asking what's the Queen's role in all this? https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-dogs-in-the-street-know/ So... what if Boris isn't lying, when he says he didn't mislead the Queen, because she knew fine well he was lying, when he gave the reasons for the prorogation? Strange days continued...