I seldom find myself agreeing with Piers Morgan, but on this one he has probably right.
The problem with Meghan Markle is that she wants to have her cake and eat it and hasn’t understood the role of the monarchy at all.
Of course she is free to lecture us with sound bites on every subject under the sun (which she does all too frequently), but not as the Duchess of Sussex. That’s the deal.
Unfortunately, far from being the trail blazer she believes herself to be, she increasingly comes across as a posturing, out-of-work actress looking for a raison d’etre.
So good luck with that, but what a pity when, with a bit of humility and tact, she could have it all.
Chris Stevenson writes “encouraging people to vote is something all royals should be doing”, but what is the point of voting if our votes are “wasted” and we do not get what the voters voted for?
Bring on voting reform with PPPR – party percentage proportional representation. Simply combine four seats into one voting area to give us a choice of same party candidates for our single vote. The percentage of seats equals the percentage of votes so that the most popular parties and persons are returned.
Another voice was John Rentoul, who told us that the Scottish National Party (SNP) “is riding high”. Does he remember that in the 2015 election the SNP got 94 per cent of the seats with 49 per cent of the votes? That’s what can happen with FPTP voting. Should we change the way our voting is manifest?
Ask the voters in Belarus.
Bury St Edmunds
Once again John Rentoul portrays Scotland as a battlefield on independence with no grey areas.
He is correct to state that Westminster can block a future referendum even if it is supported by the majority of MSPs in a proportional representation (PR) based election. Yes, Scotland has a form of PR, something that Mr Rentoul fails to highlight. The SNP have been in power under a PR system either with a complete majority or in partnership with others for 13 years.
This does not reflect an unfair system but rather an ineffective opposition blinkered by centralised control from London, and scared to embrace change.
For me, an ideal Scottish world would be one of significantly enhanced devolution (remember Devo-Max, which was blocked as an option at the last referendum?) while remaining in the UK. A possible good model would be Germany where the states (many of which were independent until 1870) are still effectively represented in a decentralised parliamentary system.
Should elements of the currently ineffectual opposition choose to deliver on promises made by David Cameron, Gordon Brown et al, this might be the way to allow real dialogue and negotiation on Scotland and federalism, rather than a continuation of the trench warfare we have seen since the last Referendum.
The other element not touched upon in Mr Rentoul’s article is the impact of Brexit. Not acknowledging this in the Scottish context does not mean that this will simply go away. Sixty-two per cent of those who voted in Scotland voted to remain and the potential impact of Brexit on Scotland currently looks grim. I, along with many of my peers, would consider voting for independence if it was the only way to rejoin the EU.
Having a pop at the SNP’s track record is not going to work – a bigger issue is driving the move to independence and dialogue needs to take place which moves away from “yes or no” to analysis of all options – not simply what the parties dictate. Ignoring the problem will exacerbate it.
As welcome as a four-week extension to the eviction ban is. More concrete plans are needed to prevent a housing disaster. Councils are still issuing Section 21 notices at pace. In order to prevent more homeless, we need a benefit take up campaign and properly funded and staffed advice centres.
More rough sleepers are forecast and the places they are currently placed (hotels) will soon revert to wanting their usual custom if ever a norm occurs.
Other social effects will materialise, costing more in different services. Mental health issues exacerbate this. Joined up thinking is required now. All parties should be actively working together to prevent a social disaster.
The clock is ticking.
David Barnett (“One for sorrow, two for joy ... magpies are far from black and white”) doesn’t mention the belief, certainly in my northwest London childhood, that magpies mate for life. Seeing a lone adult magpie therefore meant it had lost its mate, hence “One for sorrow...”
Ed has opted out of organ donation and blood donation, as is his prerogative (Can we cure anti-vaxxers’ fear in time for a coronavirus vaccine?). I would be interested to know whether he has opted out of receiving an organ transplant, blood transfusion or treatment with plasma should this life saving treatment ever be required.