The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


Nothing stays the same

Posted on September 06, 2016 by

David Cameron, September 2006:

cameronintimidation

And in January 2007, he added:

cameronintimidation2

The following month, the still-current Prime Minister Tony Blair said this in his speech to the Scottish Labour conference at Aviemore, as Labour sought a third successive victory at Holyrood in an election just 10 weeks away:

blair2007a

What a long time a decade in politics is, eh readers?

Print Friendly

    103 to “Nothing stays the same”

    1. One_Scot says:

      UK separatism good, Scottish Independence bad, hmm.

      Will we ever wake up?

    2. Janet says:

      Noises in the system that indy supporters who’ve registered with YouGov haven’t been asked to contribute to political opinion polls…but they’ve been sent lots of market research stuff on soap powders!

      This 46%…

    3. This morning I phoned the Herald newsdesk to ask if they were trying to ruin Scotland or the Herald or both? Thanks Rev…you are my one bit of guaranteed Media Refreshment each day!

    4. Free Scotland says:

      Economic consequences??? I would gladly live on bread and water for the rest of my life if only Scotland would take back her independence.

    5. manandboy says:

      https://www.rt.com/news/357619-protest-aboriginal-teen-death/

      Australian human rights activist Jeanie Marie Walker told RT last month that “there is still a huge underlying racism amongst the Australian people towards the Aboriginals ever since British colonization…that culture has continued when you look at detention centers and places of authority.”

      The same culture of British colonisation is alive and well and continues in the attitudes of Westminster to Scotland as a country to be exploited by the English.

      Blair, Cameron or May. Any model of control by Westminster will do – as long as the colonial exploitation can continue.

    6. One_Scot says:

      ‘But which tuxedo to wear?’

      If you really want to win it, it will probably have to be the Union Jack one.

    7. heedtracker says:

      A decade later and Blair should be behind bars for Iraq. The staggering fact is Scotland has changed completely in a decade, but not if you watch BBC vote SLab Scotland or read any of our awful tory press.

    8. manandboy says:

      BTW Stu, top marks for yet another excellent post. No one compares.

    9. Grouse Beater says:

      Over 300 years of being told we’re British, so should be grateful to have our land ransacked for the greater good of our glorious neighbour, eventually seeps into our skull.

      The largest problem still remains, too many think their lives fine and dandy living in a ‘region’ of another nation, the best possible, in the best possible of all worlds.

    10. gus1940 says:

      Janet at 9.14

      I agree re YouGov panel selection.

      I’ve been on the YouGov panel for several years and they are well aware of my Independence sympathies.

      I still get requests to complete polls but they are invariably tedious ones about TV Viewing, Newspaper Readership or retail preferences.

      Sometimes the polls start off with a political preference question but as soon as I answer in favour of Independence the questions jump to questions on the sort of subjects listed above.

      I am now firmly of the opinion that the polls are being used primarily as a means of influencing opinion and NOT reflecting it.

    11. Proud Cybernat says:

      The “economic consequences” of remaining within the UK:

      http://imgur.com/JxKTkzy

    12. manandboy says:

      Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing. Independence will not happen through negotiation with Westminster. AFAIK, the British have only ever ACCEPTED Independence by any of its colonies after the fact ; they have never actually AGREED to it.

      It’s time Scotland got up from its bended knee, and declared itself Independent.

    13. Scott Borthwick says:

      “The Chancellor’s tactic of using “rhetoric” to “intimidate Scotland into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone” was wrong.”

      Sure it was wrong. It worked, though.

      Re YouGov. I’m the same. I don’t think I’ve ever been asked my opinion on independence. They are really keen to know if I’ve heard of various pizza delivery places, though.

    14. Dr Ew says:

      David Cameron. What a nice fellow he was. Whatever happened to him?

    15. Scott Borthwick says:

      Manandboy. I think New Zealand was a unique case where they more or less accidentally became independent. The NZ government were just granted (or assumed) more and more powers until the British governor realised he didn’t have a job anymore.

      They have no independence day, though they still maddeningly hang on to the imperial flag.

    16. Clootie says:

      The article highlights the rearguard action being faught by the Unionists. They only ever manage to slow the advance towards Independence. It is only a matter of time. However every year of Westminster rule results in damage to our society.

      Push forward harder because every delay means that the Foodbank queues grow longer, the risk to the NHS increases, more wealth is siphoned off to London, the greater the damage to our welfare support systems, the likelihood of Brexit damage increases…we need to win and win soon

    17. gus1940 says:

      Today’s Scotsman contains an amazing article by Paris Wotisname praising Maggie May to the heights and congratulating her on her handling of Brexit.

      Reading it is like visiting another planet and the comments from the usual mob are even worse.

      It is depressing to think that our wonderful little country contains so many brainwashed cretins standing in the way of Indpendence.

    18. One_Scot says:

      ‘I am now firmly of the opinion that the polls are being used primarily as a means of influencing opinion and NOT reflecting it.’

      Hopefully one day, everyone in Scotland will realise this.

    19. heedtracker says:

      Coffee time UKOK propaganda, rancid The Graun style. If any SNP MP behaved like Vaz here, would there be such nice and calm rational discourse? Sex, drugs and toryboy world.

      http://archive.is/rTEa0

      “What does the Sunday Mirror allege Keith Vaz did – and is it illegal?
      Is it against the law to buy sex or to offer to pay for cocaine? And are poppers legal?”

      Dunno rancid The Graun, never actually tried, you staggering bunch of Great British weirdos.

    20. Ken500 says:

      Brexit means migration will stay the same just with more red tape and paperwork. The ignorant Tories. Westminster will be marginalised for Trade and Defence policies. The UK can and does already trade with China, India, Australia etc, but will not be able to trade on the EU preferential terms.

      Brexit could mean Trident will go. The American did not want it here in the first place. They could try and dump it on another EU country or discard it. The UK will not be a major member of NATO. No more illegal wars for Scotland. Migration in Europe is cause by Westminster illegal wars. The US/UK France illegally bombing the Middle East

      Scotland has a separate Legal system, Church, education and a shared Protestant monarch under the Terms of the Act of Union, forever. To change that without agreement would dissolve the Union. Under Scottish Law the people are Sovereign. Scotland can hold a Referendum any time if a majority votes for it.

      The Tories could be out of Office before Brexit.

      Why is Tomkins immigrant wife allowed to stay in Scotland under Tory policy, when the Brains are being made to leave.

      The Polls are being use to manipulate the result. Always wrong. Public polls should be banned during the Purdah period.

    21. Michael McCabe says:

      Labour PR Folk To Keith Vaz. What kind of Spin do you want on this Jim.

    22. It never ceases to amaze me how the world leaders such as Cameron,Obama etc are more than happy to encourage countries to overthrow thier leaders or breakaway from political unions in order to obtain thier liberty…Lybia,Iraq,the Arab spring,all have been encouraged to embrace freedom as right and a natural goal,everone,except the Scots,oh no,you can’t do that,that would be catastrophic for the western world,stop even discussing it,it upsets the global financial markets and worries the investing classes…yup,still can’t figure that one out.

    23. Ken500 says:

      Welfare is being devolved. There could be ways of getting rid of food banks. Stop sanctioning vulnerable people.

      The Press members are leading to their own demise. The state of the Scotsman and Herald is lamentable. Nationals are not available after 12 noon. Sold out.

    24. harry mcaye says:

      Janet says:
      6 September, 2016 at 9:14 am
      Noises in the system that indy supporters who’ve registered with YouGov haven’t been asked to contribute to political opinion polls…but they’ve been sent lots of market research stuff on soap powders!
      This 46%…

      and also gus1940…

      I registered with you gov before the indyref and have rarely been asked any political question and when I have it’s usually been UK wide with SNP lumped in with “Other”. Lately the polls begin, “how many of these brands have you heard of” then if I can be bothered it’s more retail questions or household bills or tv watching. More and more I just don’t bother with them.

    25. Macart says:

      We live in the UK they created…

      … Scary, isn’t it? 😮

    26. Bill McLean says:

      Why don’t people who feel they are being used by Yougov simply not leave – and tell them why!

    27. Hamish100 says:

      Is Vaz a corbynistanor or whit his name from Cymru ?
      Does Kez think he should resign. Does her deputy think he should stay?
      I think we should be told.

    28. Alison Rollo says:

      I agree Gus1940!! I have had exactly the same experience with You Gov. Been a member for year now.
      The last two polls, one at 47% YES and the next at 46% were timed to perfection. Conveniently excluded 16/18 year olds, asked a majority of previously NO voters and included a large proportion of people born in England!! They did however do the job brilliantly by giving MSM perfect headlines at just the right moment!! Last one to coincide with Nicola’s speech in Sterling! Of course You Gov is owned by a millionaire Tory Lord I understand — so nothing to worry about there!!

    29. Free Scotland says:

      @mark swainson at 10:08

      Good point. And isn’t it weird how they claim to be the champions of democracy (the people’s choice) and then go about IMPOSING their choice on the people. The way your country is being run kind of annoys us, so we’re going to bomb the hell out of your country, killing and maiming huge numbers of people, then we’ll move in and show you how things should be done. You’ll love us for it, honestly, you will (unless you happen to be one of the dead or maimed, or are related to one of the dead or maimed).

    30. Marcia says:

      “A week is a long time in politics”, said Harold Wilson in 1970 when all the opinion polls bar one were wrong.

      Congrats to the Rev for Wings being shortlisted for best Political Blog.

    31. manandboy says:

      Scott Borthwick says:
      “Manandboy. I think New Zealand was a unique case where they more or less accidentally became independent. The NZ government were just granted (or assumed) more and more powers until the British governor realised he didn’t have a job anymore.”

      Cheers, Scott. Trust those Kiwis. But you know, I think they have always been pretty independent kind of people. In NZ it kinda goes with the territory.

      Don’t see the accidentally model of independence happening in Scotland however, not with 150 years worth of oil and gas left in Scottish Waters. Plus infinite renewable energy producing endless electricity. Plus the water and the whisky and the hunting, shooting and salmon fishing. Then there’s the fishing grounds, och, it jist goes on and on. Naw, England’s no gonnae forget Scotland’s massive natural resources any time soon.

      Time for self-determination through self-assertion. I mean, how can anyone become independent through getting permission.

    32. Douglas gourlay says:

      Same yougov experience for me. Can’t remember the last time I was asked a Scottish political question.

    33. Ken500 says:

      The Tories could jettison Scotland for Brexit. Easier to get their own way. The majority of people in England don’t cares about what Scotland does. It is just a question of timing.

    34. People have to understand democracy means what the unionists decide it means.

      And that means ensuring there is no electoral disadvantage to the unionist parties retaining their hold on power.

      Remember Theresa May on 25 April 2015, during the UK general election claiming an SNP-Labour pact would spark the biggest constitutional crisis since the abdication of Edward VIII.

      And how she also questioned whether English voters would accept the ‘Legitimacy’ of a Labour Government backed by Scottish Nationalists.

    35. heedtracker says:

      Welfare is being devolved. There could be ways of getting rid of food banks. Stop sanctioning vulnerable people.

      The only permanent way out of food banks and sanctioning is devo-max and Scottish economic growth. Its also why red and blue UKOK toryboy world promised devo-max The Vow 2014, safer, faster bettertogether change, and then they all voted everything devo-max out of the Scotland bill 2015, every single mean nasty little UKOK shyster blocked all and any devo-max 2014 promises, except tax hikes, in between popping poppers and prozzie shagging.

      So now we have dying SLab demanding tax hikes when you cant pay anymore tax, PAYE, council, VAT, booze, tabs, petrol, parking, you name it, its taxed. And yet a decade later, SLab say vote SLab, we’ll tax a bit more off you and then that will deliver you to UKOK greatness.

      Vote SLab, we’re terrible but we’re British terrible. Ruthie Babes has scoped that trick though.

    36. galamcennalath says:

      Changed days indeed.

      The biggest thing to have changed is Scotland’s self awareness, whether you are Yes or No. The entire political landscape has changed with constitutional questions at the centre. That is, despite many Unionists being in wishful thinking denial!

      The second biggest thing is of course Brexit and the EU question. I have little doubt that WM will feel obliged to pursue a fairly hard Brexit to appease their Leavers and keep UKIP at bay. This will be unacceptable to the SG and SNP/Greens. Holyrood can call IndyRef2 whenever it believes the timing is right. Timing may be dictated mainly by Brexit progress.

      I am optimistic that another change has occurred – a negative relationship between the UK/WM and the EU, and a positive one between Scotland and the EU.

      The EU are thoroughly pissed off by the UK/WM. They won’t bite off their nose etc but any deals between them and the UK will be solely for the benefit of the EU. Their negotiating position will be to minimise damage to the EU and take advantage of any opportunities.

      Then there is Scotland. I am optimistic that the EU will be very well disposed towards Scotland. The EU has a policy of not interfering in internal politics of member states. However, at what point does that no longer apply to the UK? A50? During negotiations? Certainly on leaving. Or, when Holyrood declares IndyRef2? Probably if we vote Yes.

      I am optimistic that the EU will begin actively supporting Scotland as a remaining state, perhaps even prior to Indy.

      This may have a bearing on any attempts by WM to stop IndyRef2. If Holyrood passes it, the the EU may insist on it. After all, having energy rich Scotland remain within the EU is in their interests.

    37. manandboy says:

      Ken500 says:
      “The majority of people in England don’t care about what Scotland does. It is just a question of timing.”

      You’re right, Ken, but in a neo-liberal world, the majority in England, as elsewhere, don’t count and have no say in how things are actually done. That falls to the 1%, the wealthy elite, for whom Scotland is supremely important.

      The idea that the British Establishment don’t care about the goose up north that lays the golden eggs is beyond absurd.

    38. Effijy says:

      mark swainson says:

      6 September, 2016 at 10:08 am

      It never ceases to amaze me how the world leaders such as Cameron,Obama etc are more than happy to encourage countries to overthrow thier leaders or breakaway from political unions in order to obtain thier liberty…Lybia,Iraq,the Arab spring,all have been encouraged to embrace freedom as right and a natural goal,everone,except the Scots

      Mark, the objective is to extend neo-liberal capitalism into these countries so that the Big Corporations and Banks, mainly American can make fortunes out of them.

      They don’t want Scotland leaving their English Chums as every UK Prime Minister is in America’s pocket.
      Nor do they want Trident re-located further away from Putin

      We recently seen the Multi-Millionaire, Tory Blair, declaring his, (the UK’s) services, no matter what.

      He spends the UK’s cash and military lives, and is very well taken care of in later life.

      Thatcher made $10,000,000 on tours and book sales that might just have been bought by the US Government?

      Even our own Clunker Broon is making more than £500,000 per annum on “Business Dinner” speeches in the USA.

      The word No doesn’t exist for a UK Prime Minister when talking to the US President or Rupert Murdoch.

    39. carjamtic says:

      Slightly O/T

      If the wind carries the sound of creaking,of crying,of despair,down south don’t panic it is only the collective noises of the Aberdeenshire property market.

      Normally there are 1800 to 2200 properties on the market,a passing gull told me it’s now at 5000 and rising.

      Better Together ? Westminster Red/Blue Tory mismanagement.

      :-((

    40. galamcennalath says:

      Ken500 says:

      “The Tories could jettison Scotland for Brexit. Easier to get their own way. ”

      Yes. That fits with what I was thinking in my post above. IF we vote YES and that means Indy within the EU, England may find that their deal with the EU includes settling sensibly with Scotland.

      We will need to vote Yes within the Brexit negotiation period to be taken seriously, though.

    41. When I try to reply to WOS I keep getting telt that I “have already said that” and scrubbed.

      R U trying to tell me something Rev?

    42. Ken500 says:

      Scotland spends what it raises. It is Westminster interference and mismanagement which creates the ‘Defict’ and prevents growth. Oil taxation etc. If Scotland gets better off so does the rest of the UK. Even Establishment figures realise it. It is just a question of timing. Scotland is already going it’s own way.

      Social care, bus passes, student loans, prescriptions, nursery funding, investment. Increased SNHS spending. Renewables etc. Control of the Councils is next. To stop Unionist/Green councils wasting public money on grotesque projects and then claiming there is not enough for essential services. Against the majority wishes and the public interest. May 2017.

    43. clan rossy says:

      free scotland 9.17 am

      well said , so would I .

    44. heedtracker says:

      The majority of people in England don’t care about what Scotland does. It is just a question of timing.

      They care about what they are told to care about, by tory BBC led media neo con freak show.

      Watch Bomber Blair explain that the abomination of their Iraq invasion was actually all fine because he then won the 2005 general election you see.

      Next UKOK general election comes and they’re weren’t having that “one eyed Scottish idiot” and “most unpopular prime minister ever.” Funny that.

    45. mike cassidy says:

      A decade is a long time in politics!

      A decade later, Cameron didn’t give a monkey’s!

      http://archive.is/j2IS7

    46. Bob Mack says:

      It is indeed only a matter of time. The trend is in our favour and is inexorable.
      Westminster will inflict as much damage as it can in the meantime as we will become a rival nation for trade and resources. I hope it is soon,but in any event,I just hope it happens

    47. WP says:

      What we have to emphasise is the UK debt of £1.7
      Trillion. We get lambasted about £15 billion (made up
      Figure) deficit and how we are too poor yet everyone
      in the UK manages to survive every day with a massive
      £1.7 Trillion debt that will never be paid back, as the UK
      cannot get us to the surplus that they lied about happening
      2017/18. Keep reminding them!

    48. liz says:

      @WP – it is indeed a made up figure.

      The Rev highlighted a twitter spat with the bold Blair McD and @SpecPartAGLtd where he is getting a lesson in economics.

      https://twitter.com/SpecPartAGLtd/status/773101302087835648

      A joy to behold

    49. Capella says:

      O/T – Why does our Westminster government bomb Middle East countries for “democracy” yet prevent Scotland from achieving self-etermination?
      It’s about oil IMO.

      Here’s a short video explaining it. First 8 mins are a press discussion with Putin on the Middle East where – 5 mins in – he says that Libya had the highest standard of living in the Middle East before we “liberated” it.

      Next 5 mins are a Democracy Now interview in 2007 with ex-NATO General Wesley Clark, on the US plan “to take down 7 countries in 5 years.” Libya, Syria, Iraq etc.

      13 mins:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy5F5nDuXYY

    50. heedtracker says:

      A decade is a long time in politics!

      A decade later, Cameron didn’t give a monkey’s!

      Red tory Graun says its all Nick Clegg’s fault, as that Britnat tory crew continue to completely airbrush Scotland and the SNP out of UK politics, and everything else teamGEnglandB too.

      http://archive.is/WsCWR

      Why I can’t forgive Nick Clegg and his party of useful idiots
      Polly Toynbee

      The Lib Dems in coalition were so incompetent they backed Tory savagery yet somehow lost the great prize of proportional representation

    51. t42 says:

      @harry
      “Lately the polls begin, “how many of these brands have you heard of” then if I can be bothered it’s more retail questions or household bills or tv watching.”

      They probably want to know which brand will persuade you to join the UKOK team.
      Just tell them you eat tunnocks teacakes and mackies ice cream, and you buy them from tesco, and you watch bbc.

    52. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Bob Mack @ 11:27am

      Agreed that “Westminster will inflict as much damage as it can in the meantime”

      We should all recognise the Westminster Unionist scorched earth policy currently being enacted on Scotland and highlight it at every opportunity.

      Now is the time for the Scottish Government to openly tell Japan, the financial clearing houses in London and all the manufacturers in rUK which depend on access to the Single Market, Free Movement of people & capital to move their operations, brass plaques etc. to Scotland.

      Tell them we are staying in the EU no matter what Westminster does and you can stay too, enjoying all the benefits this brings to your business if you move here.

      Come IndyRef2 we need to get big business to come out in favour of Independence and highlight the economic benefits to iScotland to help negate the Financial basket case (Greece without the sun, business will leave Scotland etc.) arguments that the NO camp will regurgitate to scare the old and the uninformed with.

      WP @ 11:8am

      Agreed SG should put more emphasis on publicising the UK debt of £1.7 Trillion, but also publicise what this debt has been raised on, bailing out the Banks and the Quantitative Easing project at the expense of jobs and the vulnerable but the MSM/BBC etc. know which ‘Blackhole’ needs publicised as often as possible (and it’s not the 1.7 Trillion one).

    53. OT I see Fife Labour Council leader is backing a second Brexit referendum

    54. Footsoldier says:

      Blow to Scottish Labour as Alan Roden former Scottish Political Editor of Tory loving Scottish Daily Mail is named as Scottish Labour Communications Director.

      The SNP and independence hating Alan Roden, will be a strange choice for Scottish Labour especialy those Labour members who want independence or more left wing policies.

      Another Kezia decision?

    55. BJ says:

      gus1940@9:34

      Agree completely with your post. I stopped answering their surveys and asked to be removed from their list.

      Peter Kelner on a panel spouting stats and polls? He’s just another propaganda tool for the media!

    56. ArtyHetty says:

      Amazing to see the crap that the UKOK unionists have spouted about Scotland, even going back 10 years, what am I saying! It’s been happening for 300+ years, doh!

      I have read a few people on fb etc getting very impatient and asking for UDI. It would be interesting to have a list of countries that extracted themselves from their imperial masters, and in what way that was achieved. Maybe that already exists and has been covered on WoS, but I think we all know that it was mostly a bloody process, in most cases?

      Re; Heedtracker@10.49

      Just to be aware that only some ‘welfare’ is being devolved to Scotland, mostly disability and carers allowance. Job seekers, ( seems such a sinister term), ESA, Income supoort and the new, the all brand new system designed to cause the utmost damage, ‘Universal ‘credit’. Job centres will be closing, because Uni Credit is replacing all social security, can only be applied for online, and lumps all so called ‘benefits’ into one monthly payment, including housing ‘benefit’. If someone is refused it, or makes a mistake in their apllication, they are at risk of homelessness and starvation.
      Charities will be stretched to the max trying to support vulnerable and disabled people through this dreadful process.

      I notice various calls for the Scottish gov to somehow stop the sanctions from the DWP. They have no power to stop snactions at all, they can only support the victims via crisis funding, mitigating the bedroom tax, keeping the Independent Living Fund going, while england scrapped it, social/crisis funding etc. It all costs. When uni credit does not pay out for peoples’ housing, councils will also be in a worse financial situation, as well as dealing with more homelessness.

      An absolute crime against the people, the tory UKGov are the most cruel, incompetent and destructive bunch of b******s, of recent times. Labour would do no better.

    57. Robin J Barclay says:

      I too have had the same issues with YouGov Polls and have now started telling them that I don’t watch TV, I’ve heard of all the companies and that I wouldn’t be proud to work for any of them, nor would I recommend them and that they all give me a negative impression.
      I give them 1’s for how they think they’ve done and how intersting their poll was.
      I lambasted the last one when they wittered on about the government and didn’t bother to mention the third largest party in the UK.
      Maybe they will start to get the message but I doubt it…..

    58. clan rossy says:

      i look at nicola sturgeon and what she is doing
      with the flak coming at her from all sides .

      then i think back to my childhood in the 1960s
      in the niddrie area of edinburgh, thinking of a saying
      my grandad would somestimes say .

      (THOSE WHO WAIT REAP THE BENEFITS )

      i now know that scoland and her people are
      in very safe hands .

    59. Tinto Chiel says:

      “I am now firmly of the opinion that the polls are being used primarily as a means of influencing opinion and NOT reflecting it.”

      That’s something that we all will need to remember over the next 18 months are so, gus1940. And please don’t get too depressed about the btl fruit loop claque in The Hootsman. They’re a pretty desperate bunch. 77 Brigade?

      “Westminster will inflict as much damage as it can in the meantime as we will become a rival nation for trade and resources.”

      Bob Mack, it’s going to be back to the future and the Alien Act of 1705. Look at the state they left India in, with unmanageable borders and built-in religious chaos.

      Oh, how I long to be foreign.

    60. Les Wilson says:

      Anyone have a link to Nicola’s speech today?

    61. call me dave says:

      Filled one in on YouGov a few years ago… tumble weed since although my better half seems to get them quite often.

      PS:
      A&E waiting time figures improve again since the last time 95.8% says shortbread radio all time high but no sign yet on Auntie’s web site who tell us about a rise in mental health problems and cervical screening all time low. 🙁

      PPS: Claim of right.

      Mr Grady added he was viewing the Claim of Right not just in connection with Brexit but also in relation to what has occurred since 2014’s independence referendum and the promises made by Westminster politicians.

      His debate is scheduled for 90 minutes on Tuesday in Westminster Hall, a smaller debating chamber used by MPs.

      Little coverage on parliament tv I expect.

      Not even showing clearly on the schedule for Westminster Hall.
      🙁

      http://parliamentlive.tv/Guide

      Main chamber:

      http://parliamentlive.tv/Commons

    62. Angus Gother says:

      New thread since I started putting the following thoughts down, so hope not too soon to put this on this topic. Hard to tell if its on topic or not 🙂

      Apologies for a long post – I’ve been mulling over these topics for a few weeks and getting increasingly concerned at the number of people who are happy to wait for either Brexit to actually happen or for Article 50 to be triggered before doing anything about IndyRef2.

      I think lochside and Craig Murray make a good point about indy ref timing (see previous thread comments), but I would approach it from a different angle to explain the fundamentals behind it for those who might not understand them – and also to improve my own understanding from the critical responses 🙂

      When it is announced that the sovereign people of Scotland have decided that Scotland should be independent, that will trigger a process under the Vienna Convention on the Operation of Treaties. Every treaty that the UK is party to would be reviewed by the other parties to decide whether Scotland or rUK or both should be successor state(s) to the present UK on the treaty.

      The status of a successor state on the treaty would be the same as the status of the UK on the treaty when the announcement of the indy decision is made. If there’s a referendum, the date of the announcement of the result would the status date.

      This means in respect of the Lisbon Treaty (which encapsulates most of the EU treaties now), if UK has triggered article 50 when it is announced that Scotland is to be independent, any successor state to the UK on the Lisbon Treaty would be in the state of having triggered article 50. There is no mechanism to withdraw the notification – article 50 is a one-way process out of the EU, EEA, EFTA and the WTO, especially if the withdrawal agreement cannot be negotiated and ratified during the 2 year period. UK is a member of the EEA, EFTA and the WTO by being a member of the EU.

      Now, we have the situation where it can be argued that it is the settled will of the sovereign people of Scotland to remain in the EU. Nobody in the UK has the authority or power to countermand this.

      There are logically only two ways to respect the EU ref result in Scotland:
      A – come up with a mechanism for Scotland to continue the 1706 Union with England that formed the UK, and still be a member of the EU while England and Wales leave the EU.
      B – become an independent sovereign state that is a member of the EU and inherits that status from the original/current UK.

      Once it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that option A isn’t possible (total lack of political will for it), we have the following sequence of events to get the simplest way of getting to option B and remaining in the EU while rUK exits:

      1 – People of Scotland announce in some way that they desire indy (via ref result OR a motion of Scottish Parliament)

      2 – EU-27 accept this announcement, and state that Scotland and rUK will both be successor states to UK on the EU treaties. If an effective UDI has happened, this would be EU-27 recognising the UDI. Could/Would that happen?

      3 – rUK invokes article 50 and starts Brexit process

      4 – At some point, the various parties co-ordinate dates so that Scotland indy takes effect on or before Brexit does.

      At present, Theresa May is dithering about invoking article 50. Nicola is taking advantage of this.

      – Theresa May and the 3 Brexiteers don’t have a clue what Brexit is, but are leaning to hard-brexit (which is the default with minimum negotiation with EU-27)

      – Scotland has an effective veto on hard Brexit because nobody may countermand the settled will for Scotland to Remain in the EU. (I wonder if T May is aware of this)

      – The effective veto is complicated by the fact that we are democrats who recognise that the will of the people of England and Wales to Leave must be respected.

      – There are suggestions that UK gov may wait till after the German and French elections in 2017 to trigger A50. That would give the timeline a year or so to get a favourable indy ref result, as the German Federal elections could take place in a window between 27 Aug and 22 Oct 2017. Then there might be further delay while May waits to see who she would be dealing with.

      – The process for the UK to consult with the devolved administrations on the details of Brexit is currently at the stage of discussing the framework for the consultation

      – it is going to be a good while before they get to actual discussions.

      – UK gov cannot cancel Brexit because then they would have 10 – 16 million very angry voters in England and Wales to deal with.

      – Section 30 approval for another IndyRef will be easier to get because the SG can bypass the UK gov to get it – it just needs a correctly constituted meeting of the Privy Council with at least 3 members. Possible attendees at this meeting could be: the FM, Scottish Parliament presiding officer, the Secretary of State for Scotland (OK he won’t vote for the order, but maybe he should be there), Angus Robertson MP and Alex Salmond MP. That would give 4-1 in favour of passing the Order for HM Queen to sign.

      -Another possibility would be for the Scottish parliament to go for a ref without the Section 30 order. They would be implementing the will of the people. There is precedent for this and the end result of the AXA insurance case shows that the Scotland Act cannot be enforced in those circumstances.

      – Nicola already said IndyRef2 won’t be like IndyRef1. So maybe there won’t be a long lead in – maybe she’ll judge that a couple of months would be sufficient. Most people only discuss and think about the issues properly in the last month or so before voting.

      I think that preparation for any indyref includes discussing the Claim of Right and the principles behind it with people.

      Firstly, if it is true that most people born in Scotland learned about the Claim of Right in primary school, what they would remember would be very superficial. The material they learned would not have covered the principles of sovereignty in any depth.

      Secondly, most people like me, who have come to live in Scotland from elsewhere, are mostly ignorant about the Claim of Right and the principles behind it. In particular those from England, or with English heritage may assume that English constitutional principles and thinking apply here.

      I have mixed Scots, English and Dutch/Afrikaans heritage, was brought up mostly with the English heritage, and lived in Scotland for 13/14 years before I began to understand that there was a good deal more to the Claim of Right than some medieval history and the drive to get a Scottish Parliament.

      My journey of discovery and thought began after somebody reposted this link after IndyRef1:
      http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-sovereignty-for-dummies/
      (I see Petra has quoted extensively from that article this morning – it is very good, and so are her comments)

      People need to think about these principles. I have thought about them, and used a normal lateral thinking process to apply them to the EU ref result to determine the claims I made about the EU ref result above.

      People also need to think about and understand how the proper application of these principles conflicts with the standard UK political process that assumes that English constitutional ideas and principles apply to everything.

      This is a fundamental reason for indy – the rest of the details like Currency, Economic viability, Pensions, Defence, getting rid of Trident, etc are important, but are just details. Most of these are hostages to fortune because the precise details people want would be subject to the outcome of indy negotiations and/or frank disclosures of info from the Treasury and various UK agencies.

      Once the sovereign people of Scotland are free to make decisions on their own with full information on what is actually happening, I think we will be amazed at how quickly and relatively easily we’ll be able to open up our own export capacity, encourage foods and other goods produced in Scotland to be packaged here and take many other steps to grow the economy.
      We just have to ditch the “cannae do it” attitude that so many have.

      Once again, sorry for the long post – hope it wasn’t TLDR!

    63. Ken500 says:

      Unionist/Green Councils are wasting taxpayers money on non mandated grotesque mismanaged projects. Then claiming there is not enough for essential services. Against the majority wishes and the public interest. £Billions? which could be used to relieve poverty. May 2017 SNP/SNP. Do not waste the vote. Or cancel it out.

      GCC, ACC, ECC.

    64. John J. says:

      The Unionist press are not very subtle when it comes to their selection of photies.
      Look at the one the Torygraph used for Cameron; not very subtle. The Herald does this all the time with Photographs of Nicola Sturgeon, finding the least flattering one they can, although they’ve gone a bit easier on her this week in the wake of the revelations of her miscarriage.

    65. Neil Cook says:

      I would suggest all to unsubscribe from Yougov as all I got in return was more spam e-mail !!(coincidence ?) after one poll realised it was a junk site and didn’t want anyone knowing my preferences of pizza toppings !
      Typical site to spread the establishment views. I put my reason for leaving as it was a shit site and it would be better going through the House of Lords telephone book for future retards .

    66. Alex P says:

      Brexit means Brexit

      We live in interesting times. The cacophony of misinformation and confusion is astonishing. The whole peculiar episode was caused by David Cameron’s hubris. Incredibly he believed that his half hearted attempt to get EU concessions for the UK would be sufficient to convince the Eurosceptics that all was well. Sure of remain winning, he set up the Referendum. The debates on the respective merits of remaining and leaving were conducted at an infantile level. Remain totally failed to explain the level of integration with the EU that 40 odd years of membership had caused, and the enormous disruption that would follow a departure. The leave campaign was solely a stream of slogans and untruths. This level of non debate was broadcast without challenge by the BBC. Leave won in England, apparently supported by the relatively undereducated that read the red-top press, and the Southern Conservatives that believe that England is being subverted by Johnny Foreigner. There appeared to be enormous hostility towards European migrants, despite the fact that the UK had opened its doors to Romanian and Bulgarian emigrants 5 years before France or Germany. This hostility is hard to understand, in a country that has encouraged the immigration of so many Pakistanis. The UK has been a leading force in expanding the EU to take in those countries, which are the origins of the people we now don’t want.

      After this vote, there has been a deplorable increase in physical violence towards European immigrants. There was a sudden weakening of the pound and stock market, immediately after the result was announced. Subsequently there has been a partial bounce back. This has been attributed to the inherent stability of the UK economy, despite Brexit. The huge quantitative easing and reduction in interest rate evidently had no effect. Incredibly, all this pessimism and optimism is expressed before the formal process has begun, or even a date set for its commencement. Equally absurd is the ludicrous suggestion that we will know what is happening when negotiations start. Surprisingly this absurdity is not challenged by commentators in any of the media. Whoever heard of serious negotiations being conducted in an open forum?? We will not know the outcome till the end of negotiations.

      Inevitably our three buffoons will have a series of meetings with EU officials. It is not clear whether negotiations will be entirely with the Commission or whether the EU president will chair meetings. Our Buffoons will make unacceptable demands and be rebuffed. Whether such exchanges are reported to the media or not will be up to the UK. The only purpose in describing failure is to attribute that to the intransigence of the other side. It may well be that the UK has already antagonised the EU enough to ensure difficulties.

      This whole episode opens up the question of our so called constitution. Apparently Theresa May, the Prime Minister, not elected by the Country, by Parliament, or even her own Party, has a Royal Prerogative, which entitles her to give notice to the EU without parliamentary debate. This despite the fact that Parliament passed the Act which took us in to the EU. The alleged doctrine that Parliament is supreme, appears to have serious defects. The fact that this is an English Government, which can completely ignore Scottish representation, augers ill for Unionists. Surely by Scotland electing MPs that advocate separation, that is enough to start separation. I understand that is what Maggie Thatcher thought. To hope that we can convince the huge English majority to let us go, without a firm stand on our part seems futile.

    67. galamcennalath says:

      Lots of Yoon talk about the SNP/SG going soft on Indy. “Shifting goal posts” etc etc.. Utter bollocks. The day that the SNP goes soft on Indy is the day Hell freezes over. They didn’t spend decades getting this close, to opt for something short. The current circumstances are probably the best opportunity which will ever be presented.

      So what’s going on with talk of “least worst” outcomes etc.? IMO it’s to show that the SNP/SG are reasonable people so when the hard Brexiteers unveil their totally unacceptable stance, it will be WM which is shown to be extreme and unreasonable. And that situation is almost certainly on the cards.

      The choice must be crystal clear between Indy with the very board shoulders of the EU versus another kick in the balls with the Union. All talk of middle ground and special status for Scotland needs to be explored, and exorcised. WM are going to hand us that choice on a plate.

    68. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Angus Gother (12.52) –

      Very interesting, thanks.

      Many of us find it difficult to juggle a lot of facts simultaneously but I read your comment carefully, took my time, and enjoyed it a lot.

      One question – how do we deal with characters like Mundell, Tomkins and Murdo Fraser, who swat away any arguments abut post-Brexit democratic deficit by saying that the EU referendum was a ‘UK’ vote, therefore it applies to all? They do it all the time and are seldom challenged.

    69. mr thms says:

      #Angus Gother @ 12:52 pm

      An interesting post which I have copied and pasted for future reference.

      “Every treaty that the UK is party to would be reviewed by the other parties to decide whether Scotland or rUK or both should be successor state(s) to the present UK on the treaty.”

      Would a revocation of the Treaty of Union 1706 between Scotland and England have repercussions for the Treaty of Utrecht 1713, when Gibraltar was ceded to Britain and ceased their defence of Catalonia?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Utrecht

    70. Bill McLean says:

      Angus Gother – Great post and extremely informative. I lived outside Scotland for 38 years and knew little of the position regarding the Treaty and Act of Union until I found this site about 3 years ago. Some of the contribution here are amazing! Pity those in Scotland who don’t and won’t know!

    71. Smallaxe says:

      Angus Gother says:

      Angus please excuse my ignorance,what does TLDR mean?

      I get Tory Leader Does Runner!

      Genuine Question.

      Peace,Love and Puzzels

    72. Smallaxe says:

      Even puzzles!

      Peace Always

    73. Capella says:

      @ Angus Gother – interesting post. Long but repays careful reading. FYI – I’m not aware of any Scottish children being taught anything about the Claim of Right in Primary school. Nor any adults either. If it wasn’t for this site we’d be totally ignorant about these aspects of our constitutional position.

      The fact that Scotland is an equal partner in the Union is completely ignored by Westminster. Who are the Scottish representatives in European treaty talks? Or the G20? Or the UN?

    74. Tinto Chiel says:

      “Scotland has an effective veto on hard Brexit because nobody may countermand the settled will for Scotland to Remain in the EU. (I wonder if T May is aware of this)”

      Angus G: this immediately leapt out at me. I hope this point is hammered home by the FM when she speaks to other EU leaders. I’m not sure if they quite understand the nature of Scottish sovereignty.

      I don’t think Maggie May has really thought anything through, actually, but at least she gets to play at Prime Minister for a wee while.

    75. CameronB Brodie says:

      Yoon pimps of British nationalist ideology were born too late and would fit in better to an earlier age of colonial imperialism.

      A remarkable peculiarity is that they (the English) always write the personal pronoun I with a capital letter. May we not consider this Great I as an unintended proof how much an Englishman thinks of his own consequence?
      – Robert Southey, Letters from England

      The Internal Colonial Concept

      Theories, models, and sometimes mere assumptions that emanate from internal colonial concepts are diverse. They have been used in relation to developments within Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, Sudan,3 and Thailand, and within American and European states too. The study of different phenomena within such contrasting societies, by scholars trained in distinctive ways, and whose respective disciplines embrace contending schools of analysis, has contributed to the formulation of diverse internal colonisation theses for the examination of these societies. In one instance, internal colonialism is seen as the “peculiar socialism without the peasant,” a socialism in which an “urban-centered power elite” in Russia transformed the “whole peasantry into a legally and factually discriminated (against) class” after 1917. Stalin’s forced collectivisation was thus Trotskyism applied within a framework of internal colonialism.”4

      Another interpretation maintains that “ethnic solidarity among any objectively-defined set of individuals is principally due to the existence of a hierarchical cultural division of labor that promotes reactive group formation. This kind of division of labor is typically found in regions that have developed as internal colonies.”5 In that study, a theory of internal colonialism is selected for its analytical utility in order to explain the “persistence of separate ethnic identity in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, during a century of rapid change”” after 1850.6 One interpretation refers to the South African government’s “concept of separate development” as “domestic colonialism”,7 another regards internal colonialism as “primitive city parasitism”,8 and another contends that Chicanos were “regulated to a permanent secondary status best characterized as internal colonialism”.9

      ….If internal colonial theories have come under suspicion in certain circles because of the influence of Marxist thought that is in some of them, it should be noted that there were Europeans prior to the articulation of socialist doctrines who expressed themselves in ways which suggest that they would not have found the internal colonial concept alien. The Reverend Joseph Townsend regarded eighteenth-century county workhouses in England as colonies “to which a few of the superabundant members of the community have been transported to make room for others.64 The More sisters that the late-eighteenth-century schemes of social and religious engineering were creating colonies, a “Botany Bay” and a “Sierra Leone” in the Membership.65 “Colonies for the poor” were successfully established at Frederick’s Oord in norther Holland from 1818.66 Alexander D’Junkovsky translated William Allen’s Colonies at Home: or, The Means for Rendering The Industrious Labourer Independent of Parish relief (1826) into the Russian language, and the Russian minister of interior “ordered it to be translated into German for the use of German colonists in Russia”.67 Maria Edgeworth had no doubt that “colonization at home would be preferable to colonization abroad, if it can be carried into effect, because it would, in the first place, save all the risk, expense and suffering of emigration, and would, in the next place, secure the home country the benefits of increased and improved cultivation and civilization.”68

      Domestic colonization was not affected by the popularization of and proliferation of small-scale, philanthropic, and carefully directed ventures. These experiments were expensive, they required close supervision, and they were becoming increasingly anachronistic as a support for economic liberalism gained strength. On the other hand, James Kay-Shuttleworth noted in the 1830s that the “increase of manufacturing establishments” in a district led to its “consequent colonilisation,” and that the rapidity of these development outstripped the “growth of civic institutions.”69

      Colonial enterprise can be regarded as the consequence of part of the external activities of a political entity;s social force, which a concatenation of circumstances made practicable. Furthermore, some of the practices that it effected, and the policies that it implemented, can be related to, and were sometimes extensions of the metropolitan society. In the mid-sixteenth-century England, for instance, the indolent poor could be enslaved.70 “White servitude” according to Eric Williams, “was the historic base upon which Negro slavery was constructed,” and he cites Ulrich B. Phillips’s claim that “the Africans were latecomers fitted into a system already developed.”71 Contemporaneously, the social forces of expansive societies were having a powerful impact within each metropolitan country too. If there was something novel in the colonial enterprise of certain powers in the decades after 1870,72 there were unprecedented development occurring within each of them too.

      http://users.clas.ufl.edu/marilynm/Theorizing_Black_America_Syllabus_files/Internal_Colonial_Concept.pdf

    76. CameronB Brodie says:

      This looks interesting.

      Englishness and Empire 1939-1965

      Did loss of imperial power and the end of empire have any significant impact on British culture and identity after 1945? Within a burgeoning literature on national identity and what it means to be British this is a question that has received surprisingly little attention. Englishness and Empire makes an important and original contribution to recent debates about the domestic consequences of the end of empire. Wendy Webster explores popular narratives of nation in the mainstream media archive – newspapers, newsreels, radio, film, and television. The contours of the study generally follow stories told through prolific filmic and television imagery: the Second World War, the Coronation and Everest, colonial wars of the 1950s, and Winston Churchill’s funeral.

      The book analyses three main narratives that conflicted and collided in the period – a Commonwealth that promised to maintain Britishness as a global identity; siege narratives of colonial wars and immigration that showed a ‘little England’ threatened by empire and its legacies; and a story of national greatness, celebrating the martial masculinity of British officers and leaders, through which imperial identity leaked into narratives of the Second World War developed after 1945. The book also explores the significance of America to post-imperial Britain. Englishness and Empire considers how far, and in what contexts and unexpected places, imperial identity and loss of imperial power resonated in popular narratives of nataion. As the first monograph to investigate the significance of empire and its legacies in shaping national identity after 1945, this is an important study for all scholars interested in questions of national identity and their intersections with gender, race, empire, immigration, and decolonization.

      https://www.amazon.com/Englishness-Empire-1939-1965-Wendy-Webster/dp/0199226644/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473170890&sr=1-4&keywords=Internal+Decolonization%3F+British+Politics+since+Thatcher+as+Post%E2%80%90colonial+Trauma

      N.B. British nationalism’s transformation into English nationalism began in the mid-eighteenth-century.

    77. CameronB Brodie says:

      Soz, mid-nineteenth-century.

    78. crazycat says:

      @ Smallaxe

      No-one has answered your question and there is now a new thread, but just in case you see this:

      I believe TLDR stands for Too Long Didn’t Read; people used to post that in response to vast screeds, so now those who write such screeds sometimes put it at the end, followed by a one-sentence summary.

      (I’m sure that’s what it stands for; I could be a bit wrong about the history.)

    79. gus1940 says:

      John J at 1.09

      Re selection of photos – surely nobody can forget the daily deluge of carefully posed professional photos of Spud Murphy which the media eagerly leapt upon while carefully selecting the worst available photos of Eck, Nicola and other SNP leaders.

      Over the last couple of weeks we have seen the same tactic employed with Dugdale – a succession of professional studio photos released on a daily basis.

      While on the subject of Murphy – for ages I have been trying to figure out who he resembles.

      This afternoon I have been watching one of the many documentaries on the Nazis and it suddenly clicked with me who that person was – none other than Reinhard Heydrich.

    80. gordoz says:

      Same experience with yougov.
      On panel for 2 yrs and only TV & newspaper survey Q’s no politics.

      So gave up – once try knew your voting pref Yes .. That was it.

    81. Robert Louis says:

      I see that the SNP NOT talking about independence is now seen as a virtue. Changed times indeed. Unionists whistle, and the SNP jumps.

    82. Smallaxe says:

      @ crazycat:

      Thanks crazycat,I was starting to get a complex.

      Your a star!

      Peace,Love and Starcrazycats 🙂

    83. Robert Peffers says:

      @manandboy says:6 September, 2016 at 9:41 am:

      Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing. Independence will not happen through negotiation with Westminster. AFAIK, the British have only ever ACCEPTED Independence by any of its colonies after the fact ; they have never actually AGREED to it.”

      Oh! Yes the have! Red this :-

      http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofindependence/treatyofedinburgh-northampton/index.asp

      Mind you it didn’t take too long, (historically speaking), for them to forget they had done so.

    84. CameronB Brodie says:

      So much for Britain’s historical legacy of internal colonialisation. What about something more contemporary? Well the academics don’t appear to have a settled opinion so I suppose it’s up to us folks. Just as well bottom-up emancipation is best, eh?

      Internal Decolonization? British Politics since Thatcher as Post?colonial Trauma

      Abstract

      In recent years a growing number of commentators, especially ones associated with the idea of a ‘new imperial history’, have argued that British politics and culture remained more heavily shaped by colonialism and decolonization than had previously conventionally been thought. This paper pursues that line of thought in relation to political debates during and since the 1980s, especially those concerning devolution, constitutional reform, and race relations. It then, however, highlights some major problems with and limitations of this kind of argument, suggesting that the emerging historiography of Britain’s ‘internal decolonization’ remains at present empirically weak, conceptually cloudy, and often unhelpfully polarized.

      Copyright Oxford University Press 2003

      http://tcbh.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/3/286.abstract

    85. CameronB Brodie says:

      Or you could choose the BBC version of history which appears to be written from the perspective of a “One Nation” British nationalist and omits to mention the McCrone Report and other such colonial exploitation of Britain’s English Scottish region of North Britain.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/endofempire_overview_01.shtml

      P.S. Vile!

    86. Angus Gother says:

      I’ve just come back to this thread to respond to the kind comments and replies to my long post earlier (12.52).
      I’d spent the morning composing that in a text editor in-between work tasks and then did a quick post during my lunch break.
      Now have a chance for a quick-ish post.

      @Ian Brotherhood
      I probably went a little overboard with the facts. I guess most of them are pertinent to thinking about aspects of the constitutional situation and timing of IndyRef2.
      I don’t think there’s a short answer to those who want to dismiss all arguments with the “It was a UK wide EU ref” argument.

      I think that could be argued that it wasn’t really a UK-wide ref. The structure of the EU Referendum Act 2015 (which I skimmed through last week) recognises that it is applying to three legal jurisdictions, and there were some different details for administering the referendum in each jurisdiction. So therefore, it was really three simultaneous referendums with the same question in each jurisdiction.
      I don’t know how much weight that argument would carry in a court of law though!
      I’m an IT professional, not a lawyer 🙂

      I could also add that if Parliament had really wanted to make sure that the referendum was advisory, they should have put in a clause to explicitly say so.
      There is nothing in the Act to say that the referendum is advisory, nor is there anything that says that is binding, or what actions Parliaments should take for any specific result.
      Under English constitutional practice, this probably means that the result is not binding in England and Wales, and NI.
      But under Scots Law the result is binding in Scotland, through a simple application of the principle that the expressed will of the people of Scotland on a matter that affects them is sovereign and paramount.
      A clause explicitly saying that the referendum was advisory would have negated that, and significantly weakened our arguments.

      @mr thms
      The Treaty of Utrecht between Great Britain and Spain is definitely going to be an interesting case. What would they do?
      Spain would have the right to effectively revoke the entire treaty that remains active by stating that neither rUK nor Scotland is a successor state to UK on that treaty. What implications would this have in Spanish law from the other terms of the treaty – particularly the past actions that affected the Spanish succession (which is what the war was about)?
      Also, Gibraltar is a NATO base, so Spain would come under fierce diplomatic pressure to recognise rUK as a successor on that treaty, but not Scotland. In exchange for not expecting them to recognise Scotland on the treaty, Scotland could then get a concession in other negotiations involving Spain.

      I’ve just realised I’ve been using a slightly incorrect term about this issue. I should be talking about continuing states, not successor states. Scotland wants to be a continuing state to the UK in the EU, and maybe on other treaties. In the convention, the successor state is the one that has no status on the treaty. Why didn’t they just use ordinary English?

      @Smallaxe
      I see you’ve received some assistance with the TLDR. I shouldn’t have used it – I forgot that it took me years to find out what it stood for!

      @Capella
      My better half has endorsed your comment on the lack of coverage of the Claim of Right in school education. Hopefully that has been corrected in the last few years, so the new generation know something about it.
      I saw a BTL comment on the Guardian by somebody who claimed that they had learned about it at school, so I thought that maybe it had been taught somewhere, sometime.
      But maybe somebody was talking through their hat or just stirring!

      @Tinto Chiel
      My good lady thinks that Nicola has been hammering this home with the EU leaders, and this partially explains the reception she continues to receive. I have also seen the odd report (don’t have time to find them now, alas) that there’s a developing confusion on the continent as to why we haven’t just declared independence already.
      If the media in the EU have also been explaining this in the odd article, that could explain some of the developing sentiment.

      I have learned a lot from asking careful questions of my good lady. She was completing her doctorate in Politics and International Relations at Aberdeen Uni when she was diagnosed with cancer in 2006. Her thesis subject was “The EU: An economic alliance or a military alliance?” Her conclusion was that it is both.
      She isn’t active in the field because she still hasn’t fully recovered from the effects of chemotherapy received then.
      She still remembers a lot of how the EU works without needing to get her books out. I’ve learned how to ask the questions to jog her memory so that I learn things.

      I mention my good lady because I can’t take all the credit if my thoughts and conclusions are good, and helpful to others.

    87. Lochside says:

      c.@Angus Gother….Thanks for your well researched and well constructed analysis. I have checked the Claim of Right at source and found the following translation from the original Auld Scots:
      ‘Therfor the Estates of the kingdom of Scotland Find and Declaire That King James the Seventh being a profest papist Did assume the Regall power and acted as king without ever takeing the oath required by law and hath by the advyce of Evill and wicked Counsellors Invaded the fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome and altered it from a legall limited monarchy To ane arbitrary despotick power and hath Exercised the same to the subversione of the protestant religion and the violation of the lawes and liberties of the Kingdome inverting all the Ends of Government wherby he hath forfaulted the right to the Croune and the throne is become vacant.’

      So the principle of sovereignty of the people over the monarch is demonstrated by this explanation for the overthrow of James v11. However, because of the nature of the times it is based on ensuring the Presbyterian ascendancy of Scotland of the day.

      The origin of this definition of the Scottish people’s sovereignty certainly stretches back to the Declaration of Arbroath, ironically compiled by Catholic Nobles appealing to the Pope.

      But the real ‘modern’ authority of the time came on the back of the Reformation and Covenanter wars from the Scottish calvinist and Theorist George Buchanan whose ‘ De Jure Regni apud Scotos, published in 1579′ was the groundbreaking definition of Scottish sovereignty as we now understand it.. In this famous work, composed in the form of a dialogue, and evidently intended to instil sound political principles into the mind of his pupil, Buchanan lays down the doctrine that the source of all political power is the people, that the king is bound by those conditions under which the supreme power was first committed to his hands, and that it is lawful to resist, even to punish, tyrants’.

      So we can trace the evolution of Scottish belief in popular sovereignty that of the idea that it invests the right to overthrow despotic leaders, by the people of Scotland, whether kings or politicians, right through the centuries up to the presentday.

    88. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s some more end-of-empire history.

      The British Scholar Society and Helene von Bismarck do appear to be aware of the primary significance of controlling natural resources, which is nice.

      http://britishscholar.org/publications/2012/05/16/great-britain-and-the-un-committee-of-24/

      @ HMG
      What about my fucking “Right to Development”?

    89. Robert Peffers says:

      @Peter McCulloch says: 6 September, 2016 at 11:50 am:
      “OT I see Fife Labour Council leader is backing a second Brexit referendum”

      Are you surprised?

    90. Tom B says:

      For a time Craig Murray ran from an office in Iraq the British end of the 12 or so years of sanctions, before the invasions of Iraq, sanctions which are conservatively estimated to have killed 1.5 million civilians, including 500,000 children, starved to death, or unable to access basic medical care and supplies, in a country in which health care was formerly free, universal and of high quality, and the people’s health and nutrition were comparable with ‘advanced’ nations. He did not blow any whistle then, that towering conscience was untroubled, nor when senior UN officials were resigning right and left over sanctions policies and their consequences seen firsthand and described as barbaric and genocidal, policies which he helped devise and rigorously implement.

    91. CameronB Brodie says:

      I meant to post this the other day but it looks like internal colonisation might be a recurring theme. This is the process of creating a “One Nation” British habitus.

      Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966

      http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/226401

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/25529218?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

      The Celtic Fringe in British History–Historiography and Bibliography

      Historiography

      Historians have long acknowledged the importance of broadening the content of British history to include the histories of Scotland, Ireland and Wales. However, until the last decade, most treatments of British history have paid only lip service to the “Celtic fringe” and then have proceeded to treat English history alone as tantamount to British history. At most, historians noted the periods in which events in Scotland, Wales and Ireland affected major political, social, religious, and economic movements in England.

      However, in the past decade, distinguished historians, led by J.G.A. Pocock, have begun to take a more integrative view of British history, transforming the Celtic fringe into integral elements in the formation of British identity. These historians include, among others, Linda Colley, R. Merfyn Jones, Geoff Eley, David Stevenson, and Jane Ohlmeyer. An early seminal work in this redefinition of British history was Michael Hechter’s Internal Colonialism, published in 1975.

      This Web site is intended to complement this recent development in British historiography by providing an annotated sampler of Web sites relevant to the history of the Celtic fringe–Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Its purpose is to provide online resources for use in senior-level college courses on British history, from ancient times to the twentieth century, emphasizing the role of the Celtic fringe in the formation of the British nation, as well as courses on the history of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland for the same time period. The emphasis of the sources is political, while also providing cultural and anthropological background and pointers to sources for original research.

      https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~stonerjw/celt_bib.html#hechter

    92. One_Scot says:

      ‘I would suggest all to unsubscribe from Yougov’

      When I first read that, I saw, ‘I would suggest all to unsubscribe from Yoongov’, and then I thought, hmm, that’s probably right.

    93. CameronB Brodie says:

      Another fragment and some background on the dude.

      N.B. “Cultural Diffusion” is not applicable as a sociological model of British society.

      http://ann.sagepub.com/content/425/1/162.1.extract?patientinform-links=yes;425/1/162

      https://pgs.clas.asu.edu/content/michael-hechter#qt-asu_directory_profile_tabs-ui-tabs1

    94. CameronB Brodie says:

      I left this anthropological artifact from the Spectator until last, as a reminder that the Conservative party has always been the home of arrogant English gits who posses little insight and over-inflated egos. Vile!

      https://archive.is/y4De3

    95. CameronB Brodie says:

      N.B. “Cultural Diffusion” is not applicable as a sociological model of British society.

      Perhaps a bit absolute there, “does not provide a satisfactory model” might be better.

      Where are the sociologists when you need one?

    96. Smallaxe says:

      Angus Gother:

      Thanks Angus,kind of you to notice,it was new to me.Then again
      was quite happy with Tory Leaders Do Runner.I wish they would
      all run as far as their legs would take them, then some.

      Peace and Love to you and those you Love

    97. CameronB Brodie says:

      I hope you don’t mind folks.

      ….On the contrary, it was possible in the context of decolonization to restructure and redefine this web of relationships. Dependency relationships which emerged during colonial rule did not simply end with the attainment of “formal” national independence. Instead, previous political and economic asymmetries often persisted in the “informal” context and hampered independent approaches to development in the former “colonized world”.102 The extent to which the paradigm of globalization, which currently appears very popular, can be usefully applied to the analysis of these processes is hotly debated in historical studies.103

      http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/europe-and-the-world/european-overseas-rule/fabian-klose-decolonization-and-revolution

      An independent Scotland will take time to reassert it’s indigenous character but I’m sure things will work out once we replace colonial submission with self-determination within the EU.

    98. CameronB Brodie says:

      colonial submission = submission to colonial domination

      @ HMG
      What about the people of Scotland’s “Right to Development”?

      ….Likewise Meredith Terretta emphasizes the importance of international human rights in the context of decolonization. By focusing on the case of the British and French Cameroons she demonstrates “that African nationalists and the Western anti-imperial human rights advocates who supported them viewed UN Trust Territories as the most politically and legally viable channel through which to address the human rights abuses particular to colonial rule.”[1]

      In her article she challenges the notion prominently articulated by Sam Moyn as well as Jan Eckel that human rights ideas played an insignificant role in the anti-colonial struggle for independence. Both argue that anti-colonialism was not a human rights movement because it more greatly invoked the idea of self-determination than that of human rights. In their perspectives on the historiography of human rights, the discourse emerged seemingly from nowhere and overnight in the 1970s.[2]

      ….In sum, the decolonization wars influenced the human rights discourse in various ways. On the one hand, they obstructed significant expansion of the international human rights regime in the 1950s and 1960s. Together with their Western allies, colonial powers like Great Britain and France were not at all interested in effectively protecting universal human rights and codifying them in binding international law because they were pursuing a radicalized policy of violence in overseas territories like Kenya and Algeria. The governments in London and Paris saw universal human rights as a threat to their colonial interests and as a growing diplomatic burden. On the other hand, the period of contested decolonization was also a kind of testing ground and a catalyst for the new human rights regime after 1945, wherein vast shortcomings were being relentlessly exposed, and further human rights developments were triggered in a significant way.

      https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2014/02/18/debating-human-rights-and-decolonization/

    99. CameronB Brodie says:

      This must be getting boring. 🙂

      England’s Internal Colonies

      In England’s Internal Colonies , Netzloff examines how the literature and discursive practices of English colonialism emerged as an extension of internal colonialist ventures in regions of England, Scotland and Ireland. Netzloff argues that England’s internal and overseas colonies were linked together as a result of a perceived crisis concerning the social position of England’s labouring poor, an expanding underclass

      http://www.palgrave.com/la/book/9781403961839

      Internal Colonialism Study: National Integration in the British Isles, 1851-1966

      http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/7533

    100. @Robert Peffers
      6 September, 2016 at 10:13 pm

      Not particularly surprised by Labour Councillor
      David Ross’s calls for a second referendum on the
      EU.
      I suspect he will have problems providing a coherent explanation as to why he supports as 2nd EU Referendum
      and if I suspect he is opposed to a 2nd indyref

    101. Ken500 says:

      Tony Blair the Westminster criminal mass murderer who left the UK in massive debt because of his policies maining millions,destroyed the banking sector, tax evasion, lying criminally used Scottish resources in every illegal way and lied about it. That is why Scotland needed and still needs separate policies from the Westminster criminals. That is why a majority in Scotland/UK stopped voting for him and his Party or any Unionist Party. Blair and Brown should be in jail.

      Westminster is still misusing Scottish resources and falsifying Scottish/UK account to cover up their criminal behaviour. They are still lying through their teeth at every opportunity. It is only when the SNP got control of Holyrood that the Scottish accounts were even published. There are still unexplained discrepancy (fraudulently?) covered up. Being accured to Scotland without explanation. ‘Unknown expenditure’ etc (unknown territories? ) amounting to £Billions -approx £10Billion.

      Thatcher used ‘Regis territories’ to cover up the offshore account of Oil the shelf.(in Scottish waters). Thatcher was secretly and illegally offshoring the Oil revenues. Taking the revenues and spending them in the rest of the UK with no recompense to Scotland. Then not accounting for it in budget statements. Taking the revenues and not presenting them in the UK accounts. ‘This must be kept secret’ written by her on the fiscal documents. Totally off the budget. Westminster could still be doing it with fuel and energy (electricity). Without proper account. Illegal fraudulent accounting practices.

      Even without syphoning off and spending Scottish revenues not on what the majority of taxpayers in Scotland want them spent on. Trident, a tax on ‘loss leading’ alcohol, tax evasion – HMRC not fit for purpose but to facilitate tax evasion, colluded by Westminster. Scotland paying loan repayments on money not borrowed or spent in Scotland, Not getting full allocation of paid facilities and services, Osbourne destroying the Oil sector with taxation of 60/80%. When the Price had fallen 75%. Selling off Scottish assets cheap. Royal Mail pension fund and RBS shares etc.

      Losing Scotland £Billions and (deliberately) causing a unwarranted ‘deficit’ of £13Billion in Scotland because of Westminster policy, That is why Scotland needs separate policies from Westminster. Unionist Parties and their Green enablers are in chaos and their policies are ruining the Scottish economy. They have been advised but they do not honour broken promise and treat the Scottish electorate with absolute contempt. Trying to take them for fools, which they certainly are not, with the rigged electoral system, That is why Scotland will go a separate way. Westminster are still illegally bombing the Middle East causing mass migration in Europe. Trying to take the UK out of the EU with all the benefits. Losing Scotland £Billions against the majority wishes and the public interest.

      The Westminster parliamentary system has failed the UK. They should hang their head in shame. Going from one self inflicted crisis and chaos to the next. Using the Official Secrets Act to cover up their criminality, lies and duplicity. An absolute disgrace. Most of Westminster Unionists are criminal, incompetent, ignoramouses. Unfit for public office out to line their one and their associates pockets at the expense of public services and statutory provision. BritainIs the most unfair and unequal place in the world. A majority in Scotland will change that.



    Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top