Bloody rebels
Posted on
March 31, 2018 by
Chris Cairns
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)
-
Recent Posts
- 11-23
- 11-22
- 11-18
- 11-17
- 11-12
- 11-09
- 11-06
- 11-04
- 11-03
- 11-02
- 10-29
- 10-26
- 10-26
- 10-21
- 10-19
- 10-16
- 10-13
- 10-11
- 10-10
- 10-07
A tall tale
Wee Books
Video
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
@yesindyref2
3/4 months, I was thinking more along the lines of about 6 weeks. It’s a reprise of 2014 with added EU choice, I don’t think we need that long. Not sure why EC thinks 3/4 months when a GE giving all the powers to a party is only 4 weeks.
Also unless the EU says we are going to have contiguous membership then there will need to be another choice after independence about what relationship we want and may require yet another referendum.
As I have told you.
If you don’t like Scotland, then head south back to your homeland.
Thanks CJ. Its nice to see poisonous wee gits like you in action.
Where south back to my homeland have you decided is suitable and are there any gulags there?
You lot really are creepy as feck CJ. But you knew that anyway.
@Breastplate
ScottieDog is basically the best to say why we should have our own currency in terms of MMT, but it gives us the ability to actually create money which use of sterling doesn’t. Creating money is the backbone of a country’s economy, and as far as backing for that currency is concerned, we’re it, the oil is it, whisky, crops, trees, water, and all of us.
A Central Bank is really used for stabilising that relationship, and inflation. That’s the way Denmark uses it, being tightly tied to the Euro, voluntarily more tightly than it needs to be in ERM2. Not so easy to sell that idea to the general public, though RBS being “backed by the taxpayers” (it wasn’t really, mostly) might make it easier.
Apart from that, interest rates is one thing, and exchange rates another. Having a positive balance of trade we might want to keep the currency lower for instance for exports and tourism. In other words without our own currency we don’t have all the economic levers we would with one.
Even day 1 of Indy we could use our own currency locally, in the shops to get our messages, we have it in our pockets already, all that’s needed is to tie it to our own central bank rather than the BoE.
@jfngw
6 weeks could be done, and might even need to be done. I’d have no problem with that! Yes, the snap GE could be a precedent.
@BDTT
Glasgow Green was good, I enjoyed that. Music was good too 🙂
On the basis of knowing people outside Wings, in posting terms I’ve posted with Heed on the Grun back in 2012, I remember Heed jumping around like a two year old over the avatar of a very good indy poster, forget her name, but she was one who called out abiesalba as a flag troll. Nice avatar 🙂 Peffers I also came across in the Herald and I think the Grun back in Indy Ref 1, correcting unionists sich as M McK about the Treaty and Acts of Union, and its bipartite relationship of equals. Something I did myself, a little differently (I quoted the legislation gov uk links and small pasasages).
headtracker like peffers is very selective when it comes to posting quotes.
I notice you didn’t copy and paste the quote of mine which said:
OK Breeks,,I’ll tell you what the message was:
headtracker called you a “poisonous wee git”.
And don’t forget headtracker, you are also a confirmed liar.
Not a very nice human being are you headtracker.?
The guy that has never been sen by anybody.
Why are you so shy headtracker.
Are you afraid your english accent won’t go down too well in amongst those big bad Scots?
Yesindyref2,
I understand that we can and no doubt will have a change of currency when independent, my point was there would be a transitional period to accommodate change.
We will be negotiating the return of property and resources or financial equivalent.
It would be logical (although not necessary) to do this using the same currency.
There will be initial start-up costs of independence and it would be logical to spread this cost and unnecessary to add a financial burden immediately after independence on top.
Changing currency immediately after independence would help to destabilise Sterling which I believe wouldn’t be good for rUK or us as they would still have some of our belongings, not least the Bank of England notes we hold in equivalence for Scottish notes.
I’d certainly like to hear ScottieDog’s view on the subject, however, I don’t believe the issue is about technicalities (of course we can have a new currency in place on day 1 of independence) but of practicalities (a transitional period that suits Scotland).
The bottom line is that we win any currency argument pre-referendum by telling anyone who wants to know what currency we will have after independence that it will be Sterling for a few years while we prepare the ground for a change of currency.
We would simply be kicking the can down the street a bit, quite reasonably so in my opinion.
Thepnr says:
2 April, 2018 at 1:07 pm
@Iain mhor
A very good post and one I wholeheartedly agree with…
So do I for the most part, except for favourite hobby horse, -Sovereignty.
Sovereignty does nor alter by persuasion, political swing or popularity, it is an absolute condition which is defined by law, definitely not by democratic principle or popularity.
Please give me one good reason why Scotland’s inalienable Sovereignty should NOT be ratified in a Constitutional Court judgement from the EUCJ at the very earliest opportunity.
And before you say that would provoke civil disorder and Orange men all over the place having strokes and seizures, such recognition does NOT directly have to terminate the Union. That is to say it could, yes, but it does not necessarily have to. Europe is alert to our predicament. The Europeans are our friends. We could be recognised either as sovereign in an equitable bipartite treaty, (a union of equals is what it is meant to be), or recognised as sovereign on a probationary basis pending ratification by future plebiscite, or even just recognised as potentially sovereign, – none of those three scenarios are predicated by the actual end of the Union. So, no need for riots in the streets, but it would give the EU vital justification to recognise Scotland’s government as a sovereign entity, or even just potentiallysovereign entity, and thus secure the vital distinction that Scotland is a competent interlocutor in inter-National negotiations, whereupon every chapter and verse of the Barnier/Davis Brexit negotiations would have to be shadowed at every stage and in every detail by a parallel set of negotiations with Scotland.
Such a benchmark Agreement of recognition would empower our hand immeasurably, and stymie Westminster’s headlong arrogance by equal measure. We would gain so much, but forfeit nothing. Give me one good reason for all this prevarication and conjecture, and forlorn impotence waiting in the wings. I see no sense in it. If I am wrong, then tell me what I am missing.
By all means, take our time, use democracy, garner influence and political support for democratic popularity and ratification, but please, just recognise that sovereignty is an altogether different animal from any popular majority or electoral mandate. It is defined and measured by altogether different criteria. Sovereignty requires no democratic mandate whatsoever.
Just get that itsy bitsy teeny weeny wil-o-the-wisp Sovereign recognition into the bag, and we can all, all of us, every one of us, take our feet off the gas pedal and breathe easy. Scotland lies protected by its own laws and nobody else’s.
Breastplate says:
2 April, 2018 at 3:52 pm
Yesindyref2,
We cannot go into indyref2 winging it. Look at how hard beeb gimpery hit with Osborne’s no sterling for you Scotland.
link to bbc.co.uk
Or hammer of the Scots Severin, on UKOK fire, well timed too, a good six months of no pound for you lot,
link to theguardian.com
Breeks @ 4.07
For what its worth
I would have said that our Sovereignty,as I understand it, has No court above it.
Therefore there is no court who’s authority we should accept as capable of pronouncing judgement on it
Even the Constitutional Court that we will need to set up to adjudicate on our Constitution wouldn’t get a say over “actual” Sovereignty.
For want of a better description of what I mean!!!
Tis between God and the Scot’s
Re: The SNP
There is no coordinated progressive initiative for people to get behind.
The only comfort is that support for Independence “somehow” remains solid, but I get the sense these days that such stubborn support for Independence is in spite of the SNP, not because of it.
As time goes by, there is a growing dread that such support is as likely to fall through despair as it is to rise through optimism.
That, I’m sorry to say, I pretty much can attribute to the SNP.
crackerjack says “Not a very nice human being are you headtracker.?”
Doesn’t someone else use almost the same phraseology about Mr Peffers? Could it be CJ has a twin??
That’s the 3rd time today on two different threads that Crackerjack has posted the exact same post.
Smacks of a desparation to be heard methinks lol.
Thepnr
The post is a direct quote from Breeks who posted it earlier on today.
I don’t agree with one word of it.
Headtracker thought it was my words and went ahead and verbally abused me, not knowing that it was actually Breeks own words.
I was trying to highlight the hypocrisy of some regular posters
@Breeks
I don’t think I’ve ever stated that a court decision on sovereignty would lead to “riots in the streets.” I have though stated that a declaration of UDI could well lead to such an outcome. Putting that aside for now you ask a fair question:
“Please give me one good reason why Scotland’s inalienable Sovereignty should NOT be ratified in a Constitutional Court judgement from the EUCJ at the very earliest opportunity.”
Well what if we lost in that court?
I admire your confidence though I don’t share it. Couldn’t the UK government argue a case that when we voted No in 2014 it was an accepted fact that sovereignty over the UK lay with Wesminster and the Scot’s fully supported that?
I have no idea what any court decision might be in respect of a test of the sovereignty of the Scottish people over Westminster might be but they could certainly argue that the Scots themselves have choosen to leave that sovereignty in Westminster’s hands.
You also stated that:
“Sovereignty requires no democratic mandate whatsoever.”
I disagree because what is sovereignty anyway other than that if the sovereign people make a democratic decision then it them exercising their sovereignty? That’s what happened in 2014, failure to ignore that result and fight to change it in another democratic referendum I believe would only bring further pain.
The people are sovereign and they have spoken to remain in the UK whether we like it or not. That was a sovereign decision and no court will overturn that.
@Crackerjack
That was not clear, if you quote someone it’s normal to refer to them by name and then put the quote in quotation marks or italics to make it clear that it is not your post but a quote from a.n. other.
That would help and I wouldn’t have made the mistake I did.
Heedtracker,
I believe you’re missing my point.
The mistake the SNP made was talking about a currency union which inevitably meant Westminster would have to agree, a strategic error in my opinion.
We tell the people of Scotland that we will use Sterling for a period of time while we ready ourselves for a change.
It is important that we do not ask for a currency union, I should have made that clearer.
sassenach 4.49pm
“Doesn’t someone else use almost the same phraseology about Mr Peffers? Could it be CJ has a twin??”
I think we can place that under the childish paranoia category.
I can assure you I am me and me alone. I am e very strong supporter of Scottish Independence who is trying to show up the hypocrisy of some Wings posters.
Who are you??? No one knows.
Thepnr
It was a trap I set for the Hypocrite headtracker,,,,And he fell for it hook line and sinker.
To add, I personally think we will end up having a currency union with rUK but Westminster will be the one asking and we will be the one to consent.
It is important that we do not ask for a currency union, I should have made that clearer.
Ok. Its not an unsolvable problem but it is a toughee. Its too easy to edge around though, debate it out of the YES. Smith Commision moved hard on devo that might make Scots gov even likely to be able to create a Scottish version of the Bank of England. Its why they only gave up PAYE devo, you don’t need a bank of England er, bank to collect it.
A major problem. But again not insurmountable.
I was trying to highlight the hypocrisy of some regular posters
You’re certainly highlighting something CJ.
headtracker like peffers is very selective when it comes to posting quotes.
I notice you didn’t copy and paste the quote of mine which said:
OK Breeks,,I’ll tell you what the message was:
headtracker called you a “poisonous wee git”.
And don’t forget headtracker, you are also a confirmed liar.
Not a very nice human being are you headtracker.?
The guy that has never been seen by anybody.
Not a very nice human being are you headtracker.?
You have no fucking idea CJ.
Yet I could never bring myself to vote tory CJ. Folk are funny eh.
@Crakerjack
You’ve over egged it today by constantly posting the same crap over and over again. That does make you a troll in my eyes whether you are an Independence supporter or not.
Feel free to reply as any response you care to make will be ignored so too any of your future posts. What you have had to say since first posting on Wings ahs been of little interest anyway so I doubt I’ll be missing much.
Thepnr says:
2 April, 2018 at 5:01 pm
@Breeks
Well what if we lost in that court?
Then we are no worse off than any Nation in waiting falling under the UN’s protocols for recognising a people’s human rights to national identity and self determination.
Such a judgement is simply not possible in my opinion. Scottish Sovereignty is codified into our laws and societal structures, and has been recognised and largely uncontested since its inception, and is largely unique in having the Constitutional Holy Trinity of the Declaration of Arbroath defining it, Papal recognition formally codifying it, and England’s formal recognition of Scottish Sovereignty for all time serving as independent ratification, with the delicious addendum that the recognition would stand in perpetuity.
Scotland’s 14th Century Sovereign recognition had impeccable credentials, profound foresight and somewhat fortuitous longevity.
I have proposed a theory before that Scotland and England only joined in Union in the first place because England’s territorial ambitions to conquer Scotland were stymied in perpetuity by Scotland’s impeccable Constitutional Sovereignty. Without such a Union, England faced the prospect of perpetual war with Scotland with no prospect of legitimate conquest, ever. No other country conquered or threatened by England was offered such terms, not because of Scottish exceptionalism, but because no other country had a constitutional blueprint as watertight as Scotland.
I have compared Scotland’s Sovereignty, and the conundrum it presented would-be conquerors, is akin to the Gordian knot which confounded all comers until the lateral thinking of Alexander the Great.
The Act of Union did not solve the unsolvable conundrum of how you seize control of Scottish Sovereignty, it was instead a work of deception / coercion that was devised as a trap to contain Scotland’s sovereignty and establish a degree of control over Scotland by the English Establishment.
I don’t want to ramble on more than I have, but suffice to say, Scottish Sovereignty had a noble birth and centuries of uncontested integrity prior to the Act of Union. The Union by comparison, was a grubby and underhand device shrouded in ignominy, tainted by corruption, coercion and inducement, and above all, fundamentally unconstitutional.
Yes, frankly I do fancy Scotland’s chances when it comes to our sovereign recognition. Scottish Law was recognised with a special Court in the Netherlands for Megrahi. And the UK’s Supreme Court has also recognised the sovereign aspects of Scots law. We have multiple precedents to cite.
And 2014 doesn’t matter a jot in Constitutional terms. It was a vote. A No vote was no less sovereign an edict than a Yes vote, although perhaps the consequences and ramifications of voting No should have been given more thought when devising the Referendum question. As I keep saying, Sovereignty is not the servant of democracy. Democracy is merely the current mechanism through which sovereignty is wielded, but sovereignty itself is a permanent absolute birthright bestowed on Scots in perpetuity. We cannot just vote it away. It isn’t ours to sign away any more than it belonged to the Scottish “nobles” who signed up to the Union.
China isn’t a democracy, but China is recognised as sovereign.
Saudi Arabia isn’t a democracy, but is very much a sovereign state.
The UK itself is a debatable democracy since in England, the Constitutional Monarch is Sovereign over a population of subjects.
Israel is a democracy, but who’s sovereign legitimacy is disputed, not recognised by all but one of its neighbours, and compromised by multiple UN resolutions.
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not advocating Scotland abandons democracy. But we do in my opinion need a much clearer fundamental distinction between democracy and constitutional sovereignty.
Democracy has its place, and the roll of democracy might very change the way Sovereignties are determined in future, but Scotland does not need a new constitution to be written from scratch, merely the ancient constitution we once enjoyed as a Nation restored to its rightful prominence.
I’m not sure I should get onto the “S” word, but I understand it’s an issue for some. I trust those have already immersed themselves in it. So I’ll chuck in tuppenceworth just for badness as I’ve finished my bank holiday DIY.
Sovereignty is ephemeral and has many interpretations. There are many types. In fact it even has philosophical arguments. Anyway, let me poke it with a stick. First, Scotland has an international recognised declaration of [a type of] Sovereignty. Historical and not in question.
Secondly, comes a question of whether Scotland is a Nation State. It is country and it is a Nation by any Internationally defined definitions, but it is it a Sovereign State. No. Maybe, does it matter?
Scotland shares and pools [a type of] sovereignty with England. In a Unitary State. In the same fashion the UK shared its sovereignty with the EU. Which sovereignty? Parliamentary Sovereignty, State Sovereignty, Popular Sovereignty – you understand now there are “types” – The argument as to why sharing sovereignty with the EU = bad, but shared sovereignty between Scotland & England = good, is an argument for another time; As is the question of Federal State Sovereignty – which bit of Germany or the USA is tge sovereign bit? Is it the same Federalism and similar sovereignty? See, it is a very malleable concept – I’m trying very hard not to stray into history and “Westphalian Sovereignty” !
Let address what constitutes a ‘person in International Law’
When is a State considered a person in international law? (Yes I can google, whoop de do) The “declarative theory” of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states… That sentiment ‘is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee.. ‘Check, got that t-shirt also.
Here is the final part and eventually my point :
“There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal”…”since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government”
Scotland does not need some new legal declaration of Sovereignty. It has one and meets the criteria of others such that it is a given. At any point in any negotiations or any outcome. International law (if law you desire) and international recognition, would be extraordinarily hard- pressed to argue against recognising Scotlands “Sovereignty” Pick a definition or type. Doesn’t really matter it is a political construct and has no requirement of a signed affadavit from some omnipotent legal notary.
Lassa Oppenheim (regarded by many as the father of the modern discipline of international law) said, “There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.”
I concur, sovereignty is an interesting topic, it has an interesting side history, but it’s a major distraction, if not irrelevant – May the contumely be piled upon my head, I deserve it. But hey, it’s a topic and amazingly, I won’t be offended in any way.
@ yesindy2
I don’t know who outed abies alba (which should have the first A capitalized, botanically), but female pro-indy posters on The Guardian included Tenthred, Kristine Kochanski and Fiona Kabuki.
Was it one of them?
crazycat says:
2 April, 2018 at 6:38 pm
@ yesindy2
I don’t know who outed abies alba (which should have the first A capitalized, botanically), but female pro-indy posters on The Guardian included Tenthred, Kristine Kochanski and Fiona Kabuki.
Was it one of them?
Oi, that’s my Slovene girlfriend you’re talking about. And he’s got plans for you Scotland. Oh yes!
link to twitter.com
@crazycat
No, none of them, can’t think her moniker, maybe Asian. Me, KK, bangorstu and one other, maybe a Jim, the last two being unionists were going to meet up in Glasgow for a laugh that Christmas, me on the last drunk special back home, but never got around to it. Wonder what it would have been like!
Ken500 says:
2 April, 2018 at 8:15 am
“Megrahi was convicted in a Unionist court. Set up by McConnel and abused by unionists.”
Megrahi was convicted in a SCOTTISH court.
Is Scottish justice unionist?
NO.
Iain mhor says:
2 April, 2018 at 6:34 pm
….Sovereignty is ephemeral and has many interpretations. There are many types. In fact it even has philosophical arguments. Anyway, let me poke it with a stick…
I see it differently Iain. Sovereignty is the ultimate power. When there are many interpretations about a situation, it’s Sovereignty which determines the definitive interpretation from the rest. Sovereignty is the judgement of Solomon, – the casting vote, the final word…
The UK did not surrender any sovereignty to Europe, because if it had, the UK would not be able to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide to leave. It doesn’t matter what agreements and treaties the UK had with Europe, none of them conceded sovereignty, because for as long as the UK has the freedom to leave, the UK has sovereign control over its destiny. It can make a decision which nobody can overrule. That is Sovereignty.
If a country is sovereign, it has a kill switch on any agreement, (the EU calls it a veto), and a “Get out of jail free” card which it can always play.
Where people get confused about Sovereignty is where a Nation enters treaties and agreements which appear to devolve sovereignty, share sovereignty or pool sovereignty. That, in my opinion, is a misuse of the word “sovereign”, because whatever it is that has been devolved, shared, or pooled, it isn’t Sovereignty. If a Nation retains the capacity to withdraw from those agreements and cannot have that decision overruled, then whatever was conceded in coming to the agreement, it was by definition something lesser than sovereignty.
An International agreement or treaty can and does bind a country to a commitment, and there are often onerous consequences for breaking those commitments, but that forever remains a treaty or an agreement between sovereign Nations, it is not the same thing as sovereignty itself.
If a nation actually did concede sovereignty, it would no longer have the capacity to change its mind and walk away. It would have forfeited that sovereign entitlement. If the UK has forfeited sovereignty to Europe, then it would Europe’s decision whether the UK could leave the EU.
The origins of the word “sovereign” come from words like superior, master, ruler. If you are sovereign, ultimately, nobody has the power to overrule you. That is why Sovereignty, and having your own sovereignty recognised and respected by other sovereignties, is everything that matters in terms of Nation status.
If Scotland is sovereign over Scotland’s affairs, then we can terminate the United Kingdom without the permission or consent of England. If we are not sovereign, then the decision to terminate the United Kingdom isn’t ours to make.
It isn’t the Declaration of Arbroath which makes us sovereign, it was the Declaration of Arbroath which made us sovereign. What makes us sovereign is having the power to decide whether we stay part of the UK or end the Union.
It is that essence of sovereignty, that we Scots are part of the UK by agreement not subjugation, that I want recognised by the EU so that Scotland can negotiate with Europe independently from England while still part of a bipartite treaty between both Nations.
If a nation concedes its sovereignty, it ceases to exist as a Nation. This is the crux of the entire United Kingdom debate. The Unionist argument runs that Scotland ceased to exist in 1707. If the United Kingdom was indeed forged at the expense and demise of both Scotland and England as independent sovereign nations, then neither Scotland nor England exist. But Scotland manifestly does exist. Scots Law is it’s own master in perpetuity. It has no superior. Scotland’s religious freedom is also protected. It too has no superior. The UK has not the power to overrule Scots Law or Scotland’s Church, so the UK, whatever it is, is something less than sovereign.
We, the people of Scotland, are sovereign. Our conundrum, in perpetuity, is that our Sovereignty is an ultimate judgement to be shared by every one of us. It isn’t the judgement of Solomon, but the judgement of Solomon’s 5 million strong committee. We have the power to overrule ourselves, and that confusion we create for ourselves leaves our Nation vulnerable to exploitation and interference.
We have the strongest, unique Constitutional origins in all recorded history, but we just haven’t read the instruction booklet on how it works. It’s time we did.
@Breeks
Well that’s, I suppose that’s where the interpretations come in, your view is as valid as anyones.
I only take a petty issue over sharing sovereignty, which in a political sense was sharing some state powers, but not ultimate – well, let’s say power to decide. Other than that, pretty much an ephemeral idea. One of those “You’ll know it when you have it” type concepts.
Like love or something eh 🙂 When Scotland learns to love itself, then it might learn what it is.
O/T
Reminder of the WINGS NIGHT OUT this Saturday at 7:00pm in the Otters Head, in Woodside, Glenrothes. Free food, Scottish themed quiz, wee fundraising raffle, as well as the sparkling wit and repartee of our fellow wingers.
Full details of transport links and affordable overnight accommodation, now posted over on the Off Topic page.
Chas.