Wings Over Scotland

Britannia waives the rules.

Hilarious, Chris.

I doubt Britain will be able to afford that wee boat. It’ll be a paddle board.

To think BoZo and Goings are running the UK. What a joke!

Me @ 7.41 am
I’ve not wakened up enough yet ,

This is * got * to be .

Ha Ha Ha Aye captain Pugwash right enough and we know what he was.

Great cartoon illustrating a point very clearly. What did we do to deserve this horrible buffoon?

Another cracker Chris. You’re on top form recently bud!

It strikes me listening to the reports on the radio this morning that BoJo is complaining that the EU are trying to break up the britnats precious union, and given the fact the brexiteers are prepared to break international law and renege on treaty commitments, that the EU would be well advised to announce now that if Scotland votes for independence it will be fast tracked for membership.

That ought to be worth a few more % points surely?

A classic!

The cross of St. Andrew on the uj being bones. Appropriate, since the Tories plan to devour Scotland to the bone.

Next time he won’t even be able to afford a tiny boat that still has a wheelhouse. BoJo will be ruling the waves in a coracle. After all he is a basket case.

Sums the current British establishment (deluded) thinking perfectly, fabulous cartoon as always Chris.

Blond beard the Pirate should be walking the plank shortly
And the ships rats will be scurrying away with pockets filled
with gold down to Dominique Jone’s Locker.

A second wave and a perfect storm is brewing with independence waiting just beyond.

Just give their Captain a little more rope to reach the yardarm.
There is bounty in our mutiny.

Looking at the global Covid Stats this morning-

Next week we will see Trumpland reach 7,000,000 cases and 200,000 Deaths.

India reaches 100,000 new cases per day.

Peru the first country to have 1 Covid Death per 1,000 of population.

China, being the source of the virus almost 1 year ago, still has daily increases
for new cases in spite of the most stringent lockdown measures anywhere.

Borisland finds yet another way of distorting the Covid Stats.

Tory MP’s drive to Durham wearing blindfolds!

Perhaps romantic Boris has this in mind.
It did work….once.
https://www.ancient.eu/article/1576/the-sea-dogs—queen-elizabeths-privateers/
Doubt the suburbanized 21st century English capable of a reprise, even with aircraft carriers.
link to forbes.com

We should be careful to discern what is “theatre” and what is real.

I suspect that a lot of the blustering, disputation and “incompetence” is feigned.

One aspect that is of interest and which is being downplayed is the continuing integration of the British armed forces into a rapidly developing EU military command structure.

This integration has not slowed since 2016 and has even accelerated since the UK “left” 9 months ago. Why would that be I wonder?

Perhaps there is a level above the bantering Johnsons and Barniers whose names we don’t have to know and who are really directing the “Brexit” event?

Contrary says: “Maybe if we can get the magic number 60% popular opinion on this, it will help change our ‘ leader’s ‘ stance on the issue.”

Since when did 60% become “popular opinion” or “the magic number”? As far as I’m aware it has been touted by one or two utter twats. As far as I’m concerned, and most folk I know, the magic popular number is the democratic 50% + 1.

Obviously the higher the better but 60% never has been the “popular opinion” outwith some of the Scottish National Procrastinators as a way to delay indy even further whilst they work on getting their own agendas pushed through Holyrood.

Not so much John Paul Jones but more so Edward John Smith.

Nice one Mr Cairns.

Cracker Chris

Perfect and in a nutshell.

It’s about the sheer scale of his delusion and confabulation. Literally terrifying.

Britannia waves goodbye.

Nobody even wants them as slaves.

Stoker @ 9.43am

I was being sarcastic about the 60%.

What is this talk of magic numbers Stoker.

Have you not heard of imaginary numbers. They are real number in the mathematical world to make mathematics work. Think negative numbers and you get the idea. Well how can you have negative votes do I hear you say. Well precisely, how do you, have negative anything.

Now magic numbers that’s another matter altogether. Do I agree with 60 no I don’t because like you I believe in 51. So where did Nicola’s 60 come from.

Well here is one theory, or explanation. The secret to life, to the universe is 42. Now since you cannot take 42 away from 1 since this would give you a real imaginary number, you therefore take it away from 100 and hey presto 58 which is nearly 60.

Now why 42 to start with. Well that’s easy, Numerologist Nicola has obviously realised that –

* Prince Albert died aged 42,
* Prince Albert and Vic had 42 Grandchildren
* The world’s first Gutenberg printed book had 42 lines per page.
* On page 42 of the Philosopher’s Stone, Harry discovers he’s a Wizard
* Buzz Light Years space ship is called 42
* The element molybdenum has the atomic number 42

And so based upon these fundamental truth and recognising and adjusting for a rounding error of an imaginary 2,, then taking 42 away from a 100, one realises exactly why Nicola has settled on 60 percent.

So there you are Stoker 60 trumps 51. Easy when you know how sixty has been calculated.

Now the EU referendum , which resides in an alternative universe, the number 60 rounded to the real number of 62, that has a different meaning. But I’m sure the Rev Stu will be able to explain that.

Have a nice day, y’all. Right glad I am that we are all in such capable hands.

Ottoman boy

Go catch the virus and spread it among your family if it makes you feel better.

I’m reading the global Covid stats.
It’s not made up like your suggestion we are living with chains on.

I can go out whenever I like, I go shopping for food and clothes regularly,
I’ve never visited restaurants more frequently, I’m going to the pub today.

I’m as free as not spreading a killer virus allows me to be.

What kind of person suggests 29,000,000 people have been tricked into believing they have the virus and nearly 1,000,000 people dead just to keep me from gathering in crowds.

Several 100,000 Doctors who took the oath must be in on the act too.

I’ve said this to you before, although it might lead mainly to the death of the elderly and vulnerable,
that would include my Mother and my Wife.

I’d very much like them to live a while yet so I’ll not be taking up your game of Russian Roulette!

Brilliant Chris.

I hope folk are happy to live under authoritarian totalitarianism which is divorced from moral reason, as that is what the Scottish government has condemned Scotland to. If only they were able to access competent legal advice, but the Lord Advocate appears to be a Tory, and devotee of English legal culture.

Enforcement of International Law
link to diakonia.se

Yep, an email yesterday from Sturgeon via SNP mail about down loading the app. And a text today on the same message.

Not a word though on the power grab our on strategy as to how we are going to deal with the collapsing economy or how being out of Europe will impact us or even how she is now banned from the BBC.

And does anyone have any concerns about Nicola as First Minister using SNP party apparatus and member – supporter data for Government use. Data protection under the SNP ……

Honestly peeps, the Lord Advocate clearly does not now how to support the rule of law. This is obvious from the Scottish government’s approach to the law, which lacks respect for the legal principle of equality in law, and the legal doctrine of proportionality.

American Journal of International Law, Volume 29, Issue S2 (Supplement. Research in International Law Part III & Index) 1935 , pp. 1077-1096
Article 27. Violation of Treaty Obligations
link to cambridge.org

Captain Pugwash rodger the cabin boy !

I’m pretty sure the Lord Advocate is a Tory at heart, so are we going to put up with the right-wing preventing us from accessing our human rights?

The Treaty and International Law
A Brief Look at the Maroon Treaty and the International Law of Treaties The International Law of Treaties

Pacta sunt servanda, or the principle that agreements are to be respected, even among otherwise sovereign states, is a fundamental tenet of international law. The original justification for the obligatory force of treaties is probably attributable to religious solemnity (the Maroon Treaty, typically, begins, “In the name of God, Amen . . . “). Nowadays, international theory attributes the legally binding nature of treaties to the capacity of sovereign states to bind themselves….

link to cyber.harvard.edu

Seems the Scottish Government won’t speak up for the 66 percent of people who wanted to stay within Europe, can the people themselves send a delegation to Brussels and ask if it’s possible the sovereign people of Scotland can stay in Europe so we and future generations can work and travel freely in all European member countries. Hello

So I imagine a group petition would have significanr legal effect.

Adjudication of International Disputes in Europe: The Role of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights
link to aei.pitt.edu

@MaggieC (11.54 last night) –

Just saw your message there, thanks. Looks like the one Andy Ellis linked to a bit earlier. I spent quite a while last night looking for examples of actual contempt but they seem pretty thin on the ground and none seem to address how best to deal with bumptious, sarcastic, chortling patronising plonkers like Mr Wolfe.

Ian Brotherhood ,

I had been looking to see if you had found my post , pleased you found it .

I think the easiest way for us to get answers would be if we asked
Rev Stuart Campbell to contact Alex Salmond to contact Joanna Cherry as at least she knows and understands Scots Law LOL .

And if he supported the rule-of-law, Scots wouldn’t be getting removed from the EU, and women’s rights would not be under severe threat in Scotland.

Comparative study
on the implementation
of the ECHR at
the national level
link to rm.coe.int

However sympathetic one might be the anglocentrism in this piece is patently evident.
No mention of Scotland which accounts for 60% of ‘UK’ quota.
link to unherd.com
The reality.
link to bbc.co.uk
Flog-it….it’s the English way.

Stuart Mctavish @ 6.49 am ,

link to wingsoverscotland.com

I’ve posted an answer to Ian Brotherhood @ 2.12 pm , LOL

Republicofscotland @11:05am

Hear, hear. Of all the bickering and whining that goes on here, very little it is directed at the real big ticket items: land reform, territorial integrity and ensuring Scotland’s assets go to benefit all Scots along with how we are current being sold short and bent over by thieves and clowns.

Renewable energy is essentially without end and with enormous markets on our doorstep (well leave the problem of how to deliver it to the side for a moment). A strong government with vision and drive could take advantage of our embarrassment of energy riches and make a vast difference to the lives of all Scots. It’s not like we don’t have a close neighbour and long-time friend who did exactly that.

Yet here we have a bunch of petty bureaucrats pissing away Scotland’s future for a few pieces of silver. It’s the Private Finance Initiative all over again.

Stuart MacKay says:
12 September, 2020 at 2:58 pm
Republicofscotland @11:05am

Hear, hear. Of all the bickering and whining that goes on here, very little it is directed at the real big ticket items:

While I totally agree with what you’re saying, generally speaking most people will only get stuck in with anything they think they might have a chance at influencing. Or just to have a good gripe.

But after time, again generally speaking, most people will drift away if they feel it’s head to brick wall stuff. Which I think is how most people feel about just about everything these days.

We had the campaigning times. We’ve now had years of just about every gripe being ignored. No initiatives on much of great importance. Not even talking about progressive ideas.

What is needed is BOLD AND RADICAL – bold and radical action on the big ticket stuff. Land ownership and land taxation being near the top of the list.

But as I say, people won’t get worked up about things they believe will be ignored by those in power.

-Red Sunset-

Not much chance of that when top SG advisers are employed by the Duke of Buccleuch though is there?

I think the easiest way for us to get answers would be if we asked
Rev Stuart Campbell to contact Alex Salmond to contact Joanna Cherry as at least she knows and understands Scots Law LOL ….

I was listening to the WGD podcast with Andrew Tickell, and he said a very odd thing. He said words to the effect that there is no formal legislation that actually supports Scottish Sovereignty. There is apparently no specific reference to it. But he then went on to talk about the Claim of Right, to which due reference does appear, and how that, at least to an extent, codified the sovereignty of the people… (although the law has issues with popular sovereignty and whether it can exist).

But he left me confused. If the Claim of Right has extant force and recognition in modern legislation, (as it does), then surely it follows that the legislation with established the Claim of Right must also be extant and carry lawful legitimacy? Plain logic dictates that it must.

As we all know, the Claim of Right refers to the right of the Scottish people to depose their monarch and choose another to rule in their place, and thus, we can be sure that the Claim of Right exists, because the Declaration of Arbroath exists, and more, that the Declaration of Arbroath wasn’t just a “claim”, but was formally recognised by the Pope, and the Dowager English Queen Isabella in 1320.

The implication from what Andrew Tickell was saying is that while there may be no reference to Scottish Sovereignty in UK legislation, for Scottish Sovereignty “not” to exist would require some piece of legislation rescinding it. But since the Claim of Right has been recognised in legislation, then surely this is unequivocal evidence that the right of Scottish People to depose their Monarch never has been formally rescinded, so neither has the Declaration of Arbroath.

I am troubled by Andrew Tickell’s perspective. We have unequivocal proof, international recognition, and centuries of provenance to prove Scottish Sovereignty did exist, and just because there is no direct reference to it modern UK legislation does not mean it suddenly ceased to exist. That might be wishful thinking of the part of the Unionist fraternity, but show me the legislation or it didn’t happen.

Just as telling as the absent references to Scottish Sovereignty, (in fact more telling), is the non existence of any legislation, or even reference to any such legislation, actually rescinding Scottish Sovereignty.

Statute remains on the statute book until it is removed, and the Constitutional Sovereignty of Scotland has never been removed, because nobody has the capacity to remove it. That position is supported by the Claim of Right, which does survive to be referenced in modern legislation, so while I’m no lawyer, I think it falls on Mr Tickell to substantiate his opinion that Scotland’s Sovereignty doesn’t properly exist because modern legislation doesn’t mention it, by providing reference to whatever legislation there is which allegedly removed sovereignty from the Scottish people, (but preserved the Claim of Right which codifies that very sovereignty).

Confused? That’s precisely what you’re meant to be. It’s how the “Union” survives. But boil away the rotten flesh… the phoney Union disintegrates, but Scottish Sovereignty survives the process intact.

If I’m correct in interpreting what Mr Tickell says, Scotland may be Sovereign but we must accept Westminster’s exploitation in the Union, because we can’t prove Scottish Sovereignty in law. But I think he is wrong in that. We can prove beyond all doubt that Scotland’s popular sovereignty did exist, and that puts the onus on any Britisher claiming Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty was extinguished to produce the evidence of how, and when, it was done.

That we were sovereign, but now, to be apparently not-sovereign, requires evidence of the legislation which “somehow” changed our state from sovereign to non-sovereign. No such legislation exists, because if it somehow did truncate Scottish Sovereignty, then there would not be any Claim of Right. QED.

With all due respect to Mr Tickell, I fear he’s been taken in by UK sophistry and misrepresentation, and the “established” conventional thinking of the “Establishment’s” Conventions. Scotland can produce it’s birth certificate of legitimacy, recognised by the Pope and ratified by the English monarchy in perpetuity. (Edinburgh/ Northampton Treaty 1328). All the Union can produce is an unwritten convention.

If the Brits want their narrative to stick that Scottish Sovereignty was indeed extinguished, then don’t just say it was, show me the workings to your answer. Show me the actual legislation which removed sovereignty from the Scottish people.

I think you will find that’s the legislation which doesn’t exist, conspicuous by it’s absence, and why the UK Parliament has to invent a swamp of impenetrable sophistry, and rule “by unwritten convention” because they don’t have the right paperwork.

Where I think Mr Tickell is right, is that when the changes brought about by the Union came into effect in Scotland in 1707, what had been a sovereign Independent Nation simply had it’s Constitution swept aside and supplanted. It was never codified how Scotland’s Constitution was meant to integrate with the Union… and fundamental incompatibilities which could not possibly be resolved were simply buried beneath expedient conventions, such Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty by Convention…

I firmly believe Scotland has nothing to lose but everything to gain from an exacting and ruthless Constitutional audit of the Union… provided of course that we don’t allow Westminster to do the auditing.

Mr. Tickell strikes me as being rather parochial in his appreciation of the law, and determined not to acknowledge Treaty law. All Scots are agents of international law, but Westminster considers itself superior to international law, so is happy to ignore this.

THE LAW OF NATIONS;
OR
APPLIED TO
THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
OF
NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS .
link to oll.libertyfund.org

I’m honestly struggling to believe Mr. Tickell supports Common law jurisprudence. He appears to be more of a legal positivist and blind to Natural law.

Constitutional Law and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: An Attempt at a Synthesis

Abstracts

It is a fact that constitutional courts today produce law. This corpus of law, derived from continuous judicial review of the activities of all three branches of power, in so far as human rights are concerned, has much in common with the procedures and the substance of the case-law fashioned by the European Court of Human Rights.

The court, while also deciding in abstracto, produces an inter partes decision which, in the end, inevitably has at least a de facto erga omnes effect. Case law now represents the lion’s share of modern constitutional law. It is again an empirical fact that Europe has had in Strasbourg, for the last forty years, its own constitutional court.

link to journals.openedition.org

IMHO, Mr. Tickell does appear to be punting poor quality legal advice. I’m honestly struggling to understand why folk would trust him.

Procedural Justice in Human Rights Adjudication: The European Court of Human Rights

The social psychological theory of procedural justice emphasizes the fundamental importance of procedural fairness judgments in shaping citizens’ satisfaction and compliance with the outcome of a legal process and in strengthening the legitimacy of legal institutions.

This article explores the benefit of applying procedural justice criteria (participation, neutrality, respect, and trust) in human rights adjudication, with a particular focus on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It is argued that the ECtHR should take these criteria into account both at the level of its own proceedings and in evaluating how human rights have been dealt with at the domestic level.

link to strasbourgobservers.com

@Breeks, CBB et al

Andrew Tickell may not be a specialist in constitutional law, but he strikes me as a pretty knowledgeable if not authoritative source. The trouble for many of those who pontificate about the treaty of Unions, act of union, claim of right, declaration of Arbroath, sovereignty of the people etc is that nobody outside Scotland really cares.

The international community only really cares about a clear majority vote in response to a clear referendum question or mandate from plebiscitary elections. They would prefer the parties to co-operate and negotiate in good faith, and will be loathe to take sides (particularly the side of the party trying to secede) unless there are very serious reasons for doing so such as violence, ethnic cleansing or flagrant gerrymandering.

Everything else is as useful as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The English parliament considers itself supreme. We are now seeing that it also considers itself free to not only break international law, but publicly and unashamedly admit to doing so.

Unless and until the a majority of the Scottish people summon the courage to vote clearly for independence (whether in a referendum or elections) nobody in the international community will confront Westminster. Neither Brussels nor Strasbourg will serve as some deus ex machina to drop statehood into our laps via legal means, any more than they would or will do so for Catalans, Basques, Flemings, Corsicans or anyone else.

In the final analysis independence is taken not granted. I’m honestly beginning to wonder if, after 300 years of union, there are enough Scots with the self belief left to take what is rightfully theirs, even as they pontificate endlessly about their undoubted right to do so.

Seven hundred years ago our forebears swore that as long as only 100 of them remained alive they would never be brought under English rule. I wonder what they’d make of a couple of million Scots lacking the balls to mark a ballot paper with a pencil?

Mr. Tickel appears to believe the legal universe was created in 1707, and that contemporary British constitutional practice is coherent or compatible with international law. It isn’t, and if it ain’t compatible with international law, it ain’t compatible with Britain’s Common law constitution.

Legal Equality and the International Rule of Law
link to researchgate.net

Stuart MacKay@ 2.58pm.

Yes Stuart, Robin McAlpine writes some very good articles, McAlpine points out that the S&G’s £3 billion Green Investment Portfolio privatisation programme on energy will see the likes of oil and gas and wind and water energy, also syphoned off with huge profits to the private sector for creating future infrastructure on energy.

Its all being done in secret more or less, its not been discussed at any SNP conference, or via any other other form of public hearing. There has been no public scrutiny and no real public consultation, and it definitely wasn’t put to the electorate in the Holyrood manifesto.

So as McAlpine says Scotland has never had an opportunity to express a view on it. I find that very worrying indeed.

@CBB

The soundness of his, or indeed any other legal authority’s, opinion is a moot point. I imagine his views would be considered the mainstream even among pro-independence Scots legal academics and authorities.

Legal action will not deliver the Scottish “Forógra na Poblachta”, with the First Minister at the pond in front or of Holyrood reading out the formal Declaration. Sturgeon is no Patrick Pearse.

The only certain methods of extricating ourselves from the vaguery of English parliamentary supremacy and ensuring it does not in due course extend to a de jure as well as a de facto veto on “secession”, are to vote for it and ensure recognition, or to fight for it.

If we are not careful we will no longer find ourselves in a position of being told “now is not the time”, to being told “there will never be a time”. We’ll end up facing a government which is simply going to refuse to countenance a dissolution of the union, in much the same way that the federal government in Washington refuses to recognise it would be possible for a US state to secede.

…Unless and until the a majority of the Scottish people summon the courage to vote clearly for independence (whether in a referendum or elections) nobody in the international community will confront Westminster. Neither Brussels nor Strasbourg will serve as some deus ex machina to drop statehood into our laps via legal means, any more than they would or will do so for Catalans, Basques, Flemings, Corsicans or anyone else…

I don’t think it’s that simple, because our democracy is faulty, not our courage, and faulty because our population is deluged from cradle to crave with mind altering propaganda. How can any polling, or even actual votes and elections be meaningful when we are subjected to such carpet bombing indoctrination?

I also disagree with you about Brussels. IF Holyrood hadn’t caved in over Brexit and instead of prattling on about access to the single Market, they issued a Constitutional ultimatum, similar to the Irish Backstop, then I firmly believe Brussels would have come down on the right side of International Law, and agreed that Brexit against our democratic will and Constitutional Sovereignty did constitute unlawful subjugation.

You say they’d never have done it? They did it. They came down on side with Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the American’s are even now warning Westminster that jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement is a kill switch on any Trade Deal. They didn’t budge an inch, and knew Westminster had to back down.

Scotland’s Leadership under Sturgeon has been constitutionally inept from the outset, and their strategy has been dismal beyond belief. Brexit was our ticket to Independence, the democracy box was ticked, international Law and International Goodwill was all there for the taking, but after nearly five years of “Brexit Jeopardy”, the dust will settle this December, and we’ll have lost our European citizenship, squandered a heaven sent ticket to Independence, and got NOTHING, not even a paltry conciliatory gesture, out of Brexit, and we’ll still be led by the same SNP dullards who squandered every opportunity that came their way, and I doubt they could even spell ‘initiative’.

Even now, with the Brexit Doomsday clock just minutes to midnight, we could still cobble together some kind of Constitutional spanner in the works for Brexit, and Scotland can create a Backstop to protest our unlawful subjugation, but instead we have our “leadership” focussed on 2021 Elections and having a squabble with the BBC. And let’s not even mention the Salmond Conspiracy and their petty coverup. It’s beyond pathetic. Everyone who voted SNP these past five years should demand their money back.

I’ll promise you this, if Sturgeon isn’t booted out before there’s an Election, it’s a spoiled ballot for me, or more probably I won’t bother to vote… certainly not for some creepoid genderwoowoo phenomenon with a Degree from Stirling Uni. They’ve let us all down, from Alex Salmond, Martin Keatings, Joanna Cherry, Craig Murray, Rev Stu, the list goes on and on…. It didn’t have to be this way.

This is current legislation

link to en.m.wikipedia.org

“The Claim of Right is an Act passed by the Parliament of Scotland in April 1689. It is one of the key documents of United Kingdom constitutional law and Scottish constitutional law.”

@Andy Ellis
Truly, independence is taken. It is there to take, provided you have the collective will.
There’s the rub….
The will, unfortunately, has a short shelf life.

@Andy Ellis,

In a sense you’re right but the foundations that a country are built on are important even if they are not in the day-to-day consciousness of a population.

Whenever I see anything about Iceland, the Alþingi, which was formed in 930, comes to mind. When you look at that you see a country which has democracy baked into it’s essence. Contrast that with perfidious Albion and that vacuous, self-serving statement that Westminster is the mother of parliaments and I know who’d I’d rather do business with.

When it comes to setting standards for the world, there is front-row seat, waiting for Scotland. We just need to step forward.

Breeks,

Good point to raise about what Nancy Pelosi said over the Good Friday agreement. It’s clear statement that Johnson and Cummings, in their hubristic, small-minded, arrogant way clearly don’t understand the importance the Americans put into peace in Northern Ireland. It wasn’t just some deal the UK hammered out with Senator George Mitchell tagging along for the ride. He was the architect and shepherded it through difficult patches. It will be a cold day in Hell before the Americans let Bojo piss all over it.

@Stuart MacKay

I agree the foundations are important. The Icelanders had the courage to take their independence from the Danes, as the Norwegians did from the Swedes. Remember Iceland had been under foreign rule from the 1260’s until 1944 and had few of the advantages Scotland had. The Faroese were denied their independence in 1948, but achieved self-government which puts ours to shame: even now they are talking about independence again.

Perhaps our Scandinavian cousins sense of self is more “baked in” to their essence, perhaps their rulers were less devious or determined, or just felt they didn’t have as much to lose.

Talking to lots of people abroad in my travels over the period since #indyref1 I find many who are astonished that the % of Scots in favour of indy isn’t much higher. They understand that independence is normal and can’t really see why Scots are afraid to take their destiny into their own hands.

I never know how to answer them.

@CBB

It doesn’t give a flying fuck about Spanish exceptionalism either.

That hasn’t released a single Catalan from prison or moved them a centimetre closer to independence.

@andy ellis 6.23
we collectively lack the courage to change it for the better, or vote to take ourselves out of a democratically challenged situation. We’re not so much a nation in waiting as whimpering cur shaking in the corner desperately licking the hand of our abuser in hope he hits less hard.
I spend a lot of time (for work) in Crete. Enough said perhaps.
Cretans cannot understand why the Scots are simply acquiescing in the annihilation of Scotland. They fought in every way possible to regain their independence. They understand what is happening under our very own eyes. If our government literally does nothing,m except pious soundbites,
then their opinion is that Scotland is quite happy to assist in its own obliteration.
Because make no mistake, if nothing at all is done before 31st December 2020, the well-prepared Westminster takeover will occur. EVERTHING is in place.
Including the compliant Scots, I am afraid We really are too stupid, after all.

Margaret E
I hope you don’t mined if I pinch that excuse for myself. 🙂

The ECJ’s Adjudication of Fundamental Rights Conflicts: In Search of a Fair Balance
link to diva-portal.org

Brilliant picture, so true.

Anyone explain how in this equal partnership union how if Scotland
Voted for independence we are kicked out of the EU and yet if England
Wants out and Scotland wants to remain in, we are still out?

@Margaret E

We really are too stupid, after all.

I think supine might fit better. People used to be able to vote for a party that first and foremost wanted independence which is now gone so they have nothing to focus on.

I’m certainly not suggesting I’m as antiquated with the law as either the Lord Advocate of Mr. Tickel, but they both appear to take a rather colonial approach to the law, where as mine is more contemporary.

POSTCOLONIAL THEORY AND LAW:
A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to encourage legal scholars to engage more actively with postcolonial discourse. To this end, the article will outline key concepts in postcolonial theory – such as colonialism, imperialism, decolonisation and neo-colonialism, and will also trace the work of major
theorists in this area – Frantz Fanon, Homi Bhabha, Gayatri Spivak, and Edward Said.

As this article presents itself as a contribution to the study of postcolonial theory and the law, it will focus on contemporary developments in Australian law reform. Specifically, the article will discuss the Law Reform
Commission of Western Australia’s Final Report on Aboriginal Customary Laws.

link to opus.lib.uts.edu.au

“I’m simply pointing out that legal means, international or domestic, will not help us any more than they have helped the Catalans. ”

Sorry, I can’t agree.

The Effects of Treaties in Public International Law
link to spacelegalissues.com

@Andy Ellis says:
12 September, 2020 at 8:23 pm
“The fact remains however that in the final analysis the only way for people in situations like Scotland, Catalonia or Quebec to achieve independence is for them to take it. Nobody is going to “give” it to us, nor can we expect the international community or institutions to do our homework for us.”

I hope that when you say “them to take it” means by legal means. Any other way is doomed to failure.

And again,

link to pbs.twimg.com

As I said, I think my approach to the law is more valid than either the Lord Advocate of Mr. Tickel. Brexit is not compatible with the Common law, so it is not compatible with the British constitution.

European Journal of International Law, Volume 30, Issue 1, February 2019, Pages 73–104
From Joining to Leaving: Domestic Law’s Role in the International Legal Validity of Treaty Withdrawal

Abstract

If a state withdraws from a treaty in a manner that violates its own domestic law, will this withdrawal take effect in international law? The decisions to join and withdraw from treaties are both aspects of the state’s treaty-making capacity. Logically, international law must therefore consider the relationship between domestic and international rules on states’ treaty consent both in relation to treaty entry and exit.

However, while international law provides a role for domestic legal requirements in the international validity of a state’s consent when joining a treaty, it is silent on this question in relation to treaty withdrawal. Further, there has been little scholarly or judicial consideration of this question.

This contribution addresses this gap. Given recent controversies concerning treaty withdrawal – including the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, South Africa’s possible withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, and the threatened US denunciation of the Paris Agreement – and the principles underlying this body of law, it is proposed that the law of treaties should be interpreted so as to develop international legal recognition for domestic rules on treaty withdrawal equivalent to that when states join treaties, such that a manifest violation of domestic law may invalidate a state’s treaty withdrawal in international law.

link to academic.oup.com

If only Scotland had legally competent legal officers who were loyal to Scotland, rather than the Crown in Parliament.

Why customary international law matters in protecting human rights
link to voelkerrechtsblog.org

That’s what’s wrong about the internet, everybody knows what your thinking, a lot of good speakers and thinkers on here, if Scotland has any chance at all Breeks, Cameron Brodie, robertlouise etc,etc not get together and get something organised, even what I’m saying now everybody knows about it, how to get things organised without the wrong people knowing about it nae easy the way things are.

@CBB

I don’t care what the common law dictates, or about the British constitution: they are matters for the UK. Our concentration should be on Scots law, fashioning the constitution of our new republic and ensuring we have the independence to make it so.

If we want to become an independent we have to start thinking like we’re already living in the early days of a better nation.

Not if, when.

Not years from now, ASAP.

Not asking, telling.

I see the BBC has a story about scotland’s Covid cases being at a high with 220 cases.
Totally omitting that the English figure is 3400
Given population Size they should have around 2200
Again the BBC misleading us and hiding the truth

Andy Ellis
Is it Scots law that binds Scotland? No, it’s the British constitution, which is a contract in Common law.

robertknight @ 8.30pm

You wrote:

“All the countries comprising the UK are equal.

But some countries are more equal than others.”

If I may be so bold as to correct your statement, which should read:

All the countries comprising the Uk are equal.

But England is more equal than the other three.

Andy Ellis
That’s simply a slur you can’t substantiate.

International Law in the Post-Human Rights Era
link to texaslawreview.org

Andy Ellis
Are you sure you understand the what Common law is?

The International Journal of Human Rights, Volume 24, 2020 – Issue 5
Common law tort of negligence as a tool for deconstructing positive obligations under the European convention on human rights
link to tandfonline.com

@CBB

I’m on the side of the folk who don’t care for you cluttering up the BTL comments. I don’t need to justify my support for the cause to a no-mark like you.

Cutting and pasting stuff on the scale you do it isn’t insight, it’s mania.

Just a thought all the comments on. but doesn’t Chris Cairns depiction of a raggedy boat among the big boys show how unable they are to resist Scottish Independence.

The UK is a busted flush internally and externally.

Andy Ellis
How else am to convey complex arguments? Away and have a word with yourself.

@cirsium

If electing the SNP isn’t working, the answer is……..?

leither
No problems, and I’m so glad someone appreciates inclusive educational practice.

On The Interpretation
of Treaties
The Modern International Law as Expressed
in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties
link to corteidh.or.cr

@Andy Ellis says:
12 September, 2020 at 8:56 pm
@Beaker 8.23pm
“I’m advocating peaceful means.
Question however: what do you do if faced with absolute refusal backed up with repression and violence?”

I am at a loss to understand where the violence comes from.

This isn’t Spain or France.

Andy Ellis
Care to tell us all what your legal background is, or do you think a post-graduate degree in International Relations makes you king bee around here?

PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
WORKING PAPER NO. 77 MARCH 2007

The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate:
A Short Guide for the Perplexed

For the past four decades, Anglo-American legal philosophy has been preoccupied – some might say obsessed – with something called the “Hart-Dworkin” debate. Since the appearance in 1967 of “The Model of Rules I,” Ronald Dworkin’s seminal critique of H. L. A. Hart’s theory of legal positivism, countless books and articles have been written either defending Hart against Dworkin’s objections or defending Dworkin against Hart’s defenders.2

Recently, in fact, there has been a significant uptick in enthusiasm for the debate from its already lofty levels, an escalation no doubt attributable to the publication of the second edition of The Concept of Law, which contained Hart’s much anticipated, but alas posthumous, answer to Dworkin in a postscript. Predictably, the postscript generated a vigorous metadebate about its cogency, with some arguing that Hart was wrong to reply to Dworkin in the way that he did3 and others countering that such criticisms of Hart are unfounded.4

In this essay, I will not take sides in this controversy over Hart’s reply to Dworkin. I will be interested, rather, in a more preliminary matter, namely, in attempting to set out the basic subject matter of the debate. My chief concern,
therefore, will be to identify the core issue around which the Hart-Dworkin debate is organized. Is the debate, for example, about whether the law contains principles as well as rules? Or does it concern whether judges have discretion in hard cases? Is it about the proper way to interpret legal texts in the American legal system? Or is it about the very possibility of conceptual jurisprudence?

link to law.yale.edu

@beaker.

No it isn’t Spain. I doubt many Catalans thought their grannies would be truncheoned or that their leadership would be jailed though.

What would Scots do then? What would they do if Holyrood was closed? What would they do if we’re never “allowed” another vote? Are there any limits?

Andy Ellis
We could have made quite an effect team, but you strike me as being a bit of a smug and self-important prick. Such a shame you let your ego get in the way of the enlightenment of Others.

Revue internationale de philosophie 2013/4 (n° 266), pages 397 à 419
Methods, Methodology, and Moral Judgement: Sidgwick on the Nature of Ethics
link to cairn.info

Spambot, you’re being trolled by the Cat, you must be the only regular contributor that can’t see that. A day of comment’s on a cartoon & countless irrelevant musings from obscure sources with no descriptions.

I’ve said before, if you know your subject, no matter how “complex arguments” they may be, then you can explain them to a secondary school student.

Now, based on today & every other day where you clog up threads with Academic Journals you have yet to show the readers of this blog that you actually understand the subject matter.

For the love of whatever you hold Holy, prove you understand your “complex arguments”by explaining them.

Preferably so people can understand, without insulting people, asking them to justify asking you a question or referring to your Royal Town Planning committee.

Because to the layman, the RTP means nothing, the blurb to your links mean nothing & you don’t reach anyone who is willing to be swayed.

If I had the time, for an experiment, in the name of (social) science. I’d go through today’s pebble-dashing of links, read every single one & see how long it takes.

Is there a site bookie willing to offer odds on how long it would take to read the 31 (THIRTY-ONE) links posted by you in less than 12 hours?

@Andy Ellis says:
12 September, 2020 at 11:43 pm
@beaker.
“No it isn’t Spain. I doubt many Catalans thought their grannies would be truncheoned or that their leadership would be jailed though.
What would Scots do then? What would they do if Holyrood was closed? What would they do if we’re never “allowed” another vote? Are there any limits?”