Wings Over Scotland

CameronB Brodie says:
10 January, 2019 at 9:10 pm

“Rock
You make unsupported statements then claim I lost an argument I never involved myself in.”

You did involve yourself in – for no reason.

If you think they are “unsupported statements”, prove them wrong.

CameronBBrodie Nietzsche did believe in ‘master’ morality ie to have wealth, strength, health, power in contrast to being poor, weak, sick, pathetic, over ‘slave’ morality which in his opinion championed other-worldliness, charity, piety, restraint, meekness, and submission over what it saw as evil values of being worldly, cruel, selfish, wealthy, and aggressive and he saw the latter as cause of most of the world’s problems. If you deny that you deny proper understanding of Nietzsche

Yesindyref2 Yes so Scotland has less representation in the European Parliament as a percentage of MEPs than the UK Parliament as a percentage of MPs and can also be outvoted in the Council of the European Union under QMV

HYUFD

I see you ignored my earlier travel advice so Ill repeat it for you:

PISSOFFF

Yesindyef2 To win under QMV Scotland would need at least 14 other nations to vote with it, far more than just 3. Plus the idea that you could always get agreement on the issues you want with the vast cultural and economic differences between Eastern, Northern and Southern Europe is absurd.

K1 It is Germany that sets the direction for EU economic and Eurozone policy as the largest economy in the EU, as Greece and Italy have discovered. It is France as the largest EU military power that will set the direction for EU military power and foreign policy. With Putin threatening the Baltic states and Xi threatening Taiwan nationalism is on the rise in both Russia and China.

I’ve shown HYUFD how British nationalism crushes the embodied human rights of Scotland’s inhabitants, yet he persist in promoting British nationalism. Subsequently, we can assume that HYUFD does not respect the doctrine of international law, or support the principle of universal human rights. His arrogance dulls his intellect and encourages his cultural chauvinism. He is an authoritarian, English/British nationalist.

“Yesindyef2 To win under QMV Scotland would need at least 14 other nations to vote with it, far more than just 3.”

12. It needs 13 out of 28 – just 45% of the 28 member states in total – to block legislation. Smaller members do very well out of the EU, they can get concessions to get their votes.

Yesindyref2 There is a world of difference between socially conservative Poland or Hungary or Italy, economically liberal Luxembourg or the Netherlands, social democratic Sweden or Finland and left populist Greece. Trying to get them to all agree on legislation on immigration or economics or regulation such as to get 13 nations in a block committed to Scotland’s views all the time is not going to happen

Let’s carry on with HYUFD’s edumication of what ethical democratic process looks like.

In Our Name
The Ethics of Democracy

When a government in a democracy acts in our name, are we, as citizens, responsible for those acts? What if the government commits a moral crime? The protestor’s slogan–“Not in our name!”–testifies to the need to separate ourselves from the wrongs of our leaders. Yet the idea that individual citizens might bear a special responsibility for political wrongdoing is deeply puzzling for ordinary morality and leading theories of democracy. In Our Name explains how citizens may be morally exposed to the failures of their representatives and state institutions, and how complicity is the professional hazard of democratic citizenship. Confronting the ethical challenges that citizens are faced with in a self-governing democracy, Eric Beerbohm proposes institutional remedies for dealing with them.

Beerbohm questions prevailing theories of democracy for failing to account for our dual position as both citizens and subjects. Showing that the obligation to participate in the democratic process is even greater when we risk serving as accomplices to wrongdoing, Beerbohm argues for a distinctive division of labor between citizens and their representatives that charges lawmakers with the responsibility of incorporating their constituents’ moral principles into their reasoning about policy. Grappling with the practical issues of democratic decision making, In Our Name engages with political science, law, and psychology to envision mechanisms for citizens seeking to avoid democratic complicity.

Eric Beerbohm is professor of government and director of graduate fellowships for the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.

link to press.princeton.edu

Political Ethics

Political ethics (sometimes called political morality or public ethics) is the practice of making moral judgments about political action, and the study of that practice. As a field of study, it is divided into two branches, each with distinctive problems and with different though overlapping literatures. One branch, the ethics of process (or the ethics of office), focuses on public officials and the methods they use. The other branch, the ethics of policy (or ethics and public policy) concentrates on judgments about policies and laws. Both draw on moral and political philosophy, democratic theory and political science. But political ethics constitutes a free standing subject in its own right. Most writers on the subject do not try to apply foundational moral theories but rather work with mid-level concepts and principles that more closely reflect the considerations that political agents could take into account in making
decisions and policies.

link to scholar.harvard.edu

Public Ethics and Political Judgment
2 POLITICAL ETHICS AND MORALITY

2.1 Political ethics is not the same as personal morality and the two sets of requirements do not always align. Political ethics broadly covers standards, rules, norms and precepts that relate to the roles and functions that political office serves and the concomitant responsibilities that incumbents of office undertake to fulfil. These responsibilities are not identical to acting ‘morally’ or with personal integrity. Indeed, there is some similarity to other professions in the separation of personal morality and professional ethics. A doctor with a strict personal moral code deriving from religious commitments must distinguish between what her formal responsibilities for the care of a patient requires and what she would herself opt to do in a similar situation as a patient.

Similarly, politicians may not always be able to do what their consciences demand because, in accepting the responsibilities of public office, they accept duties that it would be inappropriate (unethical or ‘dishonourable’) to ignore even when these clash with their personal moral convictions. For example, they have duties to represent their constituents’ interests even where they regard aspects of those constituents’ lives as morally reprehensible or repugnant. In no case are such conflicts easily resolved, but the potential for such clashes highlights the fact that role requirements differ from those of personal morality.

link to assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

“such as to get 13 nations in a block committed to Scotland’s views all the time is not going to happen”

What planet are you on? Who on earth apart from you has ever suggested such a thing? Though it does go to show the state of mind YOU have, where the whole world should revolve around the UK.

I’ve got news – planet earth revolves around the Sun, which is a star at the end of a spiral galaxy, which is just one galaxy in a universe of galaxies, in a whole load of dimensions of universes.

We’re not really that important in the cosmos of things, except to ourselves.

CameronB Brodie says:
11 January, 2019 at 9:17 am

“Rock
I claimed your statements were unsupported as you provided no substantiating proof. Your a sophist. I’m on to you.”

If you are looking for unsupported statements, why are you not questioning Ken500?

Have you turned into one of the hypocrite usual suspects attacking me?

The owner of this blog has not imposed any condition for supporting statements – I am expressing my opinions.

If you disagree with something I post, why don’t you specify what is wrong and provide your alternative opinions?

Are you denying that Nicola has fully backed the dishonest unionist civil servant trying to destroy Alex Salmond?

Are you denying that the British Establishment is terrified of Alex Salmond?

Are you denying that the British Establishment has ZERO fear of Nicola?

CameronBBrodie It was a fair vote on an 80% turnout even if you dislike the result

Yesindyref2 As I pointed out trying to get 13 member states, even smaller ones to vote in a block is far easier said than done, especially with the cultural and economic differences between Eastern, Northern and Southern Europe

“As I pointed out trying to get 13 member states, even smaller ones to vote in a block is far easier said than done, ”

and what about trying to get 2 more than that – 15 in total – to vote in a block FOR any legislation? Abd they have to actively vote FOR to count. 16 or more.

Because there’s this:

“An abstention under qualified majority voting counts as a vote against. Abstention is not the same as not participating in the vote. Any member can abstain at any time.”

link to consilium.europa.eu

So you don’t even have to get 13 to vote, abstensions are good enough.

So there, sweetie pie.

K1 Not necessarily. If Yes does win it would be mainly down to Brexit, especially if No Deal. However if the UK reversed Brexit in any EUref2 and decided to stay in the EU that would also set a precedent for Scotland to reverse an independence vote and decide to stay in the UK

HYUFD

It was a fair vote you say. Tories don’t do fair. Lie cheat and deceive – that’s what they do. Labour are pretty good at cheating as well.

Westminster = gerrymandering = perfidious Albion = Britnats.

59 MPs out of a total of 650, 9%. A simple majority requires 50%, so 59 MPs have ZERO power, what an absurd idea of democracy.