Wings Over Scotland

Agreed.

no more evidence required, eh ?
it’s now pretty clear that we will not be allowed to go our own way
brexit, which is in fact english independence, will not work without scotlands resources
mrs may actually said so in HoC ‘brexit won’t work if scotland leaves’
boris’ reply to the FM will be carefully worded but it will definitely say NO

The key aspect of all this is that all and any Westminster party lie and cheat Scotland at the drop of a hat and they have done so for hundreds of years.

Tebbit has it all wrong when he says we would have little influence being a nation of 5 million in a then Europe of 250 million.
England would have a majority just like us in such an event but they were happy with it.

At least the EU would not have total control over Scotland.
They wouldn’t take all of our resources, they wouldn’t insult us on a daily basis, we would get a seat at the top table and a say in how things are run.

They wouldn’t bury a McCrone report on us, they wouldn’t make the Dunblane massacre top secret
To hide corrupt politicians, they wouldn’t control our media, and they wouldn’t treat us as a colony in their Empire.

Roll on Bojo the clown who hates Scots tipping us out of Europe against our will.
Roll on him wanting to back a Middle East war with Trump.

Everything he does will be a YES vote winner for us.

Mrs Thatchers autobiography contains a section about Scotland in which she says that electing a majority of Scottish MP’s is sufficient grounds for independence.

@ Graeme

You’re obviously new here, Graeme.

yes but when faced with a clear question the people voted against it

Is Scotland a prisoner or a participant in the “precious” union?

Yes supporters know it’s not the latter anymore. The question must be put repeatedly to others who are not yet Yes.

If parliamentary action is irrelevant, then extra-parliamentary action is necessary.
Your move Boris.

Westminster can never be trusted on Scottish affairs, they’ve kept us small and compliant for centuries.

The problem is that some in Scotland still see the union as viable, others see it as a gravy train. Some are petrified of change, and some revel in the division of Scots especially the West coast.

Scotland is a plethora of opinions on independence. However I do know as long as we’re part of this union, we’ll never reach outr full potential.

How we exit this unfit for puropse union, is of course another matter.

Here’s the Thatcher quote, from her memoir (*):

If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.

Seems fair enough when you compare it to some of the blinkered shite Slabbers like Dicky Leonard come out with.

* as quoted here –
link to arcofprosperity.org

BritNats set the conditions for recognising independence at a level they believe won’t be achieved.

In the past it was a majority of MPs. With the Tories, Libdems, and the ‘mighty’ Labour carving out their demographic and geographic fiefdoms, the target of half MPs was considered impossible.

2013, there is no way Cameron would have agreed to the binding Edinburgh Agreement and Section 30 if he thought there was any chance of a Yes win.

Now in 2020, everyone knows the chances of independence being the will of the Scottish people if tested is very high. The BritNats have therefore reached a point where there are no conditions they will risk agreeing to. Their solution is to suspend democracy in Scotland.

If Scotland is taken out of the EU at the end of the month, and there is no agreement on how Scotland’s democratic right to choose our future has been agreed, it is a watershed moment. Up to that point it might have been possible to argue that the UK was a Union of partners. After that event, their Union is dead. It will have been replaced by a colonial setup where a foreign power rules with no democratic mandate. Some might argue that has been the situation for some time now. That seems a valid view. However, on 1st Feb 2020, NO ONE can deny the reality of Scotland’s subjugation.

We need some strong leadership and firm actions.

Regradless of the MPs aspect can I once again reflect on the Scottish parliament if that’s ok ? Think I posed this one before so don’t want to be a pain.
We know the PR system of Holyrood is fixed, that’s a given.
We also know list MSPs system can allow donkeys in Holyrood (ie A Wells etc). But a test on pure F/P/P MSPs plus % of popular vote more than Union votes cast regardless of turnout as it is an election, (if in manifesto) would surely suffice move towards indy. Bypass WM – No need for ref surely a clear concise mandate to create independent state satisfying UN ?

@galamcennalath

I have heard Ian Blackford cite on many occasions that Scotland will not be taken out of the EU against its wishes. Well on the 31st Jan he will have to, as they say, put his money where his mouth is. At this point in time Scotland is being removed from the EU against the wishes of its sovereign people.

This is a watershed moment for the SNP, in my view, are they leaders or followers?

An it was the SNP who gave that assertion away.

Yes the bullet, and the bomb in an earlier post I mentioned Michael Collins he did not plant car bombs that killed civilians he targeted the ruling classes and their under cover services only by them being the targets did they see reason only those who hold the power can hand back that power to the people I like everyone else on here do not want violence but they are leaving us no option or sometimes I think that if it comes to that then maybe the day the first life is lost the the price for freedom becomes to high

Can’t ask the thief to call the police. Need a change in perspective.

Scotland will have its indyref2. Boris may try and bluff his way out of this, but as soon as the Scottish Government go to court, Boris will back down. Boris knows that no judge in the UK would prevent Scotland’s democracy from taking place. The name Union Jack describes the situation extremely well.

Self-explanatory:

Off Topic and all that but what’s up with the Wings Twitter account?

The username no longer has a blue tick but has a page with a Wings logo and a bio blurb. It has no followers or tweets and, if you hit the ‘follow’ button, you’re told it doesn’t exist.

All true, but though I’m a longstanding supporter of EU membership, if dogmatic UKGov intransigence were to prove totally intractable, I wouldn’t exclude a native SG-sponsored IR2 and take my chances with the likes of Spain. And much though I regard it as a queasy ultra-lefty fudge, there will always be an EEA/EFTA backstop.

Independence is not to be bartered, not with anyone.

@brian lucey

Spain require it to constitutional, the UK runs on parliamentary parties based on the number of MP’s not the quantity of the vote. By UK constitution, although untested, Scotland has the number of MP’s to claim that it carries the legitimacy according to WM rules to end the union. It’s not UDI, it is exiting a union, if Scotland decides to end this union, England has no right to oppose it.

If the EU rejects Scotland’s application, not all is lost, there are other ways to trade with the EU, but the Spain would lose any negotiation on fishing in Scotland’s waters.

re. “invisible bars”. I just happen to know a bit about overcoming structurally produced cultural oppression.

Introduction to Community Psychology
Chapter 9

Oppression and Power
link to press.rebus.community

Here’s one that might convince the medically minded to make every effort to stop Scotland being dragged out of the EU, which requires a radical re-interpretation of the British constitution and a disregard for moral law. This can be expected to be harmful to the social psychology of those living in Scotland, who thought they lived in an open democracy.

Shared Beliefs in a Society: Social Psychological Analysis

Shared Beliefs in a Society: Social Psychological Analysis is an important contribution to current social psychology, still struggling to refocus its gaze on the societal, cultural and institutional levels of psychology. While there has been much debate on the individualising nature of social psychology, there have been too few serious attempts to provide a rigorously social focus for the discipline – both in terms of theoretical approaches and the actual content of research projects.

Bar-Tal’s recent book, which draws together much of his previous work on societal beliefs in Israel, attempts to provide this refocus on a societal psychology and so demonstrates the psychological importance of the connections between “individual beliefs and the beliefs that characterise the social system of which the individuals are members” (p. 152).

eprints.lse.ac.uk/41756/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Howarth%2C%20C_Book%20review%20shared%20beliefs%20in%20a%20society%20social%20psychological%20analysis_Book%20review%20shared%20beliefs%20in%20a%20society%20social%20psychological%20analysis%20%28LSE%20RO%29.pdf

I believe most people in Scotland are waiting [increasingly impatiently] for the Scottish government to become seriously bolshy [and ballsy] in its dealings with Westminster. SNP MPs can start by systematically disrupting proceedings in Westminster.

Josef Ó Luain says:
6 January, 2020 at 4:32 pm

@ Graeme

If you’ve got to ask – you’ll never know.

—————————————————————-

Josef I asked you a reasonable question I think it deserves a reasonable answer, so just in case you don’t understand the question I’ll ask you again, Why is it obvious I’m new here ?

During the 2014 referendum Teddy Taylor, the last Tory MP in Glasgow, claimed twice on Radio Scotland that Thatcher confided in him she only had one policy for Scotland and it was… the total destruction of the SNP. Such a pity she was not around in 2015 to see them take 56 of the 59 Westminster seats. At least she witnessed the ‘terrorist’ Nelson Mandela become the first black President of South Africa.

BTW many Weegies didn’t grudge her a state funeral they just didn’t think she had to die first.

@ Ben Starav

Pedantry alert:

This doesn’t really matter, but since a few other people have from time to time said the same thing, Teddy Taylor was not the last Tory MP in Glasgow.

He lost his Cathcart seat to John Maxton in 1979 – the only Tory MP (apart from buy-election winners, whose seats reverted to the norm) to be deposed in that election; a year later he was back in the Commons, but in an English seat. (link to en.wikipedia.org)

The actual last Tory in Glasgow was Tam Galbraith, who died in 1982. The ensuing by-election (in Glasgow Hillhead) was won by Roy Jenkins of the SDP. (link to en.wikipedia.org)

At the time I lived about a quarter of a mile from the constituency boundary, in Maryhill, so I remember it well.

Pedantry over.

The House of Lords is unhappy about Scotland going on and on about independence

It’s not just the Scottish people in the House of Lords who are unhappy
The Scottish people in the House of Lords of course have the greatest fear that once Scotland is independent there will be no longer be a need for Scottish lords there and they are right to fear that because they would quickly be chucked out.

But many more in the House of Lords will follow the Scots out the door shorty after
Once Scotland is independent
England which at present is seen as this whole island by most f the worlds people
will quickly shrink not only on the map but in global importance and influence
and that shrinkage will lead to a shrinkage in world influence
and a shrinkage in member numbers in the House of Lords

OK dokey. In order to understand Westminster’s high-handed and culturally chauvinistic stance towards Scotland, it helps if one understands the psychology of racism. From a post-colonial perspective, Westminster is undeniably a racist patriarchy that views Scots as inferior others who must be silenced and excluded. That sucks.

The cycle of oppression: A psycho-socio-cultural formulation (DRAFT 1).

Bringing the social and psychological together

A common critique of mainstream psychotherapy models is that they take little account of social and cultural forces and of their effect upon psychological structures and relational processes. This is a significant limitation in terms of culture competence. Many minority and marginalised groups continue to see mainstream therapy and mental health services as irrelevant.

More concerning is that some may come to experience the therapeutic process as one which exposes and weakens them into powerlessness and; which renders invisible the power of the social context and its related wounds and traumas. It is not unusual for therapists and other helping professionals to feel overwhelmed and helpless in relation to the idea of actively working with social and cultural forces within the therapeutic encounter.

Discrimination, oppression and cultural mistrust

Perception and experiences of oppression such as discrimination and harassment in the workplace (or in other life domains) are commonly reported amongst all members of minority groups. The link between such experiences and chronic stress, poor psychological wellbeing and ill physical health are well established. Perceived and actual discrimination can elicit what has been termed cultural paranoia, a healthy and adaptive response to experiences of oppression. Nonetheless, cultural paranoia can give rise to feelings of hopelessness, helplessness and bias against members of the dominant groups. It can also produce hyper-vigilance and fear.

It is thus likely that those who are experiencing it to a high level, will be in some form of distress. From the therapeutic perspective it may be helpful to consider how cultural paranoia may impact on trust and on the working alliance….

Images, discourses and the internalisation/replication of oppressionM

Unsurprisingly a proportion of minoritized individuals will internalize oppression. Internalized oppression can affect relationships within and between minority groups and between minority group members and those who are from the dominant group. This internalisation may manifest in mistrust toward the in-group, idealisation of the dominant culture, distancing from minoritized identities or the holding of stereotypical views about members of the in-group. Further, internalised oppression can, In extreme cases, lead to low self-esteem, self-hatred and even violence towards members of the in-group.

Assessing internalised oppression can be difficult because it is associated with high levels of shame and stigma and may therefore not be readily disclosed nonetheless; careful questioning may elicit such processes. Thus, any recurrent negative statements made about the in-group(s) may need further probing as may any negative emotion evoked by questions about the subjugated identity.

Various standardised questionnaires exist to assess internalised oppression which may be useful when the therapeutic relationship is firmly established. Acculturation and stages of identity development may also influence the relationship with the dominant group (in addition to the one which may be formed with the therapist) and whether the therapeutic values and norms may be acceptable.

link to racereflections.co.uk

Jean Claude Junker said “entry into the EU is by majority vote and Scotland already meets all the criteria so on our side there would be no problem with Scotland becoming a member if they wish”

The door is wide open for us the next steps will all be this month and early February

I recall the quote from Alasdair Gray or a Canadian (We will govern as if we are already an independent country).

Should Nicola Sturgeon or the MP in Westminster in charge of foreign affairs make a statement?

Scotland recognises the sovereignty of the Iranian and the Iraqi people and we will not interfere in their internal politics.

Is this too radical for the SNP?

Actually Independence was in their manifesto, y’know under the bit where it says material change of circumstances such as etc

Nicola Sturgeon actually has made several statements on Iran and Trump and they’ve been in most of the papers and momentarily on TV, oh and online in her Twtter account and the National digital, the link is on this website, top middle of the page under The National where all the other links to information stuff is

Dr Jim @1.47

Well said.

Jess Phillips on radio shortbread there not endearing herself to Scottish voters much by saying she would not ‘grant’ any S30 for a new referendum to take place.

I lost interest really when she stupidly included the words
“when ‘they’ had the referendum up ‘there'” in a sentence

The Scots and Scotland not even acknowledged by name FGS!

Aye! 🙁

Re Iran-Irak
The British created the administrative fiction that is Irak out of the ethnic based provinces of the Ottoman Mesopotamia in order to protect the flanks of British India. They divisively exploited the Syriac Christians, bombed the Kurds, set up a Sunni ie minority, government in country that is mainly Shia, later the Americans invaded overthrew their former ‘friend’ Saddam Hussein and the rest is bitter history.
Western interference in the region has been driven by greed for oil. Iran too, a battle ground between British and American imperial interests. Proxy wars, puppet kings, compliant functionaries etc.
They make a wasteland and call it peace…..famous words of Scottish prince.

Fintan O’Toole wields his scalpel again.

Trump administration weaponises its talent for lying

” .. existing law gives Trump as president sweeping powers to attack whoever he himself “determines” planned, authorised, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks”

link to archive.is

We don’t talk about foreign and defence matters, it’s a reserved power = we are perfectly happen to stay in this box the UK has put us in and only do what we are allowed to do.

We can’t condemn Trump’s assassination of Solomeini it might upset some people = we have no problem going along with Britnat neo-con foreign policy. We don’t actually want to be an independent states as such, just some more domestic powers.

Dr Jim @ 01:47,

It’s postings like this one of yours that make WoS worthwhile. You can really get to the heart of things, not least about our FM in this one, yet manage to put a wee smile on my face while you do it:

…while Scotland disnae even have a patrol boat wae a water pistol on it

Priceless! Whiles a cringingly pathetic situation all the same. How could we, running things for ourselves, possibly do worse than this?

@Abulhaq, 9.14

Scots, individual Scots, did well out of England’s imperial predations but the nation of Scotland was neglected. Colonialism is like that, some make it, however, the vast majority do not.
And those that did make it were likely to identify with England and Englishness, their ‘Scottishness’ being a mere quaint betartaned, kilted, whisky fuelled ‘add on’.

Well said

Abulhaq @ 09:38,

Post-WW1 activity in the Middle East was not one of imperial Britain’s finest moments on the world stage, it must be freely acknowledged. My only present-day consolation is that an independent Scotland will be a different actor entirely, and as a quite natural consequence of its geopolitical situation, no deep policy consideration even required.

No doubt that will have a knock-on effect on our southern neighbour as well, though in what way we can’t yet tell. Disproportionately diminished, though, one might presume. Mayhap it’s considerations like this which animate the likes of Jess Philips. For such people, of all political parties and of none, when they bother to take an interest at all, Scottish independence has nothing to do with us and everything to do with them.

While I’m at it, I might as well post this.

Reframing Internalized Oppression and Internalized Domination:
From the Psychological to the Sociocultural
web.colby.edu/ed215s/files/2010/12/Tappan_TCR_2006.pdf

It is quite simple. In order to be able to make effective claims to legal and political rights, you need to be recognised as possessing a legally defensible identity that has force and effect in the real world. Westminster clearly does not recognise those living in Scotland as having a legally defensible identity, so Westminster does not consider those living in Scotland as possessing legal and political rights. Where’s the justice in that? There’s not even the potential of justice for Scotland and its people.

Bill McLean @ 13:14,

The “I don’t like that Nicola Sturgeon” reaction is all too typical, alas, though if you were to inquire as to why, they will likely struggle to give any substantive one. It’s born out of ignorance, as you say, and out of a fear that she represents a very potent threat to the status quo, which for so many English people is just fine, thank-you-very-much, and in no need of any inconvenient disturbance in the internal organisation of their precious UKOK (=England).

What they totally fail to realise is that it is their very own inability and unwillingness to adapt to changing political circumstances which is actually corroding the very UK they are so desperate to preserve. In fact, post EU withdrawal, the anticipated increasing attempt at dominance over Scotland by a grossly unrepresentative Tory government, which might possibly even enjoy some gratuitous support in England, will merely accelerate the disintegration of the UK that they fear.

Of course, the science of understanding cultural subjugation, is intrinsically linked with women’s historic struggle against cultural patriarchy, which hurts the poor and destroys the planet. MKAY! MKAY?

Patriarchy and Inequality: Towards a Substantive
Feminism
link to chicagounbound.uchicago.edu

Again, sorry if folk think I trying to force a political outlook on folks. This is serious stuff though, as Scotland’s public health is in jeopardy thanks to Brexit and other stuff. So I hope this political strategy is effective or I’m going to be mighty pissed off.

Feminism and public health ethics

Abstract

This paper sketches an account of public health ethics drawing upon established scholarship in feminist ethics. Health inequities are one of the central problems in public health ethics; a feminist approach leads us to examine not only the connections between gender, disadvantage, and health, but also the distribution of power in the processes of public health, from policy making through to programme delivery.

The complexity of public health demands investigation using multiple perspectives and an attention to detail that is capable of identifying the health issues that are important to women, and investigating ways to address these issues. Finally, a feminist account of public health ethics embraces rather than avoids the inescapable political dimensions of public health.

Keywords:
feminism, public health ethics, justice|

link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Right, there’s a new thread so I don’t mind finishing my logical flow logically. 🙂

Sorry for the length of this passage, but I think it important.

PRACTICAL POLYPHONY: THEORIES OF
THE STATE AND FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE

Polyphony: “The harmonious combination of two or more melodies, i.e. composition considered horizontally as distinct from Homophony, which is vertical in the principle of its structure.”‘

It may be that some people call themselves “liberal,” “radical” or “Marxist” with full confidence that the terms have common definitions which will describe all of their views and all of their actions. It seems equally possible, however, that the views of many people are less perfectly matched to common political theories, and that their actions are in less than perfect conformity with their theories, whatever they may be.

Individual feminists – whether or not they are publishing feminists – may similarly hold positions derived from various identified types of feminism as well as from sources which have no explicit reference to feminist concerns. Feminist jurisprudence, as a movement within the American legal academic environment, has in it ideas derived both from feminism and from American legal academic conversation generally.2

This paper first notes the difficulties which surface when a conventional theory of the state and law associated with liberalism is combined with two particular themes in feminist jurisprudence – the theme of subordination and the theme of groups. Initially, difficulties arise because the description of women suggested by dominance or oppression theories is not the description of freely choosing individuals that participation in the liberal state generally requires.3

Further difficulties surface because the emphases in some feminist jurisprudence on the importance of group life and authority and on the importance of individual narrative and experience generally – though often in fact narrative of the experience of group membership – have no similar priority in conventional theories about law and the state.

The paper then suggests that feminist jurisprudence has certain affinities with psychological and pluralist theories of law and the state. These theories are useful for feminist jurisprudence not because of what they say about women but because of what they say about law and society. It is not that one cannot think about feminist issues without these theories; it is simply that it is easier to think about at least some problems using them, for psychological and pluralist theories, more directly than others, seem to spell out jurisprudential consequences of the idea that the personal is political….

link to opencommons.uconn.edu