Wings Over Scotland

The arse is on the foot now, or something.

This is what happens when you follow the Great Leader

Ach yesterday’s news. Operation Kiss Arse has already kicked off. Ye have to hand it to Ruthie. She doesn’t hang about. 🙂

Boris Johnson. What a fkng humiliation.

Jings!

Butt…butt…I thought Davidson was the ar*e.

I can see I’m a little behind 🙂 Must keep up.

Oh no it appears they dopey tolie voters doon sooth are no listening to the Oracle tRuthless or is this just a cunning stunt ( huv a goat that right ) to divert our attention , I like the thought of operation Arse it encompasses all the contenders

Meanwhile the great Rory the tory Scoatland’s and the onions saviour has had his erse skelpit

Isn’t that typical? I’m all ready to make my very first comment to Wings, and I’m struck speechless. Damn it.

Now, now, come on; Colonel Yadaftie is a winner donchaknow.

The good Colonel will get on either her water buffalo or her tank and will head the bounder off at the pass.

This is her finally standing-up for Scotland. By her heroic and successful plan to discredit Boris and knock him out of the leadership race, Truthless has, yet again – shown she is a the true champion of Scotland.

The reality of course is, with BoJo in Number Ten, the chances are we will have Ross Thomson in Dover House; which makes Independence all the more certain.

Cheers, Ruthie.

Mundell and Davidson now lying prostrate at the feet of Boris confessing their sins and asking for forgiveness. What will the great one decide their penance will be?

In the vassal state that is the Boris nugget, he thinks he is Winny Churchill, and mark my words will take us to war if given half the chance.
Under his premiership we will be a “genuine American state,” and will simply be sold off to the highest bidder, so long as the f**kwit can feather his own nest.
“Caricature coupon Farage” will be exactly the same.
The UK is F**KED which ever way you look at it.
Scotland WAKE UP.

If the groik gets to no10 there will be numerous outbreaks of
foot n mouth.

When Mundell and Davidson are summoned before ‘The Leader’ about Operation Arse will their excuse be ‘we were only obeying orders’.

I’m more interested in what they will say after we chose independence, after all they have basically chosen to support another countries decision over their own country (Mundell excuse no doubt will be, he believed Scotland was extinguished so should not be held responsible for his treachery).

Just goes to prove that a vote for a Tory in Croydon is much better than a vote for a Tory in Edinburgh Central, if you want Scottish Independence.

Arbroath1320 says:
Looks like English Civil War II is getting closer by the day peeps.
————

it wont happen, lost soft brexit tory voters will simply be replaced by new hard brexit tory voters and the english Civil War II wont even register on curtice of james kelly’s opinion polls.

in reality the real Civil War will be among scottish tory voters, they are about to be ripped in half and and the soft brexiters cast adrift.

that is why ruth mounted operation arse in the 1st place

Ruth may move to muster support for ‘Operation Turn The Other Cheek’

This will not go down well with the Tories in Scotland Mr Johnson
The Tory party in Scotland is there to represent the people of the UK not Scotland

Wheee! we’re Independent already!!

I have not so far heard Mundel or Ruth threaten to resign if Boris is PM

Looks like it turned into Operation Arise instead…….as in Arise Prime Minister Johnson.

Coming to a cinema near you: Dr Ruthless or: How I Learned to Stop Caring and Love the Boris!!!

ps, great work, Wingers of 2019

A serious question.

I know some will have asked this before, but I am beginning to fear the worst, given the looming political climate on the horizon.

Is there really anything to prevent the Scottish Parliament being closed down by Westminster? Or, alternatively have its devolved powers substantially stripped to the extent that it is literally no more than a talking shop?

Any reassurance would be gratefully received.

Frank Gillougley @ 17:45,

They can’t formally abolish without a referendum, but they can degrade its functioning from without and within, using the “mitigation” weapon together with the power grab and Henry VIII powers, and aided-and-abetted as per usual by the hapless NorthBritLab, for whom Holyrood has become a serious losing game.

So in the longer term no assurance whatever, I’m afraid. We have become “too big for our boots” for our “masters” in London. So we have to find properly-sized boots with which to deliver the only message they will understand, or be robbed of even the little we currently possess.

It’s keep moving on now or perish.

You never know under F**KWITS leadership spaffing might become an Olympic sporting event, I am sure he will try the commonwealth games committee first. “Empire and all that bollocks” tallyho.
Expect speaking Latin to become trendy in pubs, “dan the Veteris Canis et Phasianum.” innit.

Retro in arca Scocie.

After JM Barrie, “There is indeed no finer sight than a Scotswoman on the make”.
Davidson, Johnson’s joshing jockess?

jfngw@6.18
Nice One.

Why does Ruth Davidson dislike Boris Johnson so much? They’ve got lots of common ground.

They’re both pathologically ambitious. Both love zany photocalls. They have very similar power-grabbing propensities. They both hate Scotland.

Maybe that’s it. They’re just too much alike.

Paris in the Scotsman never writes anything positive about Independence the SNP or Scotland. The man is a disgrace.
As regards Boris Johnson, might be a few martyrs in the protracted fight for Independence if he becomes PM. The man thinks he is Winston Churchill,ably supported by ("Quizmaster" - Ed)s like Davidson, Mundell and the rest we could face armed occupation for years to come.

next week…….Mundell and Davidson kiss the feet of Johnston saying they always supported him and his greater Engerland.

Yes great leader we will impose austerity on the scotch, more foodbanks, we take the fish to Grimsby where it always belongs and stamp them with the UJ flags, no more silly parliaments for the Celts — who needs them –when we have the Mother of All parliaments- Can we get a wee bauble for our trouble they ask….

My contempt for those three knows no bounds.

Surely the Tories could have had this election over in one day by using STV. The Tories horror show continues. Davidson does what she is told.

ot but did anyone see that STV news won an award as the best wee story tellers in Scotland?

I often wonder who votes for these pillocks, sure ain’t open to the public.

Hi Gary45% at 6:03 pm.

You typed,
“Expect speaking Latin to become trendy in pubs, “dan the Veteris Canis et Phasianum.” innit.

Retro in arca Scocie.”

Amawi here mane. (I’m not, actually. I’m taller than average and no’ sae hairy these days.)

Caesar adsum iam forte. (Don’t know what he had for supper.)

Congrats to us all for breaking the crowdfunding record!

Brian@7.33
According to Mr Google.
Dan the old dog and pheasant.
Back in your box Scotland.
I struggle with English never mind Latin.

Bloody keyboard – Henry VIII, not Henry VII.

Wow, what kind of politician has to announce to the world that she is so professional that (whisper, whisper) she has even been known to enter negotiations with the First Minister. OMG, imagine that!

She is a product of the Public Relations men. Watch carefully her facial expressions in the above video. It’s all an act. She’s a fraud and would struggle to survive in a position of true responsibility where her every move was minutely examined and questioned.

Ye cannae fool us, Ms Davidson. Remember we’re Scots, and we can see a fraud a mile off.

As our grannies used to say, “She’s fair away wi’ hersel’, but she’ll come doon to earth wi’ an awfy clatter.”

Here’s one for Scotland’s judiciary, who need to prove through their “actions”, that they are rational liberals who are supportive of multicultural pluralism and the rule-of-law (see the British constitution). It is more than a little alarming they have not already done so, frankly.

VALUE-PLURALIST MULTICULTURALISM:
BETWEEN ECONOMIC RATIONALISM AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM

‘Multiculturalism’ means different things to different people. There is agreement on its general definition: public recognition of cultural differences and their effects within a society. But when it comes to explaining what purpose is properly served by multiculturalism – and consequently the precise form that multicultural policy should take – opinions are divided.

There is on the one hand a more conservative view that multiculturalism should properly amount to no more than a pragmatic vehicle for integrating new migrants into the cultural mainstream (Galligan and Roberts 2004: ch. 4). Within this conservative position there are those, especially representing business interests, who see the principal purpose of immigration, and therefore of multiculturalism, as the promotion of economic growth. On this view, cultural diversity enhances the skilled labour pool, multiplies contacts for overseas trade, and expands domestic markets.1

On the other hand, some people conceive of multiculturalism in more radical terms, as a vehicle for the rejection of dominant norms that pretend to universality but that are in reality parochially Western (Tully 1995; Parekh 2000). This radical position is, in turn, condemned by its detractors as political correctness run riot, based on a romanticising of indigenous and non-Western cultures, and implying a foolish abandonment of the standards of liberal democracy and even reason itself (Sandall 2001).

I propose a rationale for multiculturalism that is located between these conservative and radical poles. The view I shall defend is intended to avoid both the complacent acceptance of current norms (in particular, narrowly economic conceptions of well-being) and the radical relativising of all standards. The ethical basis of my argument is the concept of ‘value pluralism’. This is the idea, associated in particular with the work of Isaiah Berlin, that there are at least some generic universal values, but that these (and other more local values) are irreducibly multiple, frequently conflicting, and sometimes ‘incommensurable’ with one another.

Pluralism in the Berlinian sense thus contains elements of moral universality and diversity. It also seems, immediately, to intersect with multiculturalism. If there are many distinct human goods, then one would expect that different combinations of these would constitute many genuinely valuable ways of life that are worthy of public recognition.

However, I shall also argue that the kind of multiculturalism that is supported by Berlinian pluralism is distinctly ‘moderate’. By this I mean to identify a form of multiculturalism that is more than a mere instrument of integration, but less than a demand for cultural sovereignty. In particular, I shall argue that pluralist multiculturalism is subject to liberal principles, rather than a radical view in which liberal values represent only one legitimate cultural perspective on a moral par with others.

Further, those liberal principles include a strong public commitment to the ideal of individual autonomy that will usually override toleration of individual and group practices. I thus take issue with much of the existing literature in which pluralists have touched on multiculturalism. A dominant current within that literature has identified value pluralism with cultural pluralism in a strong sense, thus suggesting a link between pluralism and unrestricted multiculturalism – unrestricted, that is, by liberalism. This tendency, I shall argue, rests on a misunderstanding of pluralism and its political implications.

My discussion is divided into three sections. First, I review the concept of value pluralism as it is found, in particular, in the work of Berlin. Second, I argue that Berlinian pluralism suggests a form of multiculturalism that is not unrestricted but subject to liberal principles. These principles include a public commitment to the ideal of individual autonomy, in contrast with alternative, toleration-based models of liberal multiculturalism. Third, I list some qualifications to the view I defend.

link to berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk

Then there’s this one. lol

link to facebook.com

That went well then, he got enough MP votes to win outright were it a FPTP vote and enough, assuming he survives the next round to get him in the final two.

Once in the final two, unless he actually murders someone, or withdraws, he’ll be our next PM – God help us all…

Scotland is the place for rockets and here’s another. 🙂

From WoS twitter… yea not!

link to archive.fo

@Lenny Hartley says:
13 June, 2019 at 4:56 pm

I said to a colleage at work in 2003 whilst looking at a large World Map on his Office Wall that Syria would be next in order to make a path for ground forces to Iran. Thanks to the Russians they have failed to overthrow the Assad Regime, they will now instead try and manufacture a reason to takeout the Iranian Regime.

Also, thanks to the yanks themselves and their inability to see who the real enemy is, they will be unable to use Iraq as a path for their forces either. The Shia majority would rise against them if they did – they see the Iranian Shias as their brothers. If Sadam Hussein was still in power it would be no problem for them (mind you they backed him in an invasion of Iran and that failed too – though with a great cost to 100,000s of Iranians and Iraquis).

And another for Scotland’s ambivalent judiciary, who appear not to value “new natural law”.

Neil Gorsuch, Natural Law, and the Limits of Judicial Power

When President Donald Trump announced his first nominee to the Supreme Court, many observers quickly noted that Neil Gorsuch wrote his doctoral thesis under the supervision of the Oxford legal philosopher John Finnis. Some immediately asked whether Gorsuch’s approach to constitutional interpretation might be shaped by the “New Natural Law Theory” (NNLT) pioneered by Finnis and others.

The columnist George Will, for instance, expressed the hope that Gorsuch might “effect a philosophic correction” to what Will regards as a lacuna in Justice Antonin Scalia’s theory of originalism. In his 1997 book A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Scalia wrote, “there is no such philosophizing in our Constitution, which, unlike the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, is a practical and pragmatic charter of government.”

Will takes a different view. Natural rights, he claimed, may be “independent of the Constitution” insofar as they “are grounded in [human] nature.” But natural rights are also, Will stated, what the Constitution exists to protect. Will concluded by suggesting that the fact the Gorsuch studied under the author of Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980)—the book which some believe single-handedly revitalized natural law theory in jurisprudence and philosophy more generally—might foreshadow more attention to natural rights in Supreme Court deliberations.

No one can predict with certainty Gorsuch’s take on any question on which he might be called to deliberate if he receives Senate confirmation. But before too much ink is spilled speculating on whether natural law in general or NNLT in particular will influence Gorsuch’s thought, it is worth reflecting on two important prior questions. How does natural law theory view constitutionalism? And what does this mean for the exercise of judicial power?

Power Maps or Normative Ends?

Answering such questions requires clarification of the purpose of constitutions. Constitutions are usually regarded as (1) the written documents that outline the powers of different political institutions as well as (2) the legal rules, customs, and conventions that define the system and workings of government.

But in his 1998 book An Introduction to Constitutional Law (published in the same series as Natural Law and Natural Rights), Eric Barendt notes that constitutions are more than a type of power map. For if this were the sole purpose of constitutions, it would be possible for a tyrannical regime to comply formally with constitutional law while carrying out fundamentally unjust policies….

link to thepublicdiscourse.com

And some Constitutional Legal Theory that Scotland’s judges might want to consider.

Rethinking the boundaries of democratic secession: Liberalism, nationalism, and the right of minorities to self-determination

Abstract

Whereas secession has been dealt with extensively in international law, in connection with the creation and recognition of states, it has received little attention as a possible tool in the constitutional protection of minority rights. This paper examines the more frequent uses and invocations of secession and assesses their potential adaptability as means of promoting minority group rights.

It argues that international law and the international community have never provided coherent guidance for responding to nationalistic minority aspirations or, specifically, to secessionist challenges. At the same time, constitutional models regarding the management of national diversity have also failed to reconcile liberal democracy and nationalism.

From a substantive point of view, there is probably no solution to such difficulties. Neither available model of “constitutional coexistence” nor of secession is likely, ultimately, to be satisfactory. Nonetheless, the adoption of an explicit constitutional procedural approach to secession provides the best means of averting the worst dangers and excesses.

Issue Section:
A. Rights at the intersection of international, transnational, and private legal regimes

link to academic.oup.com

Hi Heart of Galloway.

I think your comment may allude to this.

“Hey Tuttie Taiti”.

link to youtube.com

Mundell has seen the light. He can work with Boris.

All those quotes from him about Boris being a fool were inaccurate apparently. Fake news you know.

If ever any man lacked class,principle or backbone ,it is Mundy. An invertebrate for sure.

@Capella 9.01

Ayup! That other shoe should drop fairly soon.

Well. More of a pit boot. 😎

The complete lack of substance, the inability to stand for anything, exhibited by Davidson and Mundell is straight from In The Thick Of It. Everything is spin and craven personal ambition. Funny but unedifying.

Word on da street iz that engineers in the energy sector are developing the technology to harness the seemingly perpetual power emitted by the flip-flopping of Buffalo Gal.

The Tories clearly getting ready to dismantle devo, no matter who wins the leadership.

Scotland’s choice is between governing ourselves or 100 million miles of hard road

A huge amount of decent English folk expressing their desire to come to Scotland to get away from England while at the same time a huge amount of abusive Rangers fans in Scotland expressing their desire that Scotland be like England

The solution seems obvious, we could do it like a prisoner exchange, they get the head cases they want, we get the nice folk we want, I know where they go on Saturdays, we could just throw a net over them

There are many tell-tales signs that (t)Ruthless is not serious about democratic pluralism and Scotland’s best interests, if you look closely enough. Firstly, she’s a Tory. Secondly, she’s a Tory…..

The Constitution, Political Culture, and Civic Virtue

….So what does it mean for the ruler to truly be a servant? What does it mean for someone holding political office and exercising political power to rule well? Well, at the most basic level, abstractly, it means making and executing decisions for the sake of the common good, not for the sake of any individual interest that the ruler happens to have, not for the sake of the rulers group or clan or tribe or family or class, but for the common good. Such decisions will necessarily be compatible with the requirements of justice, and at the same time, they will embody justice.

If we understand the concept of the common good properly, and I am going to say a word about that in a moment, then we will see that no decision that violates a requirement of justice, any requirement of justice, even the smallest, can truly be for the common good. And no decision that genuinely upholds and serves the common good will fail to advance the cause of justice. I will explain that in a moment….

link to wheatley.byu.edu

Over to you Scotland’s judiciary, prove you’re rational liberals and not reactionary Tories.

THE FIX IS IN THEN

First, the new big lie. Boris is a changed man, and now realises the true magnitude of the job which awaits.

Two. The Tories don’t believe in, and therefore don’t actually practise democracy. As with the Theresa May ‘elevation’, the plan now is to rinse and repeat for Boris. All the rest is just hoodwinking the gullible masses – in England, which controls the democratic deficit in the so-called United Kingdom.

Three. Boris is on a very short leash, reined in by his ‘minders’, to minimise press or public access and therefore to rule out, or at least minimise, the possibility of Boris saying something self-destructive of which he is eminently capable.

Four. The Establishment are recovering their composure and have come up with ‘the Johnson plan’, as a means of restoring order in the UK, the mini-Empire – as was before June 23, 2016, and the EU referendum.

Five. The British Establishment is trying desperately to squeeze the Brexit genie back into the Empire bottle, but such an effort is doomed to fail, as we all should know by now.

Six. The Brexit avalanche continues unabated downhill.

Seven. Don’t bet against the tide of History.

Joe @ 20:28,

More deliberate confusion between the EU and the Eurozone. (D’ye think we don’t notice, or if you say it loud and often enough à la Goebbels it will begin to work ?)

Your stock of Leaver lies, distortions and straw men is getting worn out from excessive reuse. Give it (and us) a rest.

If you were a genuine supporter of independence, you would
save your persistent minority dissidence until such time as we here in Scotland are able to decide properly for ourselves, free of all outside interference. (Including from where you live.)

Harping on and on and on with your splitterist monomania in a Scottish context only serves the Union. Which places you firmly in the “knaves or fools” category.

Personally, I favour the former, but it’s a close call.

David Mundell receives key to executive toilet, he’s made it in the remake ‘Are You Being Servile’.

link to twitter.com

BDT@9.29
Aye Brian, fair mak’s the hert sing. Ecosse! En avant!

re. the full-English Brexit and Britain’s constitutional crises. Surely it is not beyond the wit of humanity to avoid such a debilitating mess? Well, has anyone ever wondered what happens if you mix Constitutional Legal Theory with International Public Law? Perhaps Scotland’s judiciary might want to examine the source of their ambivalence to natural justice? Perhaps they’d rather not?

The relationship between international law and
national law in the case of Kosovo:
A constitutional perspective

This paper addresses the relationship between international law and national law in the case of Kosovo, using its constitutional law as a backdrop to the main question of the paper. After introducing the theoretical background to the field in question, the paper argues that the Constitution of Kosovo provides for a monist model of relationship between international law and national law, while recognizing the direct applicability and incorporation of treaties in the domestic legal order, and, to a certain extent, also of customary international law.

The paper goes on to explain the relationship in question through reviewing a large portion of literature in the field with a view to enabling the reader to understand the specific provisions of the Constitution of Kosovo on the relationship concerned. The paper also attempts to explain the penetration of international human rights law in the national legal order, including an account of the broad constitutionalization of international human rights instruments that is apparent in the Kosovo Constitution.

Finally, the paper concludes that the Constitution of Kosovo builds a ‘happy’ relationship between international law and national law, thus following a modern approach toward the relationship between the two.

link to academic.oup.com

Brexit – impossible to classify, politically and economically

‘Strong and Stable’ – almost the definition of a complete loss of judgement, courtesy of the British Prime Minister, leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. To be succeeded shortly, most likely, by someone who, by comparison, makes Theresa May appear like a clone of King Solomon, who was renowned for his peerless wisdom.

But then, when a train goes completely off the rails and heads for a nearby cliff, what does it matter that the driver is called Johnson.

Briandoonthetoon @ 9.29
The tune fair makes the heart sing.
A beautiful tune right enough!!!
But as the clips show…
We can’t have that as our National Anthem.
The French are burying their war dead to it,to win medals in sport to it, where the French compete would be in such bad taste…..
Such is Life…..
My pitch would be for “Auld Lang Syne” and for three reasons.

Firstly – The Writer is indisputably “A son of Scotland” , and a famous one at that ( he even has his own day/night).

Secondly – Nae Wars,Bloody Tombs or mention of The English.
Our past relationship with England should not make it into our National Anthem, ( and by default Robert de Bruce dose speak to a Scottish/English past) but rather, it should be about the face Scotland presents to the world today!

Thirdly – International Recognition.
Most people can only recognise one or two National Anthems!
Most people can only sing one or two lines of them as well!
Auld Lang Syne,is sung once a year the World over and it’s generally sung as a sign of friendship.
The World knows this song,it is arguably more famous than G.S.T.Q, which it is as least as old as, ( and it has to be said written by a one hit wonder) and speaks about friendship not crushing anybody!!

So….
It’s demonstrably OURs…
And,
It could be said that, we have given it to the world to sing and keep safe during “The Union Years”….
Now we are bringing it home where it always belonged….
?????

Shrodingers Cat @ 12.08
I’m thinking the same as you… EH?
First I’ve heard!
I was actually worried because Yesindyref2 had had a health scare a wee while back.
I was actually hoping that the indecent with the oil tankers would bring him back out from lurking so I’d know for sure he was ok….!!
Any Wingers know him????

Mr Stewart told Sky News that if Mr Johnson prorogued parliament, “every other MP will sit across the road in Methodist Central Hall and we will hold our own session of parliament and we will bring him down”.

He said: “You don’t ever lock the doors on parliament in this country. Somebody who attempted to subvert our constitution, our liberties, our parliament, and who dared to stand as prime minister and claim they could lock the doors on parliament would not deserve to be prime minister.
“This parliament would meet, whether he locked the doors or not, and we would bring him down.”

Strong and stable and here we have a contender to be the next Prime Minister declaring that he and other MPs will form an alternative Parliament.

Time I think for the guns to come out with troops on the street. Proroguing Parliament was the prelude to the English Civil War.
Mr Stewart told Sky News that if Mr Johnson prorogued parliament, “every other MP will sit across the road in Methodist Central Hall and we will hold our own session of parliament and we will bring him down”.
He said: “You don’t ever lock the doors on parliament in this country. Somebody who attempted to subvert our constitution, our liberties, our parliament, and who dared to stand as prime minister and claim they could lock the doors on parliament would not deserve to be prime minister.
“This parliament would meet, whether he locked the doors or not, and we would bring him down.”

Wow, next Week, guess who is on the Alex Salmond show. Can’t wait!

Robert J Sutherland @ 1.05
Let’s give it some time…
It’s late and we don’t know if other Wingers know him yet!
Let’s give it till…
Mibbi Saturday tea time, after the march!!
The Rev will Mibbi have read through the posts and would have said some by then.
If he didn’t and if nobody else has I’ll email the Rev to check!!
If everyone is ok with that??

When Johnston becomes PM, Davidson and Mundell’s ”Operation Ar*e” will do a Tory flip-flop and become known as Johnston’s ”Operation boot up the Ar*e”.

Meanwhile we’ll all be laughing our asses off in Scotland. Johnston as PM, and better still with groper Thomson as SoS for Scotland, will be an absolute gift for us.

So come on folks. Back Johnston for PM. What a guy. Boris, Boris, Boris we, the Scots, love you Boris. Don’t believe Ruth the Mooth Boris when she tells you that you scunner the Scots and that you’ll end the Union. She’s a wee liar (like yourself) Boris. Slowly, slowly catchy monkey, ha, ha.

……………………………….

WGD:- ‘What democracy is all about.’

… ”Ruth Davidson preaches about democracy while espousing deeply undemocratic positions. She preaches about the dangers of division while her own party has proven to be the most dangerously divisive force in the UK. She rails against the replacement of patriotism by nationalism while representing the most narrowly and viciously nationalist party that has ever been in government in Britain. Her own party is a minority government, and is hell bent on forcing the most extreme form of Brexit imaginable on the UK. Yet have you heard her say that the British government can’t foist its Brexit upon us all until it achieves an electoral majority to do so? No. Neither have I.”…

link to weegingerdug.wordpress.com

What a load of old tommyrot …. Lies. Read the tweets to get a semblance of the truth.

link to twitter.com

Boris Johnston brags constantly about his Mayor of London record.

One of the tweets:-

Some of Boris’ projects when Mayor:
Garden Bridge £54m
Routemaster buses £321.6m
Cable cars £21m
Water cannons £320,000
Hire bikes £225m
Estuary Airport £5.2m
Olympic Stadium conversion £305.5m
Orbit Statue £6.1m

Total : over £940m .. all disasters!

Cut police, sold fire stations.

………………………………..

Willie @ 3.44
Wullie..
Aye fine…. Just say it a wee bit mair peacefully…
We aw know how nasty Westminster can be!!!
Let’s be as cool as Nicola, and the Yes’rs!!
Now is the time tae bring Scotland the gither!!
Don’t Ye think??
We canny play their violence game,they are so good at it,that’s no our script… They canny handel anything else they don’t know how …. We must keep it “civil”, and legal…. Aye??

This is a complete FU. There is NO appropriate Tory candidate for PM. And Corbyn is on his way out.

There is sheer pandemonium at Westminster. There is panic in both major parties..

MPs are finally coming around to realise that the UK is (as many people have been saying) is close to National Emergency, civil unrest and complete meltdown.

The Drug Donkey Derby of the Tory Party is a complete farce. It’s not a search for talent or a search for a statesman that can steer the UK out of a hole. It’s the proverbial rearrangement of the deckchairs as the ship goes down… Old men trying to retain control of a disaster.

Cameron, you steered the UK into a friggin Iceberg… you took a risk that wasn’t yours to take.

The only way forward now is back… a General Election AND a Referendum under control of some type of citizens assembly. (We cannot even trust these Donkeys to run an Emergency Coalition Government ..)

The last 12 months direction has pointed towards this catastrophe and we have not changed direction. Stiff upper lip, eh what? The BTL comments on most media has expanded exponentially and people are screaming the same warning for months.

How many times do ordinary people need to point out the obvious? The UK is in crisis, bordering on National Emergency.

The UK and Westminster will not emerge from this catastrophe undamaged. (culturally, politically, economically, constitutionally and most of all psychologically)

Scotland, man the fucking lifeboats!

Socrates MacSporran says:
14 June, 2019 at 5:46 am

…And, if Johnston, perhaps with Toom Tabard Thompson as SoS for Scotland does shut-down Holyrood, they could always do what Rory the Tory is suggesting for Westminster – meet elsewhere.

I remember back during the Scottish Parliament Building debacle, it was said that the Scottish Parliament could meet in a field if it chose to.

Holyrood is the coming together of two conflicting phenomena; a delegation / devolution of power and integrity given by Westminster, and arguably, this devolution could theoretically be cut off at source.

However, that overlooks the second phenomenon, whereby it was the Democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland that delivered the mandate to have a Scottish Parliament, and it is the democratic choice of the sovereign people of Scotland which determines who gets to sit in that parliament. In these respects, the Scottish Parliament represents a covenant between the Scottish people and their chosen / delegated leadership, and the Parliament of Westminster has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere.

It is therefore at least credible to suppose that Westminster might choose to remove such powers and authorities from a Holyrood which it can remove, but as a Constitutionally Sovereign people, we can do to Westminster the self same thing that Westminster would do to Holyrood, and essentially remove the franchise which allows it to operate. Scotland’s popular sovereignty trumps the UK Parliamentary Sovereignty, and Westminster has no power over Scotland which doesn’t have its origins in authorities first delegated by Scotland.

There is another complexity to add to this, because it is arguable that this arrangement is an issue of Constitutional Law, not merely ephemeral popular opinion, and as such, it is not contingent upon any equally ephemeral democratic mandate in a referendum. The Union wasn’t created via democracy but legal treaty agreed under franchise. So logically, it can be ended by the same protocols whereby it was created.

That means in my opinion, if Scotland elects an SNP Government, that Government can terminate the Treaty of Union without any need for further referendum. However, given the modern principles of democracy, it would help greatly with Scotland’s international standing if such a decision to break up the Union did have a majority in a referendum, OR a ratification Plebiscite after the event.

Where Scotland is strong and unassailable is having the sovereignty of our people undisputed.

Where we are weak however, is having that sovereignty codified into a constitution which addresses all the ambiguities and conundrums which confound us. In simple terms, the sovereign will of over 5 million people is a clumsy and unwieldy juggernaut to steer and control, but somehow, we need to find a way to do it.

Normal countries delegate power to their government every day all around the world, and those governments are by and large left to get on with it, and the “principle” of democracy is technically satisfied because the Government’s mandate to govern expires and needs the will of the people to authorise a new parliamentary session.

In crude terms, what Scotland has in Westminster is the delegation of power from the people to create a Government, but there is no expiry date on the franchise which requires public support to renew the mandate. It’s like a democracy without the opportunity for electoral renewal… which yes, is a contradiction in terms and irreconcilable paradox. It’s a Union of consent stripped of the necessity and opportunity to renew that consent.

Sorry, bit scattergun this morning…

Another point I meant to make was that I think Scotland could demonstrate the power of sovereignty without actually ending the Union by unilateral resolution to renew Scotland’s consent be part of the Union.

We flick the switch. Rather than orchestrating an initiative to leave the Union, we adopt a different but thoroughly democratic protocol, whereby we leave by default unless we choose to remain after the mandate expires.

We elect a complete government every 4 or 5 years. Why not elect to stay or leave the UK Union by the same principle?

Just imagine the ructions at Westminster… having to be extra nice to Scotland and make a progressive case for the Union every 4-5 years, or see the Union collapse. Oh the fun we would have…

@ Breeks.

3 very good posts.

Our Sovereignty until now has been fairly successfully hidden from view by the usual westminster/establishment smoke and mirrors. Cramped and confined using pseudo convention and compliant political London based parties operating in Scotland.
Teaching Scots that their Sovereignty trumps any dictat from Westminster is the key. WGD wrote in one of his blogs that Scotland wasn’t poor, it was impoverished. The same could be said for our Sovereignty, we aren’t powerless, we have just forgotten how to wield that power.

David Mundell is an absolute joke.
link to twitter.com

link to centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

link to scotgoespop.blogspot.com

link to politicshome.com

This is from the beginning of this week’s @CommonsEUexit Select Committee. The message is clear, a no deal Brexit would devastate UK manufacturing.
video
link to twitter.com

Northern Ireland’s DUP not seeking ‘earth-shattering’ changes to Brexit deal
link to archive.fo

Esther McVey claimed £8,750 in expenses for personal photographer
link to archive.fo

EU says reneging on Brexit bill would damage UK economy
link to archive.fo

Correct DavidP.

But what if we lose, or the SNP never gets around to winning? Trick question, sorry. Even if we lose, we can’t lose, we’d just be back at ground 0 again.

But yes, you’re right. Mostly. But didn’t the Catalans vote decisively to leave Spain? Apparently a vote needs more than a majority. It’s not awareness that Sovereignty depends upon, it’s formal recognition. Situation as of right now is we don’t actually have that. We should have it, I know, but technically we don’t. If we’re not recognised as sovereign, then what is it that will make our vote be recognised as sovereign? And if it’s not sovereign, then it’s an aspirational opinion poll.

Yes, democracy in the modern world can take command and establish sovereignty, but at what risk are creating a new ersatz or Sevco Scotland, rather than resurrecting the Auld Ancient Kingdom of Scotland? Do we want a new Sovereignty that’s one day old? Or is it all that Scotland has ever been from it’s dawn in prehistory through all the drama and tribulations of a thousand years raw history? I want the same Scotland that declared itself in the Declaration of Arbroath. Independence for me is an act of liberation, not creation.

The other counter argument to what I said is that Scotland cannot arbitrarily change the terms of the Union Treaty with any greater success than England might… not that they pay much heed of that.

I’m not advocating these things as recommendations, but I would very much like to encourage a much wider and more sophisticated understanding of what our Sovereignty is and what it means. For some of us, that means thinking the unthinkable. For others, it opens up a world of imagination they never knew existed.

When you think sovereign, suddenly the Treaty of Union seems like a pompous and irksome piece of paper that wouldn’t pass the legitimate provenance test to warrant a home in a museum. Maybe pinned to the wall in Madame Tussaud’s Waxworks beside all the other illusions and curiosities.

The Declaration of Arbroath is a priceless artefact which creates and defines a Nation. The Treaty of Union is an historical curio which creates nothing but a paper manacle. The one is not the equal of the other.

Waiting for someone in the SNP with the cheek to say to the Tories get on with it, just elect Johnson.
UK safe in his hands. Hee! Hee!
Hunt, interviewed R4, “America is our closest ally, we must trust them”, OK…Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran?

Hi folks, have received a response from yesindy2ref , he is ok, but does appear to have been banned from commenting, possibily due to ciritism of the rev’s twitter. he is ok with that as he has other things to get on with.

Once Boris is PM, I suggest we just wander up to the cross outside St Giles, read out a Declaration of Independence, and nobody will argue.

Johnstone would not last long. Until October? The Tories will stagger on until a GE. Then toast.

What a mess. A total shambles.

Watched a bit of This Week as I spotted David Starkey and he is always good for a laugh, along with Portillo’s predictions.

He was in full rant mode, not enough of the right class now in Westminster, he really likes the rulers & serf society. I thought he was a historian but he had to be corrected on his facts, but he has such hubris that he just ignored these errors, he was still correct in his mind.

I was watching Liz Kendall’s face during his diatribe and it looked fizzing, I thought she might explode but didn’t, disappointing.

I have seen on the internet calls for the Scottish Government to pay for the over-75’s TV licence for those pensioners residing in Scotland. No, they cannot mitigate all the bad decisions made in London. The calls for the SG to do this should be resisted. It is time for the real pain of Westminster rule to be felt.

Everyone who claims here to canvass for the SNP, try explaining the new self-ID policy to doubtful voters.

Tell them that women will no longer have a claim to any space on the basis of their sex. Tell them sex used to be a protected status in law but is no longer any such thing in Scotland.

Tell them any man can identify as a women and enter their spaces, be it a toilet where a group of school girls have stopped off on a school trip, a changing room in a shop or even at a leisure centre. Tell them if they object, they are the bigot. Tell them men’s feelings are paramount now and their right to gratification in their chosen identity will now be law. Tell them there are other things far more important and they are missing the point of ‘Independence’.

Tell them this is personally endorsed by Nicola Sturgeon who does not feel threatened so why should they. Really, try it, if you can honestly explain any of that positively, well done.

Then try to tell them the Claim of Right says THEY are ‘sovereign’…if they haven’t shut the door in your face by then.

Hmmm. Sitting here with twenty quid to my name, this is what I’m looking at currently – An Orwellian Johnson Junta.

A ‘rules-based’ gerrymandered sham democracy, as we have known it up until now, I believe will soon be over and we will shortly enter into the world of full-on English Trump mob politics and previously unelectable mouthpieces will be given even more unwarranted continued prominence through political deals with the Junta (e.g. Farage and Davidson etc.)

Fresh from a no-deal xenophobic English civil war and victory over Europe, they will not stop there. The next course of action (as it is their only political philosophy – action) will be against the enemy within and that special measures will soon be taken to shore up and consolidate what territories England controls i.e. Scotland. These measures (the dissolution of a devolved parliament by whatever means, whether overtly, or fiscally) will be justified politically, via a complicit media, as being necessary to preserve the integrity of the UK, or Great Britain, or whatever you want to call it – the USS UK? Anyone can imagine the ensuing propaganda. It will be only academic that Scotland may return 59 SNP MPs to Westminster in the next GE. It won’t make any difference. That arcane Victorian parlour game is over.

Sovereignties, treaties, legally-binding documents, Section 30s, the rule of law, the legal establishment will all be set aside by the Junta via their appointed place men, all in the name of the preservation of the United Kingdom/ Great Britain. Direct rule will be reinstated as everyone knows that ‘power devolved is power retained’.

Of course, some may think this is an alarmingly bleak prognosis and that governance of Scotland as outlined will inevitably be unsustainable.

The policy of ‘lets wait and see the fall-out from Brexit’ before we decide our course, surely has to be over and the SNP has to mobilise onto a far more pro-active stance (which I am sure it has fully considered its tactical options available). I am 100% positive that the Scottish electorate will realise that their future will lie in Europe.

However, I suspect that the political situation will get much worse, before we begin to see real progress on Scotland regaining its independence in Europe.

Ho hum.

Be afraid. Be very afraid, as they say.

As if you need reminding, watch from 8.20 onwards

link to youtube.com

Craigs angle on Oil Tanker Attack, he has got it spot on again.
link to craigmurray.org.uk

From the Herald online

“UK Government to get ‘cabinet room’ in Edinburgh”

“”The opening of a new UK Government hub in Edinburgh has moved a step closer.

Property developers Artisan Real Estate formally hand over the keys of the building to Scottish Secretary David Mundell.””

Rest of article is behind a paywall

Below the line comments are worth a read though.