Wings Over Scotland

This guy got the ‘O’ Grade, the ‘Higher’ and has graduated with Honours from University in that elite subject called “Scottish Cringe”.

The sheer, petty carping triviality of this shows why Labour in Scotland has become a sour oppositionist rump, which is now rarely even asked for a view.

It also demonstrates the contempt for Scotland and its Parliament – which Labour often trumpets that it set up.

It is also an example of ‘know your place Jockos’ arrogance.

Ooh FFS.

Whit’s WRANG wi’ these people?

Mental. Just mental.

Oh dear, Labour in Scotland eh. What are they like. Nae ideas and nae hope.

No wonder they’re in a state and loosing votes. Oh dear, how sad never mind.

But I’m sure that wee diddy thinks this is perfectly okay:

Get up off your snivelling knees, McKee.

Your Union is dead..man up.
Unless of course you intend to be a ‘refugee’ come Independnece and flee to England’s Green and Pleasant land?
What a smouldering husk Labour in Scotland has become.

What kind of person is he to think we are subservient to a higher order? Especially when governments are there to serve the people.

That wee jiz monkey hasn’t had much luck running two failures press office for them, perhaps a relation to Mcternan?. His opinion that Bawlis visits Scotland but the FM should go to Downing St? Hahahaha, it’s not Nicolas job to hold the union together that job according to todays press is tank commanders.Is he the riddler?

Gordon McKee – like a 2 minute egg. In his favour, he’s not David or Oliver Mundell.

These are strange times, Stu. They must have been horrified to see how seriously disliked BoJo’s bonhomie Tory Brexit banter was received here… I see Andrew Sparrow of the Guardian are doing rolling coverage of BoJo charms the Welsh today. Am pretty sure that Andrew’s day off yesterday was carefully planned.

Actually haven’t seen any big media coverage of just how embarrassing BoJo’ s reception was. Don’t see anybody touching it, except the trolls…

Gordon McKee is an English Nationalist.

Lib dems MSP Alex Cole Hamilton tweeted today that Scotland going independent would be like California leaving the US

Gordon McKee of Labour there, concurring with the Tory belief that the First Minister of Scotland is on a par with the leader of Lincolnshire County Council.

What an unedifying spectacle.

John Walsh @ 14:15,

“Curmudgeon Paradox”. I love it!

I don’t think we need do anything about it, though. I’m not one to be complacent, but as a strategy it’s manifestly self-defeating.

Oh, except we should keep repeating that phrase, of course. Like all great slogans, it says it all in an instant.

A Labour House Jock, who just can’t help standing up for the Tories as usual. His masters in London have complete control over him how embarrassing.

Some spinal implant required to allow these creatures to stand upright.

Another ‘House Jock’ who thinks we should all kneel before the Massa from the deep south and take a whippin’ for daring to think ourselves as equals.

WTF do these creatures use for backbones? Used bogroll tubes and duct tape?

Hey, Gordon!

If you read this, and you can get up of your knees for a couple of hours, there’s bird shit on the roof of my car. Can you come up to Ayrshire and clean it off for me? I really can’t be arsed and you seem like a nice, servile if needy sort of bloke. My wife is English if that helps. We’d both appreciate your help and if you do a good job we may even allow you to thank us.

How about it? See you around 6’ish?

A wholesale load of cringe and subservience served cold.

Chaps, don’t go that hard on the whipping boy.
It’s the London poison.
It seeps into your brain through your pores.

Wife visited very recently, and her lasting impression is that London stinks.

If asked for my opinion of Labour in Scotland, I’d say they were totally irrelevant. Hanging around as they do, they just make the place look untidy, and with their bloated salaries and expense accounts, they are more akin to parasites, living off the helpless taxpayers.

At least Kezia Dugdale has left the stage. I don’t hear of anyone missing her. Now on the staff at Glasgow Uni in an Establishment post. She’ll be parked there until such times as she can be slipped quietly into the House of Lords, the first class carriage on the Gravy Train. Then it will be the Uni’s turn to be glad to see the back of her.

The Red/Blue Toies are going to have another go at presenting nice Tory rebel, Ruth the Mooth, as being the antidote to Boris.
Emphasising, with Swinson, the need for Scots to be united against extreme Independence.
.
Doomed to failure, of course.

Mr. McKee, what is your issue here? What is unedifying? He chose to come up here. What is the FM supposed to do? Protocols, my boy. No choice.
I was Labour all my previous life. Dicks like you left me. I didn’t leave Labour. You’re gone, man, solid gone. Mind you given the D’Hondt system you’ll get a wee number in Holyrood. Good money. Get on the list lad. Then you can whine with the rest of them. Good money. eh?
Bad news, SNP all the way!

Jack Murphy @3-33pm

That link has been available all day on Nana’s links!!!

A sad lost soul devoid of respect. No respect for himself, and certainly none for Scotland or the office of First Minister. The blinkered über BritNat worldview where a ‘socialist’ would rather support a far right hooligan with no democratic mandate, rather than the duly elected leader of their nation.

Pathetic.

speaking of protocols,

were either of Deidre Brock or Brendan O’Hara informed that BoJo and co were visiting their constituencies as required

link to w4mp.org

link to publications.parliament.uk

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I gave you notice earlier this morning of the broad context of this point of order, but I will now present the details. At 17.55 yesterday evening I received an e-mail informing me that the Secretary of State for Wales would be visiting my constituency this morning. I am pleased that he is visiting Ogmore, because he does not do so often—in fact, he never has. I responded immediately, because I was fortunate enough to be at my desk until late in the evening. At 7.4 this morning I received an apology for the late notice but no details of where he was visiting in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), even though I had requested them. At 9.43 this morning, following prompting from my hon. Friend, a subsequent e-mail clarified where the Secretary of State was going in the full itinerary. At 10.30 am the visits began. A less charitable Member might think that there had been an intention to avoid my being there to accompany the Secretary of State. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you clarify what the protocol is for informing hon. Members of visits to their constituencies?

It’s not all posh.

Among the lurid pictures of burgers, kebabs and pizzas that festoon the shops, one advert stands out at an outlet called Morley’s. It’s aimed at passing children and trumpets: ‘School kids offer (3pm-6pm)’.

For just £1, pupils on their way home from nearby schools can fill up on fried chicken wings and legs, or burger and chips — and wash it down with a sugar-laden drink for another £1.

Is it any wonder that Camberwell Green, in the borough of Southwark, is at the centre of the nation’s childhood obesity epidemic?

This week, the area was singled out by Public Health England as the first in Britain where more than half of children are overweight or obese by the time they leave primary school.

Sorry, won’t archive link to tinyurl.com

My god, the Scottish cringe is strong in so-called ‘scottish’ Labour. Imagine ANYBODY in ANY other country in the world, talking down their own country in such a way. It just would not happen. I mean, how pathetic can a person be? How pathetic can Labour be? The man, I assume, was born or lives in Scotland, yet he does not think that Scotland, the country of his birth, should be treated as such, and instead wants it treated like a regional council of some kind. How cringey can a person be?

And they wonder why nobody votes Labour in Scotland anymore. I do sometimes wonder, if people like the inestimable Gordon, above, actually have the cognitive ability to see just how pathetic such comments are.

This guy, Gordon McKee, is just one of many Scottish? cringers. Hardly newsworthy, is it, as we’ve got their measure from the top of their heads to their kneecaps?

………………….

Dominic Cummings. The man calling the, UK, shots.

link to thenational.scot

Who? Never heard of him.

Aye well…. Mibbi if Bore-Us Johnson won any kind of democratic mandate in Scotland a return visit by Our First Minister could be considered.
But account would have to be taken of the fact that Bore-Us Johnson has nae real demonstrable mandate for … Well!!
Anything really!!!
How lucky was he she has manners and agreed to let him in,and let him sneak back out too….

Looks like the British Secret Service planted a tracking device into the roof of Gordon Ross’s car even before he had taken delivery of the hired vehicle.

Better Together. With brainwashing and spying.

£ slips some more against everything but this time all the FTSE’s are down. 🙁

The lord giveth and then the lord taketh away leaving a few crumbs lying around for some. 🙂

What makes a person think like that?

His Nation is not one of two countries in a Union. In his mind Scotland is a county of England. This is the same opinion the Tories have of Scotland.

I wonder what his view is of the Irish “PM”. Does he accept that Nation is not a region of the Empire now. Does Gordon expect him to know his place! Scottish Labour are insulting all of us with this pathetic grovelling.

You can catch Gordon McKee this August doing his routine at the Cringe Festival.

Following rejection of my complaint by the EU Commission, I have now taken my complaint to the EU Ombudsman regarding Scotland being dragged out of the EU:

Here is part of what I have submitted to the EU Ombudsman:

Part 2 – Against which European Union (EU) institution or body do you wish to complain?
European Commission

Part 3 – What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it? Add annexes if necessary.

I complained about the UK’s / EU Commission’s Article 50 process of the UK leaving the EU without consideration being given to the position of Scotland which is a sovereign Kingdom within the constitutional set up of the UK.

Part 4 – What do you consider that the EU institution or body has done wrong?

It has allowed UK Parliament and the EU Commission to overlook the fact that Scotland voted to Remain part of the EU.

As a sovereign people, Scotland should not have that sovereign democratic decision to remain as part of the EU overridded by a deal between the UK Govt and EU Commission.

Part 5 – What, in your view, should the institution or body do to put things right?

It is not acceptable for the EU to simply say the UK’s constitutional affairs are a matter for the EU. When the UK has acted unconstitutionally / in breach of the constitution, thereby depriving Scotland’s EU citizens of their UK and EU constitutional rights, then that should / must be a matter for the EU too.

The EU should examine IN LAW

1: whether Scotland is an equal partner in the UK Union, so has an equal say in whether the UK leaves the EU.

Alternatively:

2: recognising that the people of Scotland remain sovereign in Scots Law, not UK Parliament. It should rule Scotland should not leave the EU until the people of Scotland vote to leave.

UK Parliament asserts its sovereignty as a result of the “sovereignty” of the monarch of the Kingdom of England in UK Parliament.

The UK is a Union between the Kindgoms of Scotland and England. Supposedly as equal partners.

For Scotland, the monarch of England ( who is also the monarch of Scotland) is NOT sovereign, the people of Scotland are sovereign. See: Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689 and Declaration of Arbroath 1320.

When the people of Scotland were asked directly what their views were on EU membership and voted to Remain, as the people are sovereign, this decision should have been binding on the UK Govt.

Cringe-merchants like him make me boak.

Liz g says:

It could almost be the easiest deal in human history!

That’s exactly the way I see it!

Their problem is trying retain the UK and have a hard Brexit. The two are incompatible.

Back in medieval times the allocation was 1 idiot per village, has this changed? If London has a population of 5 million then they should only be 2500 there. Why have they got more than their share? Is this the Londoncentric thing working again? Or are the ones from here migrating?

“The blinkered über BritNat worldview where a ‘socialist’ would rather support a far right hooligan with no democratic mandate..” @galamcennalath says at 3:51 pm

Aye in the worldview of these folk it is OK for the PM to be a Fascist because at least he is a British Fascist.

One for those who are afflicted with the “cringe” and who, subsequently, know there place. The same applies to the woke crew who feel the indy movement must play by London rules. All of them have had their minds colonised by power, to varying extents.

Fact Sheet No.2 (Rev.1), The International Bill of Human Rights

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (art. 1),
adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

Contents:

· Background
· Universal Declaration of Human Rights
· International Covenants on Human Rights
· Worldwide influence of the International Bill of Human Rights

· Annex: The International Bill of Human Rights
– Universal Declaration of Human Rights
– International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
– International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
– Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
– Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty

link to ohchr.org

Liz-g@5.15pm

Brilliant, simple, yet so true.

Here’s a snippet from the above, for those who don’t click links. Sorry for the length of this post but I’m trying to hit a number of targets with one shot.

Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Self-Determination:
The Meaning of International Law

III. INCURSIONS INTO HUMAN RIGHTS, POPULAR
SOVEREIGNTY, AND SELF-DETERMINATION

At this stage in human history – given the knowledge acquired about colonial domination by one people over another, by the genocide committed during the middle and at the end of the Twentieth Century, by the other acts of one person or group denying others the dignities of human existence – it may come as a surprise that the denial of fundamental human rights, popular sovereignty, and self-determination is going on in unexpected places. Yet, evidence from very recent times presents a case that such astonishing occurrences are taking place.

The source of the assault on these rights recognized by indisputable provisions of international law [the popular sovereignty and exercise of self-determination which have given these rights reality] is a kind of neo-colonial or totalitarian authority. This imposition comes from official U.N. organs and influential Non-Government Organizations [“NGOs”] and interferes with the legitimate exercise of popular sovereignty and self-determination by peoples thereby contravening the most basic of international legal norms.

This section will illustrate this point by focusing on challenges to the rights of families and their members recognized and protected under international law. Examples of these rights include the internationally recognized rights of parents to educate their children in the ways they see fit and proper and in accordance with the parent’s moral and religious convictions.98

One particular conviction is the parental promotion of abstinence from sexual relations until the child enters adulthood and marriage. The challenges to these rights question the history, the traditions, the culture, and the matters of greatest importance to families, communities, and nations that are protected under international legal instruments.99 The significance of these rights increases when one takes account of the fact that these traditional influences of family life are where children learn the importance of virtue, civility, respect and love for others, compassion, selflessness, and cooperation, to mention
but a few of the important lessons essential to a flourishing human existence.

When parental and family rights recognized by multi-national and regional treaties, as well as the UDHR, are interfered with, other rights concerning traditions, religion, customs, and culture cherished by many throughout the world are also open to challenge and even eradication. International human rights law strongly supports and protects belief in and practice of religious faith. 100 Yet, the Committee on the Rights of the Child [“CRC”] and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women [“CEDAW”] have been critical of “harmful traditions and beliefs” and “prejudices” that emerge from religious traditions.101

Moreover, these same Committees have advanced the argument that children should have the right of privacy that can insulate them from the benefits that parents and elders wish to pass on to them about a civil, responsible, and loving married life. 102 It appears the CRC assumes that the child is an equal partner in the family because it is presupposed that the child has attained the same stage in human development and needs no parental instruction on life and how it is to be lived. These assumptions and presuppositions are plainly wrong and without factual basis.

In other areas, CEDAW has argued in its reports about the existence of evidence showing that “church-related organizations adversely influence the Government’s policies concerning women and thereby impede full implementation of the Convention [on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women] .103 This same Committee has advocated the need for the State to provide “sex education and practical family planning” to children regardless of the type and content of education parents wish for their offspring.104 Although the core international legal instruments protect the rights of culture, families, religious belief, and other matters essential to human rights, the work of “experts” associated with the United Nations and NGOs have, as has been pointed out, eroded these rights through the programs and approaches they have urged on governments and U.N. bodies.

To illustrate and verify my contention, I shall use the recent developments of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development [“ICPD”] and the Cairo+5 meetings, which were convened in March and June of 1999. As will be demonstrated, the Cairo+5 developments reflect views of influential NGOs and “experts” assigned to U.N. Committees rather than perspectives of member States. Moreover, it is the interests of the citizens of the member States rather than those of the experts and NGOs that are subject to the protection of these key international legal instruments.

Additionally, these recent developments of Cairo+5 have threatened fundamental principles of human rights law, which emphasize the family, as understood and implemented by the legitimate exercise of popular sovereignty. Indeed, aspects of Cairo+5 constituted an unwarranted assault on the principle of self-determination, which is at the root of the basic universal human rights as articulated by international law [especially the ICCPR and the ICESCR].

In explaining these points, I shall first identify some basic principles that constitute the delicate compromise of the ICPD of 1994. In this context, I shall elucidate the basic human rights involving the family that are protected under international law. Second, I shall demonstrate how Cairo+5 undermined fundamental human rights protections involving family issues. In doing this two-prong investigation, I shall establish the foundation of my further thesis. The additional thesis is that such attacks on this particular human rights issue, the family, set a precedent for further attacks on other human rights as will be explained in Part V. These additional challenges would also adversely affect the exercise of popular sovereignty that is essential to defining
these rights and on self-determination, which is the basic guarantor of these rights.

link to ir.lawnet.fordham.edu

And a bit more.

HUMAN RIGHTS, THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION
AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM
link to gmu.edu

Dugdale failure

Owen Smith failure

Gordon McKee fail

And a smidgen more.

Do Human Rights Guarantee Autonomy?

1. INTRODUCTION

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified in 1948 after World War II, laid the foundation of international human rights law. It was the first universal statement on the basic principles of inalienable human rights, and created
a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.

The principles laid down in the Universal Declaration are echoed in the laws of more than 90 countries around the world. A number of mechanisms have been established to monitor, promote, protect and develop human rights. However, for many people around the world the protection of human rights remains an unfulfilled promise. While it seems that human rights have triumphed globally, no other historical period has witnessed greater violations of these rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has become a major tool for legitimating the post-World War II order both nationally and internationally, but is this document adequate and coherent for addressing the complexities of contemporary life?

Ubi societas, ibi Jus. Law is supposed to have a function of control, to maintain a particular order in the community established on certain grounds, and also to guarantee the protection of human rights. Does it mean that a person has only those rights that have been enacted? In the context of the 60th anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this idea seems no longer to be valid. Law is not a divine instrument to universalize social values. An individual possesses a more extensive range of rights than any written legal act could encompass.

The fact that a person has rights has nothing to do with enacting these rights in legal documents. Does a person have rights even if they are not enacted? An essential part of contemporary human rights is the concept of personal autonomy. Every person has to have autonomy so that he/she can feel free to make decisions. A person who feels free to make decisions will feel secure and happy. The human being is understood to be an essentially independent and individually developing entity. Of course, we cannot underestimate the role of society. Because the individual’s life is not isolated and always influenced by many external factors, the intrinsic need to attain happiness and harmony often collides with obstacles. The individual often encounters the power of state control….

2. PERSONAL AUTONOMY
AS THE FOUNDATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

“December 10 marks the 60th anniversary of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a single short document of 30 articles that has probably had more impact on mankind than any other document in modern history”,

declared The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay. The Declaration was envisioned and adopted in response to the failures of the League of Nations and the atrocities of World War II. Many believed that a third world war was imminent. Lessons and insights after the Nuremberg process resulted in the recognition of a new status for individuals. The international community presented this declaration to the world as a helpful guide for societies in transition. It became a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations. 1

In the sixty years that have passed since The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms was agreed, this document has promoted the creation of a global institutional mechanism comprised of legislative, monitoring, educative, and other multifunctional bodies. The system itself serves as specified and intrinsically dynamic virtues, written mediators, moral guidelines for humanity.

“Tens of millions of people around the world are still unaware that they have rights that they can demand, and that their governments are accountable to them, and to a wideranging body of rights-based national and international law. Despite all our efforts over the past 60 years, this anniversary will pass many people by, and it is essential that we keep up the momentum, thereby enabling more and more people to stand up and claim their rights”

,

stated the High Human Rights Commissioner.2 Human rights and freedoms have been defined in different terms and dimensions, by different schools and cultures. In other words, countless criteria are involved in delineating the content of rights universally or ad hoc. Despite this variety of approaches based on different theories, most definitions refer to the individual’s personality and his/her abilities to exercise certain rights and freedoms in particular situations.

Human rights are not just a doctrine formulated in documents. They rest on a common disposition towards other people and a set of convictions about what people are like. It is only up to personal discretion (autonomy) and compatible public good as to how extensively and productively a human being can fulfill his/her preferences pursuing maximum happiness. As all authentic forms of rights and liberties, autonomy itself can also be characterized as the unity of differentiated types and degrees of internal and external factors for a
given individual at a given time and upon particular circumstances.

There are several definitions of autonomy. The term autonomy originates from ancient Greek. It consists of two words: autos (his/her own) and nomos (rule). This term describes a person’s ability to make his or her own rules in life and to
make decisions independently. The idea that people must be free to shape their own lives is central to most accounts of autonomy.

In general, autonomy means that a subject is the best expert on his/her interests. It is the reason why this subject should be able to make his/her own laws, particular rules of conduct or follow the values that are acceptable to him/her in practice. In general, any action or act can be described as autonomous only if the agent gives preference to this action, and this decision is independent and corresponds with his/her plan of action. In other words, we can talk about autonomy only when the freedom to choose and to make ethical decisions is guaranteed. “Autonomy […] is the acknowledgement of a person’s right to hold views, to make choices and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs”.3

If the state were to interfere in matters of personal morality, it would be treating the plans and values of some as superior to those of others.4 This applies also to other members of society: no member of the society has the right to
violate someone’s personal autonomy without a reasonable basis. This reasonable basis is the autonomy of another person, another member of society. In the sphere of personal autonomy, a person has rights and only one duty: not to violate the autonomy of other individuals.

Most commonly, autonomy can be understood as “the right to be left alone” and as a right to control certain kinds of information about oneself.5 In its maximal form it entails complete rationality, self-control, knowledge of relevant
facts, and other demanding conditions internal to the agent, as well as freedom and recourses to act.6

link to corteidh.or.cr

Nae point going to Nos 10. There wiz nae body in.

Ye would think he would have worked that oot!

Four ‘drug-related deaths’ in 48 hours in Essex

link to f7td5.app.goo.gl

Inagine if this had been Scotland, hmm ?

The Tory government under both David Cameron and then Theresa May has close links to Cambridge Analytica. But they are keeping it secret, along with Jeremy Corbyn.

link to theguardian.com

“In the meantime, while Robert Mueller in the US painstakingly sets out the evidence of how Russia subverted Facebook during the presidential election, we know almost nothing about what happened in Britain. Collins’s parliamentary committee – citing Arron Banks’s covert meetings with Russian embassy staff that were first revealed in the Observer, and the role of Russian paid-for propaganda – has called for an independent investigation into foreign interference, but it’s a call both the government and the leader of the opposition have utterly ignored.”

link to theguardian.com

A hint that the rest of the world is not on England’s side. They much prefer the Celtic Nations.

“Ireland is not just mammothly pro-European, and deeply invested in the Northern Irish peace process, it is aghast at the cohort of charlatans that have seized power in Britain. Johnson and his new administration haven’t fully realised just how vile they appear to the rest of the world – and Ireland especially.

Adam Price, leader of Plaid, interviewed on CH4 news tonight about Welsh independence.

The questions he is asked are so, so familiar – borders, trade, deficits etc.

Worth a watch

link to channel4.com

English propaganda is the biggest single obstacle to Scottish Independence. That and the already deep BritNat brainwashing present in so many of Scotland’s population.

T Jenny @8.09

I had to watch the clip again after reading your post. It’s still on the BBC website and it just makes me laugh. Brilliant.

Boris is getting into traffic directing mode with his right arm extended and Nicola just totally dismisses it with one wave – just like yir granny as she says
‘och, jist you get right inside there, ya wee b***er or I’ll leather you.”

I think the main issue for the likes of Mr McKee is that yesterday’s visit by Johnson to Edinburgh had all the hallmarks of a foreign visit by a UK PM. The normalising of Scotland being ‘different’ is something they find hard to handle.

Hasn’t the weather been rubbish these last few days.

It was even very frosty at Bute House in Edinburgh yesterday.

The good news is the bogs at Largs are open again.

manandboy says:
30 July, 2019 at 9:44 pm
English propaganda is the biggest single obstacle to Scottish Independence. That and the already deep BritNat brainwashing present in so many of Scotland’s population.

You’re right.

McKee isn’t a one-off. There was that snivelling toady “Regan” saying on the Shelagh Fogarty LBC show, saying how Scotland would beg to stay part of the Union. He loved himself to death too if I remember right… How can somebody love themselves so much and loath the country they come from? It just doesn’t compute.

Stewart Hosie telling it straight. Power lies with the Scottish people.

link to twitter.com

Gordon McKee= perfect example of fuckin house slave
Get a fuckin grip man and stand up for your self!!

1955
@ galamcmcennalath
I know you’re technically correct that it was a majority vote for Tories in Scotland in 1955( Tories in all but name) but also technically ( in purely anorak/pedantic terms) the Tories didn’t win any seats in Scotland at that election.

Throughout the UK there was an electoral pact between the Tories and the National liberals to keep labour out. The National liberals were an off-shoot of the old liberal party that supported the Irish union of 1801 (and therefore voted with and took the Tory whip at Westminster, but had split because of Ireland in 1912).

Complicated further by the fact of a previous liberal split in 1886 ( Chamberlain’s Liberal unionists of that year) The Scottish unionist party was a Scottish version of that (yes Tories in all but name but didn’t call themselves Tories’cos Tories had been toxic up here since at least 1832) And there was a residual “goodwill” factor attached to the Liberals in Highland and island areas because of the Napier comission, which would have been lost with any overt union with the Tories.

So back to that electoral pact….
In 1955 the National liberals didn’t run against Scottish unionists and vice versa but 6 National liberals won seats in Scotland, giving a combined total of 35 seats ( Labour in Scotland also won 35 seats)
Out of total of 71 seats ( Jo Grimond of the “proper”(?) residual rump of the old Liberal party won Orkney and Shetland)
In England National Liberals and Tories didn’t compete in seats where it might split the anti labour vote.

To illustrate,…
We think of Andrew Bonar Law, Alick Douglas Home and even Heseltine as Tories but they were all part of that Liberal unionist (Tory) cabal that only later merged with total full fat Tories in 1964/5.

So, apologies for being pedantic about one particular year.
Probably Wiki explains it better than me (hereafter)

link to en.m.wikipedia.org

Mordon GcKee will deserve to cuck socks in hell for his treachery to Scotland.

Great spot Stuart,and a perfect illustration of ‘Scottish’ Labour’s core purpose.

Tory papers in full diversion mode not to talk about Johnson and Brexit thanks to the impartiality of the royals.

Prince Harry only to have 2 children in order to save the planet. That’s nice of him. So we didn’t need to spend £millions in upgrading his pad. What a waste.

Mind you I thought it was his wife that bore children

Still saves us talking about the falling £, Brexit mess and Johnson. Free press? Where?

robbo
No law is ever “forever after”, as life is not set in aspic. The law evolves in response to changing social needs. Only a totalitarian would use “forever after”, as justification for political union enforced through immutable law.

O/T

Went to “Robert The Bruce” in Dunoon tonight. Film and cinema hired by Dunoon SNP. Full house virtually.

Some good bits in the film but I can see why they don’t want us to see it. Relentless support for a free Scotland.

Whom y’all dressing up as for Halloween 2019?

Ahm gonna go as and give E.T. ah shot

Oh My Dear Fucking Brexit

And a little bit more on why it is good that law changes to reflect social reality.

GENDER, NATURE AND DOMINANCE: AN ANALYSIS OF INTERCONNECTIONS
BETWEEN PATRIARCHY AND ANTHROPARCHY, USING EXAMPLES OF MEAT AND PORNOGRAPHY

GENDER AND NATURE IN PATRIARCHAL DISCOURSE

A number of radical eco-feminists have argued patriarchal discourses carry gender dichotomous norms and values which feminize the environment and animalize wimmin, constructing a dichotomy between wimmin and ‘nature’, and male dominated human culture. The gender roles constituted through such discourses render wimmin in closer material proximity and relation to the environment than men, with greater potential to develop an ecologically sensitive value system. These theorists further contend a new culture based on re-valuation and radicalization of certain ‘feminine’ qualities, can contest the ecologically destructive system of patriarchy.

Patriarchal discourses of gender and nature

Radical eco-feminists (Griffin, 1984; Collard, 1988; Eisler, 1989; Starhawk, 1989, 1990a; Daly, 1988) tend to argue contemporary patriarchy deploys different discourses of masculinity and femininity which associate wimmin with ‘nature’ and men with ‘culture’. Patriarchal culture venerates ‘masculine’ ideals of virility, strength, self-control, emotional reserve, competence, rationality, aggression, etc; and devalues ‘feminine’ qualities of motherhood, caring, sensitivity, fastidiousness, fragility, dependence, emotionality, timidity, tenderness, sensuality, non-violence etc. (Ruth, 1981, p.5-7; Lowe and Hubbard, 1983, p.2-3).

Some of these ‘wimmin’s values’ are seen by radical eco-feminists as positive and patriarchally contesting; the most significant being ‘peace’, ‘connectedness’, and ‘nurturance’. Patriarchal society, these feminists argue, fosters in wimmin the value of peace, non-violence and respect for life (Freer, 1983; Elshtain, 1985, 1989; Ruddick, 1990) to which Daly (1988) refers as a ‘biophillic’ (life-loving) capacity (also Collard, 1988).

By contrast, according to Griffin (1984, 1992) and Daly (1979, 1988), patriarchal culture venerates death and violence, and encourages a male preoccupation with dominance and control over wimmin and nature. King contends eco-feminism is about the ‘connectedness and wholeness’ and integrity of living things (1983, p. 10). Patriarchy, by contrast, enshrines a hatred of wimmin and nature, and this ‘masculinist mentality’ is responsible for environmental devastation (p. 11).

Wimmin, many eco-feminists argue, must articulate the interests of the oppressed and excluded, such as animals, for patriarchal society allows them to think connectively, and empathize with others due to their nurturing role (Griffin, 1984; Freer, 1983; Eisler, 1988). This is more difficult for men, as discourses of patriarchal masculinity construct men as separate from ‘nature’ and inculcate hierarchical intellectual structures justifying exploitation (Warren, 1993, 1994).

link to core.ac.uk

Hi from Tassie:

What a wonderful idea Liz! Only thing is Wales now wants to be free as well!! Any ideas?

Haven’t had time to read all contributions and I am starting to work through Nana’s links – housework gone for a burton and for some time!

Nana , hope you are well and thanks again.

BBC TV.

Arlene Foster DUP smiling all the way to the bank.

Why?

A light weight tv interview from outside Stormont to deliver “what NI wants.. despite the fact that NI voted to remain. A full 9 minutes interview reinforcing No Surrender

Better than a 30 second one liner which is the usual for our FM.

Mary Miles 05:32. I think perspective is required. In the UK we are all already free we are not oppressed at all but a majority voted in 2014 voted to remain in the UK and it was a free vote.

Next time we will hopefully be wiser as to how to conduct the campaign and expose the lies of the MSM who completely ranged against us.

He seemsto struggle to diferentiate between a city and a country

In a world of data harvesting, micro-targetting, unlawful campaigns, dark money and brainwashing via the telly, in which voters can be ‘persuaded’ to change their minds without their knowledge or consent, another Independence Referendum is a high risk strategy. Ending the Treaty of Union after Brexit is looking like a safer bet.

@TheItalianJob says:
30 July, 2019 at 9:51 pm
@manandboy at 9.44pm

Just watched (briefly) a BBC news article with a Ukraine news reporter on Russian influence in Eastern Ukraine. She said that as 70% of the population get their news from TV and the TV news is Russian as no Ukraine TV transmitters can reach they get biased news propaganda from Russia. Oh dear replied the BBC newscaster how unfortunate for the Eastern Ukrainians.

I doubt that’s completely true. It’s more likely due to the fact that a majority of that area are Russian-speakers of Russian descent whose language and culture been under pressure from the Ukrainian government. That’s part of the reason for the trouble there and no doubt they listen to Russian news because they feel it’s “their news”. Of course a lot of it will be propaganda, just as any west Ukraine stations which try to reach them will be spouting government propaganda. It’s a mistake to think there is a “good-guy” side here, except maybe the ordinary man in the street being used by either side.

Manandboy 8.40am. Exactly my thoughts. When all those other countries sought their independence from england ireland, india, canada, america, etc,etc, there was no internet , social media, brainwashing, cambridge analytica etc, telling the plebs and those whose only interest in life is ‘strictly or , BGT, or the x factor, how to vote. So yeah a safer bet is the Scottish government just ending the union by mandate.

5 live discussion on the break up of the UK the future of the union. snp spokesperson making good points

@Manandboy 08:30
As soon as you concede that the term ‘gender’ has a life beyond the confines of linguistics you’re effectively losing your grip on objective reality.

Footsoldier says:
31 July, 2019 at 8:14 am
Mary Miles 05:32. I think perspective is required. In the UK we are all already free we are not oppressed at all but a majority voted in 2014 voted to remain in the UK and it was a free vote.

Next time we will hopefully be wiser as to how to conduct the campaign and expose the lies of the MSM who completely ranged against us.

I think it was Channel 4 News last night, had a feature on Wales being increasingly “Indy-curious” I think the expression was. I was struck by somebody saying that if Ireland reunited, and Scotland secured Independence, Wales didn’t want to risk being left behind.

It occurred to me opting for Independence just because someone else does is not the most robust argument to build a campaign on, but then I remember how “selective” the British media is when selecting arguments it’s prepared to broadcast.

I think it’s safe to say however that the breakup of the UK will have profound ramifications for all component parts of the UK, and life will different afterwards. All things are possible.

I think however, we are still missing a trick.

I sincerely believe when you have the existing UK Union under imminent pressure of collapse; you have Scotland and Ireland with compelling reasons and desire to stay in Europe, and you have England with it’s equally compelling desire to leave, and Wales unsettled and unsure about what it wants. A solution MUST either change peoples’ minds, or, give them what they want, or, not be a lasting solution at all.

I cannot “unsee” a solution where an England and Wales determined to sit outside the EU, and a Scotland and Ireland inside the EU, could not engineer a “British Benelux” type arrangement, where Scotland, and maybe Ireland too, are fully paid up members of the EU, but have licence so to speak to accommodate some trade links with England and Wales.

Provided England adopted a more mature attitude towards Scotland’s Independence and moved its position and attitude to respect Scotland’s status as a sovereign nation as a positive opportunity for a new relationship, rather than an acrimonious and begrudging disaster, then there is I think a possible panacea to suit everybody’s ills.

Scotland gets full Indy in Europe, but also a UK ‘Trade’ Kingdom will still exist to ameliorate those amongst us with Unionist sensibilities.

Ireland possibly elects reunification, or, Northern Ireland becomes a transitional zone for Trade under EU jurisdiction, but there is no hard border or resumption of the Troubles.

England gets cut loose to indulge it’s Brexit misadventure to the max, but the sensible voices in England currently being drowned out by the bampots, have a lifeline to keep essential trade and even more essential lines of communication open.

Europe secures what Europe likes to secure, a de facto Trade Agreement with England where Europe is in charge of the details, but has Scotland and NI as, forgive the expression, “quarantine” zones to filter out English trade that has deregulated itself away from EU standards.

England wouldn’t deal with Europe, but Scotland, as Europe’s envoy, but an envoy sympathetic to the notion that England might seek to rejoin the EU without such a massive loss of face.

We become more, when we work together. The UK Union has lost it’s way and will perish because it cannot be repaired. But disassembling the United Kingdom to its factory settings does not preclude a new “British Islands” English speaking trade phenomenon with one foot firmly in Europe, and one foot in the Commonwealth/ Americas.

The critical issue to achieving this is doing it without coercion or subjugation, but respecting each other and a maintaining bullshit-free appreciation of true and objective common purpose.

It could work, and settle the UK and UK-Europe “tensions” by unforced voluntary consensus, and thus be a stable and constructive arrangement for a long time thereafter.

What is the alternative? Acrimonious bitterness, direct trade competition, lower standards and regulations and subjugated aspirations? How many years will that be a stable arrangement? We’ll be at each other’s throats for decades.

I know Boris Johnson is a f—kwit, and should not be trusted, but he is also in a bear pit where he cannot get out, and his only available solution is to dig it even deeper. If he is like Trump however, maybe unlike the rest of the British Establishment, he is also prepared to think the unthinkable if only for Brexit to succeed in England, at whatever cost it will cost. Maybe, providence has delivered us Boris not to try us, but because he is the one element in the whole British Establishment who can actually think outside the box.

What say you Boris? Help Scotland secure Independence and stay in Europe, and let Scotland reciprocate by helping make your Brexit conundrum a less destructive reality for the England that demands it.

It isn’t the British Empire which is the ‘out of its time’ anachronistim which holds back and blinkers Olde England. It’s the UK Union which needs the root and branch overhaul. Let England free to be England.

CameronB Brodie and Golfnut

Thanks 4 input on that subject of treaty of union blah blah confusing area.

I must admit this treaty/acts of union is a Minefield for me too,so understand why people get into arguments with it.

I don’t remember my marriage being forever. No one would ever get divorced in that case would they. Lol

I have just had a strange and horrible thought.

Has Boris been installed in number 10 just to be the patsy….the fall guy….when the shit hits the fan?

robbo
That’s the perfect way to look at it. IMHO. The union of the nations is like a marriage. Unfortunately the husband turned out to me a narcissistic misogynist. Plenty more fish in the sea though. 😉

“Independence for England!”

England can get out of the UK and EU, tell the Celts and Continentals where to go and finally be happy. Problem solved 🙂

Come on Boris, you know it makes sense…

Make England Great Again

SORRY IN ADVANCE FOR LENGTH OF THIS POST!

Take away from your link of 30 July, 2019 at 11:53 pm @robbo says is that the person posting the comment believes that the UK can never be broken up legally.

“….the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain”

link to community.ebay.co.uk

As @ ephemeraldeception rightly says 31 July, 2019 at 12:15 am

“The UK is a signatorty to the right of selfdetermination…..Evidenece from 1966”

link to ohchr.org

More important is Articles 6, 60 and 62 of the Vienna Convention (and this is where I’ve been thinking of when reading between the line of speeches by the FM and I Blackford et al):

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969:

link to legal.un.org

Article 6 Capacity of States to conclude treaties:

Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.

—————————————————————-

Article 60 – Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach.

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either:

(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State;

or

(ii) as between all the parties;

(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;

(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:

(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention;

or

(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.

—————————————————————-

Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances

1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:

(a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or

(b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

OT – Mr Ethical (Nicholas Wilson), the Integrity Initiative and the HSBC connection.

In this first of several new interviews for Real Media, he connects Government funding and the security services to the recently revealed psyops outfit, Institute for Statecraft and its ‘integrity initiative’.

link to realmedia.press

The same outfit which has a false address in a disused mill in Scotland. If only we had some journalists in Scotland who could follow up the connection to the Indyref1 in 2014.

For me the Sovereignty of Scots Electorate via the EU Referendum Vote 2016 is covered under The Vienna Convention, Article 60

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:

(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

He is a sniveling little red tory wretch,got to admit its been real funny watching the yoons try and defend their new tory master.

Great work all you cybernats out there awesome job 🙂