Wings Over Scotland

@Ken500

Where’s your paragraph breaks?

You don’t want to be killed by hammers do you. Have a lie down, you are losing it and any respect you might have had before from me.

I totally disagree with you on the Catalan situation, you are perfectly entitled to state yours here on Wings so don’t be surprised when others disagree.

I wish we had the cojones to do yhe same.

Ken500 at his delusional “best”…

You need sectioning matey

@Juteman says: 27 October, 2017 at 12:47 pm:

“Yet again Mr Peffers shows his ignorance of Dundee football.
It was Dundee United that were connected to Hibs, not Dundee FC.”

Yeah! Dead ignorant, that’s me.

link to youtube.com

While fully supporting Catalonia, some of the above arguments and comments should make us more aware than ever of various dangers which will eventually confront us, when Scotland finally votes for independence.

The one that worries me most, in regard to Scotland’s case, is the notion that the principle of self-determination overcomes that of territorial integrity. When we do finally vote for independence, expect an onslaught on our territorial integrity, aided and abetted by Westminster.

There are many parts of Scotland including, in particular, many islands, where English people, mainly retirees, already form or a majority of the current population, or soon could do. During the campaign for the 2014 referendum there was already talk of the likes of Shetland becoming independent, or opting to stay with England, if Yes won.

We may be sure that England / Westminster will foment as much dissension as it possibly can, along these lines, in the immediate wake of a Yes victory at the next Indyref. Besides some of the islands, they might even try to ‘capture’ in this way whatever parts of the Scottish Borders they think they can lay their hands on.

I don’t think the English nationalists, who will be sorely offended by the vote, will succeed in the long run. But we should not expect them just to roll over; a real and immediate effort will be made to cause maximum damage to a Scotland about to become independent.

One of the revelations over the past few years, at least to me, has been the depth of English resentment and even hatred towards Scotland. Not by all English people by any means, of course – most are reasonable – but by enough of them, and especially enough of those who wield power and influence, to let that hatred make a difference, and to make sure it is felt.

I used to think England was pretty indifferent towards Scotland, and that the resentment was more on our side: the last few years made me wake up to the fact that the opposite was the case. And very much the case; our resentments were comparatively mild and mainly jocular. Theirs, we now know, are something else altogether.

The dismemberment of Scotland will be a real goal for some, and not just, even not mainly for financial reasons. That some of the reasons will be financial, certainly, but – and I am sorry to say this – the main reasons will be emotional and vindictive.

Even if they were to succeed, which I doubt, the financial gain even regarding Shetland if it were to become an English or even an independent enclave, within Scottish waters, would not be huge. I know next to nothing about these things but, according to what I hear of the way international law works, all the oil would still belong to Scotland. What happens with fish-landing, I do not know.

My point is not the detail of what could happen, and hopefully never will; I leave that to others with far more knowledge of the matter than I have. My point is simply this: even after a Yes vote, expect trouble. That is, among other things, expect trouble-makers to foment as much uncertainty about the future integrity of Scotland as they possibly can.

For me, the fact that Scotland is and will be a unitary state, within the exact boundaries she has always had since the end of the 15th Century, is hugely important and needs always to be affirmed. That is why there should have been much more vociferous complaint when the sea boundary between Scottish and English waters east of Berwick was arbitrarily re-drawn by the Labour Westminster government when Donald Dewar was Secretary of State for Scotland. Not only at that moment, but even now our complaint about that totally unjustified action should be being heard more loudly and more clearly than ever.

If we do not complain, silence is understood to mean acquiescence. The territorial integrity of Scotland has to be defended with might and mane by all those who represent her. The people were never consulted on the loss of these waters, and surely never agreed to that loss.

The idea of dismembering the Kingdom of Scotland, by the way, has a long, long history. It goes together with the idea of treating what was and is a Kingdom as if it were a mere estate. In 1292 Bruce the Competitor, when he knew that Edward I would not support his claim to the kingship, which would instead be awarded to John Balliol, proposed that Scotland be split in three. One-third to him, one-third to Balliol and one-third to someone else – I can’t remember who it was off-hand, but maybe it was to Edward himself.

Edward, of course, had other ideas. He wanted the whole thing. So this desperate last throw of the dice by old Bruce, trying to salvage something for himself from his failed bid for the throne, came to nothing. The very fact that he tried it was of course an assault on the integrity of Scotland as it then was (it did not yet include Orkney and Shetland). Dismemberment has a long history.

Edward I, of course, also treated it as an estate, not a Kingdom, immediately treating Balliol after his enthronement as a vassal king, under his (Edward’s) lordship. Four years later, in 1296, he (literally, physically) stripped Balliol of all the signs of kingship and thereby declared the Scottish kingdom abolished: in future it was simply to be referred to as ‘the land’ of Scotland. Belonging, of course, to him and his descendants as its ‘lord’ – and master!

If dismemberment is bad enough, abolition is worse. And bear in mind that any attempt to dismember Scotland, even today, will ultimately aim not just at weakening Scotland but, eventually, at making it disappear altogether. England has always wanted the abolition of Scotland. And, guess what? It still does.

Personally, underneath all the arguments and all the details, I think that is the underlying war that is still being waged. If Scotland stays within the UK, she will very quickly be abolished. The new UK that people are talking about will reduce Scotland to the status of Wales, which was ‘incorporated’ into England in the 16th Century. That is the model operating in the minds of those who talk about the UK as a ‘4-nation Union’.

What they mean is that the 3 smaller component parts have all been incorporated in the one big one, which is England. As Wales was. Scotland is the new Wales, reduced, constitutionally, to the status of Wales. That is probably what many in England think and believe happened in 1707. In spite of the 1707 Treaty documents, which of course they don’t read and which they would claim don’t matter anyway – they were only a means to an end – they think Edward I’s aims had at last been achieved.

The Union that brought the UK into existence, which was the Union between Scotland and England in 1707, is effectively in process of being abolished. And removed from people’s consciousness by a load of guff, which has no reality in law, about the UK being a ‘4-nation union’. The Scottish government and the Scottish people have to stand up to these lies, this propaganda, with which we are bombarded day and night, and which is all around us.

One of the main reasons why Scotland must now become independent is to avoid her own abolition. The choice becomes increasingly stark day by day: either we become independent, or we disappear as a nation.

Now is the hour.

Luckily for us, once he got hold of the Scottish crown in 1306, which was the meaning and purpose of his whole existence, Bruce the Competitor’s grandson proved himself worthy of it. The number of parallels that keep arising between his day and ours – with all the differences in circumstance that apply, and even after all these centuries – never ceases to amaze me. We are still in the same fight, it turns out. Because amazingly, unbelievably – this utterly dumbfounds me – England is still at the same game as it was 700 years ago.

Ha ha I got a “Pick” on my posting on the NYT 🙂 Need to load more comments all the same to see it. I always play it very carefully on overseas media. Reasonable but biased!

link to nytimes.com

@Wullie B says: 27 October, 2017 at 12:12 pm:

“For those looking for news on Catalonia Twitter has a Pro Indy Catalonian journalist called Josep Goded, he is giving up to date info”

link to uk.reuters.com

Or go to Reuters News agency:-

link to uk.reuters.com

Then click on the wee magnifying glass at the top right corner and type in, “Catalonia”, and press enter:-

This will take you to a changing with updates page currently:-

link to uk.reuters.com

@Wull at 4.57

What you have written is spot on. We will be given a very hard time if we vote for Independence.

We need to be prepared to preserve our nation as such.

But as we learned from 2014 it was never going to be easy.

We are a resilient people and we will prevail.

Good post.

I still say that when the SNP got 56 MPs out of 59 then that was a mandate,for lndependence I mean everyone knows the SNP whole purpose is Scottish independence so all them voters who voted those 56 in new what they were voting for so that was a majority for independence why the SNP did not implement it is beyond me they say they will wait until they have a majority they think will vote yes well they had their majority and did nothing please don’t get me wrong I support the SNP and will always do so but I am baffled as to why they did not act when they could and in my opinion should have done so

Every country will condemn Catalonia and back away from them

Until Catalonia wins

Then they’ll all get on with the job of accepting them graciously and generously making offers of support and most importantly trade deals

If Spain wins it will be judged on the way it wins

There’s a good few reasonable comments on the WP as far as I could be bothered reading.

link to washingtonpost.com

And what Washington actually said was “Catalonia is an integral part of Spain, and the United States supports the Spanish government’s constitutional measures to keep Spain strong and united”

which isn’t the same as saying they won’t support its Independence. US State Department double talk, quite right too!

@ Blair Paterson

I still say that when the SNP got 56 MPs out of 59 then that was a mandate,for lndependence I mean everyone knows the SNP whole purpose is Scottish independence so all them voters who voted those 56 in new what they were voting for so that was a majority for independence…

No. The SNP’s message in the 2015 GE to Labour supporters was “Lend us your Vote” and “A vote for the SNP in the GE is not a vote for independence”.

You are saying that the SNP should have gone back on their word and broken their trust with the Scottish electorate. Not a good move.

The SNP got a very large majority of MPs at GE17 over combined unionist ConLabLibs whose whole campaign was stop the SNP.

Referendum guaranteed.

I don’t know if I just misheard there, or not, but I’m sure a reporter on Sky has just said that Theresa May has stated that the UK won’t recognise Catalan Independence. If I heard right she’s the first to get the boot in, surprise, surprise!

@Petra

You’re right that is what Sky are indeed reporting.

British Government Reacts

The UK “does not and will not recognise” the Catalan parliament’s vote for declaring independence, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Theresa May has said.

They added: “It is based on a vote that was declared illegal by the Spanish courts.

“We continue to want to see the rule of law upheld, the Spanish Constitution respected, and Spanish unity preserved.”

Quelle Surprise!! Not!!

“geeo says:

27 October, 2017 at 5:26 pm
Oh dear andy-b…if you think social media has the same reach and perceived gravitas as ALL MASS MEDIA, printed and TV media (bar one outlet) then you are a deluded clown.

Dont bother dribbling any more pish in my direction”

_____
geeo.

Pffft.

What a load of Jackie Baillie, that reply is.

Putting social media aside for a moment, there was as I said plenty of other forms of information. Getting out there and weighing up the info changed plenty of people’s minds from no to yes.

As for the media bias yes I agree, however the SNP in my opinion did come across as more credible during the debates hosted by the hostile channels.

We didn’t win laddie, but to say it was purely down to bad press, and not enough folk making a effort to find out the truth, is wrong in my opinion.

“We continue to want to see the rule of law upheld…” – Mayhem

Rule of law, eh? Is it lawful to smash people exercising their democratic right over the face with a polis baton?

Feck aff you dithering, moronic numbnut.

Oh dear, the hypocrisy quotient in the world’s media and its btl comments just hit an all-time high.

Americans who should “by law” still be subjects of our dear old Maj are still divided about whether the Confederate states had the right to secede, and some wingbat Canadians seem to think that Quebec should be occupied territory whether the natives (ex-European variety only, of course) agree to it or not.

Never mind the Belgians, who got in their little bit of lawlessness in early back in 1830, and tut-tut to the Baltic states for having dared to reassert their autonomy from the former Soviet Empire.

All old news now, unlike today, which can’t possibly be history-in-the-making because that’s only for dusty old books.

All change now strictly verboten because somebody in the European Commission is scared that the Frisians will revolt and take a few cows out of the CAP?

The longer this farrago continues, the more absurd it gets.

But not a joke to the Catalans, of course, who will soon perhaps be living under a dictatorship imposed by force. That’s “European values” for you?

The greatest of which must surely be the aforementioned hypocrisy.

Share this Link Please .
trulyscottishtelevision.weebly.com/

Meanwhile, all eyes are OFF Kurdistan ….

“Iraqi government forces and the Tehran-backed Popular Mobilisation launched a surprise offensive on Oct. 16 in retaliation to the Sept. 25 independence referendum organized by the KRG.”

link to tinyurl.com

It’s a brave move by the Catalonian president.

I’ve long since thought he could’ve been jailed for that haircut of his.

Madrid will have an even bigger rap to add to his sheet now.

Good luck to the guy.

@Petra says: 27 October, 2017 at 5:31 pm:

“I don’t know if I just misheard there, or not, but I’m sure a reporter on Sky has just said that Theresa May has stated that the UK won’t recognise Catalan Independence.”

You heard right but May is not the first leader to say their country will not recognise Catalonia.

Google Reuters Now and get the news as it breaks.

Good luck to Catalonia particularly the brave politicians, don’t say that often, shame on the Tories who have behaved as expected.

Deafening silence from Labour and sadly the union’s.

I hope Scotland stands with the people of Catalonia.

Re. the UK (England’s) Prime Minister’s response to Catalonia’s deceleration of independence. Is it in accordance with international law?

Self-Determination
C. Status, Scope, and Content in Contemporary International Law

12 Both the UN and the majority of authors maintain that the principle of self-determination is part of modern international law. There are indeed good reasons for recognizing its legal character, as after its mere inclusion in the UN Charter the principle has been confirmed, developed, and given more tangible form by consistent State practice and was embodied among ‘the basic principles of international law’ in the Friendly Relations Declaration. The point at issue seems to be to what extent the principle operates as a legal right in contemporary international law and what other—more indirect—legal consequences may be attributed to it.

1. Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

13 Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(a) Right to Self-Determination: Instances

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether…..

link to opil.ouplaw.com

Territorial Integrity and the “Right” to Self-Determination: An Examination of the Conceptual Tools

This analysis will illustrate the dichotomy between the right to self-determination and the issue of land rights. In order to retain its legitimacy, international law must reconceptualize the doctrines of territoriality and self-determination. This Article posits that this can be achieved by reconciling the traditional state-centered approach, which views self-determination as an issue about the legitimacy of the state,12 with the human rights approach, which views self-determination’13 as a foundational right on which the edifice of human rights can be built.14

link to brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu

TERITORIAL INTEGRITY AND SELF-DETERMINATION:
THE APPROACH OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE ADVISORY OPINION ON KOSOVO

ABSTRACT
On 17 February 2008 Kosovo approved its declaration of independence from Serbia. The declaration was raised as a unilateral secession, a category which to date is widely debated by the international community, but supported
in that case by a respectable number of the United Nation member states. A great many legal issues have been raised by the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. This opinion was eagerly awaited by legal scholars due to both its possible effects and the scope of its principles outside the context of decolonization in what it could constitute of new approach to the international scenario for the twenty-first century. The ICJ stated that the declaration of independence was in accordance with international law if it was not prohibited. The answer turned on whether or not international law prohibited the declaration of independence, without ever examining whether an entity seeking secession is entitled with a positive right to secede and if so, under which circumstances.

The basic issue can be summarised as whether or not we are facing a new course in the interpretation of certain classical categories of international law: the principle of territorial integrity, statehood, sovereignty, recognition, the right to external self-determination, etc. In this study we shall analyse some of the aspects arising from the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo focusing on the territorial issue. Firstly we shall analyse the scope of the principle of territorial integrity of States and how it operates; secondly, we shall focus on the scope of that principle in relation to the interior of the State, and ask ourselves how international law operates in relation to declarations of independence. Lastly, we shall deal with the principle of respect for territorial integrity in the specific case of Serbia with respect to Kosovo, and then end with a series of general conclusions. This study aims, definitely, to contribute to the theoretical debate on the challenges to the traditional certainties of international law in this area.

link to presidencia.gencat.cat

Very slick chick at 4.57

The US government doesn’t recognize Catalonia’s declaration of independence?!?

Short memories surely?

@ Legerwood – the BBC are very coy about the Scottish Government/ Fiona Hyslop statement. They end their website report by claiming that the majority of Catalans are against independence – 41% for and 49% against.

link to bbc.co.uk

On the other hand, they are ignoring Leanne Wood’s call for recognition.
link to talkradio.co.uk

yesindyref

Here’s an archived link to the New York Times.

link to archive.is

Going directly almost cut my laptop’s throat.

So sadly I wont risk checking out the comments.

Would be interesting to know what reaction – if any – is coming out of the USA’s significant Hispanic population.

Petra 5.46

Surely an SNP representative wouldn’t have passed up that open goal.

Good luck to the good people of Catalonia.

self determination is the way and the natural order.

Apologies about the right wing apologist from the tories in the UK.

Let the Scottish Government support the Catalonians. Watch labour support the tories.

From before the Catalonian Referendum –

Is the USA view one that sees Catalonia as the equivalent of an American state wanting to leave the Union?

Page 1

link to archive.is

Page 2

link to archive.is

Re. the USA’s refusal to recognise Catalonia’s declaration of independence. Poor show but totally expected. Colonialist tend to view the world in a restrictive and totalised manner.

Freedom beyond the threshold: self-determination, sovereignty, and global justice

Abstract
In current debates about global justice, statist and nationalist theories appeal to the right to self-determination in argument against egalitarianism beyond borders, and in general as a reason for caution about substantive international duties of justice, lest the exercise of self-determination would be too tightly constrained. Has self-determination—an important heritage of decolonization—no longer a role to play in the argument against international inequality and disempowerment?

In this article, I examine a dominant interpretation of self-determination in the global justice debate, as defended prominently by John Rawls and David Miller and find it wanting. Specifically, two challenges are raised: at the conceptual level this interpretation leaves unclarified the distinction and relationship between sovereignty and self-determination; at the normative level, this interpretation adopts a sufficiency view of international distributive justice that neglects that problem of relative extents and measures of self-determination, beyond the threshold. While the article’s argument is mainly of a critical scope, it is suggested that a more robust theoretical account is required of the content of the right of self-determination, and in particular of the freedoms that the right confers to the right-holders in the socioeconomic domains and their extents.

… no contemporary norm of international law has been so vigorously promoted or widely accepted—at least in theory—as the right of all peoples to self-determination. Yet the meaning of that right remains as vague and imprecise as when it was enunciated by President Woodrow Wilson and others at Versailles.1

link to tandfonline.com

THE NORM OF SELF-DETERMINATION, 1941-1991

ABSTRACT

Based on historical research in the U.S. archives, the article demonstrates that the normative principle of self-determination passed into customary international law through the August 1941 Atlantic Charter, which (1) is currently listed by the U.S. as an extant treaty, and as an appendix to the January 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, (2) was frequently stated in wartime diplomatic exchanges and public pronouncements as the basis for allied commitments and conduct, (3) was relied on by leaders, populists and dependent peoples worldwide, (4) was the basis for planning for today’s global order (including the U.N. systems for non-self-governing and trust territories), (5) was regarded as normative by severalcontemporary scholars, and (6) has been formally invoked, e.g., in relation to the 1954 Pacific Charter.The Atlantic Charter’s valued principle of “humanitarian universalism” is immanent in its function as a norm benefitting colonial and other peoples forcibly deprived of their human rights or sovereignty. The backdrop is the literature on the post-1945 origins of the U.N. and general “right” of self determination.

link to scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu

Settling Self-determination Conflicts: Recent Developments

Abstract

Self-determination conflicts outside the colonial context have previously appeared virtually impossible to settle. Long-running and very destructive internal armed conflicts have been the result. Since the termination of the Cold War, however, there has been a veritable wave of self-determination settlements. While some of these trade the claim to secession for internal autonomy in order to safeguard the territorial unity of the state, a number of innovative solutions have been adopted, going beyond this traditional approach. This article reviews over 40 settlements and draft settlements in order to identify an emerging post-modern pattern of practice of settling self-determination disputes. The article also assesses the impact of this practice on the classical, restrictive understanding of the doctrine of self-determination.

link to academic.oup.com

Have just watched short footage on a tweet from CatalunyaRadio which appears to show it under assault from anti-indy crowd approx half an hour ago.

Can’t verify…

“How many people living in Barcelona and Catalonia are from other areas of Spain?”

Hard to quantify, Dan, but many, many thousands were encouraged in the 60s and 70s to emigrate there from the rest of Spain. You could regard it simply as economic migration, or, if you were cynical, to see it as long-sighted Spanish colonialism, just as its teaching methods in Valencia have diminished knowledge of Catalan in the last 20 years (see WGD), to the benefit of Spanish.

In the Scottish Dimension, think UKOKian colonialism in The Borders, Perthshire, Aberdeen, O&S, und so weiter.

Think Nana had a good link recently to the Spanish situation, but I don’t have it any more.

I wonder who originally came up with the Unionist argument that if you don’t vote for something you voted against it by not voting

I remember when they tried to count my deceased father as a no voter in the devolution referendum

It’s no wonder the common man/woman gets irritated by those folk who tell us what we want when most of the time we were never asked the question

In Scotland we have Willie Rennie who excels at that
Never met him but he knows what I want

It’s a special Unionist politician gift/talent/crap/big fat lie

300 Fascists attacking Catalan Radio. Breaking glass – people cannot get out.

Wondering if the British nationalists will still adore Rajoy when he takes Gibraltar back.

Finland preparing to recognise Catalonia.

From the tired and confused Express — but I hope it’s true.

Congratulations to the Republic of Catalonia and to the 70 out of 135 MPs who voted Yes to an independent republic.

Although they will be crushed by the fascist Spanish state while the EU, UN and NATO look on.

Only 620 years to go before “sovereign” Scotland declares independence.

Ignore the halfwit and don’t allow yourself to become angry with the prick. It’s what he seeks most of all.

@PictAtRandom.

There was a guy on Sky news earlier saying Finland Serbia and some Nordic countries talking about recognising Catalunia as an independent republic, so your source is probably correct.

Rock @ every time,

Go away, you useless dud, and take your personal little rain cloud with you.

This is a forum for ideas, not a cheapskate encounter group for those with personal psychiatric issues.

Whatever ones view on the Catalonia situation to this point, yessers now have to hope this republic is entrenched.
Like brexit, we need it to happen.

Me @ 8.34
Or rather I should say….
Good luck to …The Independent Republic of Catalonia…..

Sorry jock, but that is nonsense.

The SG have a 100% LEGAL mandate to hold a referendum.

There are ZERO “constitutional” barriers to prevent us holding a referendum.

This is another example of the complete difference between the 2 situations, and is exactly why the SG nor right minded indy supporters have conflated the 2.

Catalonia On This Momentous Day

A brief history and its rejection of Franco’s old constitution: link to wp.me

Mr P: as a long-term believer in the EU, like yourself, I feel the foundations now seem to be of the bricks-without-straw variety.

This is a huge test of their project. If other, “peripheral” states are beginning to mutter in support of Catalunya, then, the whole edifice may start to rock.

I looked to the EU to be our guarantor and friend in our struggle with WM.

Frankly, now I’m dubious.

Despite this era of social media we should never underestimate the power of mainstream TV output.

One of the main differences between Cataluyna’s campaign for self determination and Scotland is that the Catalans can get their news via local public service TV stations which do not follow Madrid’s agenda.

Given the pre broadcast publicity, next week’s BBC TV Question Time from Kilmarnock has two representatives from the third placed party in Scotland (Kezia and Owen Jones) but no SNP politician. This is the BBC’s vision of political balance.

Having the promise of a secondary TV channel is no substitute for a Scottish controlled channel one which is answerable to the Scottish Parliament just as BBC is answerable to Westminster.

Liz g says:
27 October, 2017 at 8:34 pm
Meg Merrilee’s @ 7.58
Oh dear can you keep us informed please?
…………
Also can anyone get a list of these bloody company’s that have pulled out of Catalonia.
I want to withdraw my customs if any are trading here.

_______

Dunno how accurate CNN is or how up to date … but here’s your starter for 10.

link to money.cnn.com

PS I’m keeping my ears open to hear what my two lady bosses – Nicola and Leanne are saying.

Good article from Craig Murray on Catalonia and the connection with Germany.

Madrid prefers its elections rigged. Albert Rivera, leader of Rajoy’s coalition partners Ciudadanos, admitted it explicitly, saying that elections in Catalonia must only be held when the government can guarantee the result.

This is no surprise as Ciudadanos and Mr Rivera have only the most tenuous link to democracy. It is well known to everyone in senior diplomatic and intelligence circles of the major Western powers, that Ciudadanos originated as a highly successful astroturf operation, funded and organised by the German overseas security service, the BND.

link to craigmurray.org.uk

@schrodingers cat says: 27 October, 2017 at 8:29 pm:

“Guy Verhofstadt?Verified account @GuyVerhofstadt 43m43 minutes ago
A “fake independence” is what I call it and I don’t recognize it.”

Fortunately the EU parliament is not only democratic but consensual. No matter what such as Guy Verhofstadt says the EU parliament must vote upon such matters and it does not rely upon a simple majority. If just one member state thinks the opposite of Verhofstadt then his personal wishes, or his vote, will count for nothing.

There is now absolutely no more doubt that the EU is now in grave danger of complete disintegration and that danger lies 100% with those who, at the moment, hold responsible positions of power.

EU matters are not for the personal opinions and wishes of those that are appointed to positions of power but for the member states in consensus. If that consensus is not respected the EU is dead in the water and holed below the waterline.

The EU have laws of Freedom of Self determination and have signed treaties with the Council of Europe and the UN. The UN has already made a statement in favour of Catalan Self Determination and the EU signed up as UN members. The EU has now, thanks to Verhofstadt just put itself up as an Aunt Sally and I’ve no doubt there will be a queue of members states to take a shy at the EU.

As you correctly say, “this is the beginning of the end of the old emperialist countries, the eu is backing the wrong horse.

The government of The Gambia have officially recognised Catalonia.
First to do so.

link to twitter.com

The EU have really made a mess of this. Doesn’t matter if the’re working behind the scenes they should have been upfront and foremost in the first place.

This was all very predictable, yet there are those who will not see. That’s the like of Tusk who “hopes” dialogue can take place or Verhofstadt who “hopes” that

“the Spanish government will continue to do everything possible to initiate an open and inclusive process.”#

Seriously these people are definitely not our friends, we’re on our own. Fine we don’t need them as we are well capable by ourselves.

Members of Catalan government moved from the parliament building to the ‘Government’ building earlier this afternoon – with suitcases. Now holding the first Government meeting of the Catalan Republic.

Looks like Right wing protestors now attacking a school (university?). Two youths beaten up.

Guarda Civil not restoring order.

Reuters photos of the afternoon…
link to ccma.cat

Latest from my homeland – as reported on BBC Cymru. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on BBC Wales (Quelle surprise !)

[Translation mine]

_______

Plaid Cymru have asked for a vote in the National Assembly to recognise the independence of Catalunya.

[…]

The Leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood, that she “congratulates” the people of Catalunya on “winning their independence through peaceful and democratic means.”

The First Minister, Carwyn Jones, has called for “dialogue and diplomacy” to ensure a settlement.

[…]

“The people of Catalunya have insisted on a democratic path to ensure independence through the ballot box,” said Ms Wood.

“Plaid Cymru will be calling the National Assembly to recognise the Republic of Catalunya as an independent country.”

[…]

Plaid Cymru also called on the EU to “support dialogue.”

[…]

The Leader of UKIP in Wales, Neil Hamilton said that the EU is “the enemy” because of their “passive support of the Spanish Government.

He added: “I believe in the United Kingdom, but the people of Wales have the democratic right to choose their own political future.”

“Catalunya deserves the same.”

it has been pointed ouyt by many that the eu’s hands are tied wrt catalunya, but recent comments from juncker and especially now guy verhofstadt show them sticking out their necks much further than is necessary

it is if Guy has just realised that scotland was never his friend, just a useful ally against UKIP, Guy is a Belgian Unionist who has just realised that scotland was only the start of a very large landslide which threatens to engulf the whole of the european old order, including belgium.

during indyref1, i wondered why it was that across europe, countries which formed 100’s of years previously, all had regions clamouring for their independence at the same time we were.

Today, watching events unfold in Catalunya, I finally understood why that was.

It is because now, we can.

Offering mediation is not interfering in others affairs. To be honest it’s the only route I can see out of this. Madrid sending in the troops rather than talk will be a disaster.

Let’s get something straight Catalonia has declared Independence, they are now no longer part of Spain in their eyes. The parliament in Madrid think otherwise and will act. You can be sure of that.

I support what the Catalonian people have decided and their parliament decision today. Let’s not turn our eyes as they need our support. Most of all they need it now.

Think he’s happy about it…?

link to stv.tv

After not bothering about the EU and its powers for decades, everybody now wants it to do ‘something’ without knowing what it can do.

The EU does what the countries that make it up allow it to do.

If people want it to act directly in the internal matters of constituents then they need to get their governments to tell the EU this.

It is extremely unlikely that there are not private discussions going on. The voters of Spain elected the members of the Madrid government not the voters across the EU or the EU MPs.

Get involved if you want to change what it does, tho you only have a short time, after which you will be stuck with the degenerates who make up the UK governments.

The absolute worse thing about this, is that you just know Uk unionist politicians are desperate for Madrid to crush the Catalans with huge violence, hoping it instills fear of the same possibility if Scotland votes Yes.

That does not mean i think they (WM) will do the same, they won’t, but seeding the idea they might, may appeal to them.

I worry that Rahoy may not need to do very much – the local fascists and friends are perfectly capable of doing it for him. Dangerous times tonight.

Robert Peffers,

“Somehow I seem to have gone very much against the whole concept of a European Union that not only fails its own citizens but has not the courage of its own convictions that all identifiable groups are entitled to the freedom of self determination.”

In April you were boasting that “the EU and UN would be on it like a flash” if the UK government didn’t respect the results of Scotland’s “illegal” referendum:

Robert Peffers (7th April – “Unionist Manifesto Update”):

“Just let them try and NOT respect the results. The EU and UN would be on it like a flash as the Westminster Government has signed up to both of their treaties that specifically have written into them the human right of Self Determination.”

Rock,

“I can say with 100% confidence that the EU and UN would do absolutely nothing that would make us independent in such a scenario.”

Rock (10th October – “The shoogly peg”):

“Forget respecting the results, the EU and UN stood by as the fascist Spanish state used brute force to stop Catalonians from voting and stole the ballot papers.

Has the Spanish Government not “signed up to both of their treaties that specifically have written into them the human right of Self Determination”?

If you think it would be any different in Scotland, you are badly mistaken.”

IMHO, the world has taken some giant goose-steps towards becoming a totalitarian dystopia, since I was born in 1968. The Anglo-American New Right are pure poison. True story.

Popular sovereignty
Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[1] It is often contrasted with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, and with individual sovereignty….

….The American Revolution marked a departure in the concept of popular sovereignty as it had been discussed and employed in the European historical context. With their Revolution, Americans substituted the sovereignty in the person of King George III, with a collective sovereign—composed of the people. Thenceforth, American revolutionaries generally agreed and were committed to the principle that governments were legitimate only if they rested on popular sovereignty – that is, the sovereignty of the people.[6] This idea—often linked with the notion of the consent of the governed—was not invented by the American revolutionaries. Rather, the consent of the governed
and the idea of the people as a sovereign had clear 17th and 18th century intellectual roots in English history.[7] In the decades before the American Civil War, the term “popular sovereignty” was often used to suggest that residents of U.S. territories should be able to decide by voting whether or not slavery would be allowed in the territory. This concept was associated with such politicians as Lewis Cass and Stephen A. Douglas.
link to saylor.org

Democracy, Popular Sovereignty, and Constitutional Legitimacy
link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Popular Sovereignty & Democracy: An Analysis
link to slideshare.net

Heedtracker

the Valle de Aran ( autonomous region in NW tip of Catalunya, bordering France/Pyrenees and Spain) has released a statement that they want to consider their future apart from Catalonia in light of the Indy declaration – more to come on monday.

Puigdemont’s party will not observe the Rahoy elections and will not vote in them.

Great articles in the National again today from Alex Russell on Scotland’s oil, Gregor Young on “60% of oil and gas employers expecting to recruit “significantly” in the next year”, the Labour leadership fiasco, Tory ignorance on what’s reserved / devolved, Andy Wightman on fracking and much more.

More than anything there are two, 2 page, articles on Catalonia from Greg Russell and Lesley Riddoch, who’s in Barcelona right now.

Reading Lesley Riddoch’s article clarifies the situation on Catalonia versus Scotland to some extent. Most of which we know already of course. She says, “The fact that Scotland was once an Independent state with it’s own enduring legal system (and no UK written Constitution) also gives our case a credibility Catalonia lacks. But the fact London agreed to a legally binding Referendum matters far more to onlookers outside the UK than I had ever realised before I came to Catalonia to participate in the Barcelona BBC debate.

It’s clear the Edinburgh Agreement between the UK and the Scottish Government is seen as the International gold standard of dealing properly with Constitutional disputes. The transfer of Section 30 powers made that 2014 vote legally binding – not just advisory – which in turn gave it the validity and authority that prompted the whopping 85% turnout (to Catalonia’s 43%).

A couple of other points. Professor Ricardo Gosalbo Bono, an EU Constitutional expert, told the BBC Barcelona audience that EU law means regions must comply with the Constitutional arrangements of the member state and other EU members states are NOT free to recognise regions making unilateral declarations of independence. EU treaties will immediately cease to apply to any regions that separate from member states – so an Independent Catalonia wouldn’t be automatically expelled from the EU, unable to trade with it and would be unable to use the Euro. That would add to a perilous economic situation where a thousand companies are said to have relocated their official headquarters out of the region already …”

There’s much more of course but the bottom line is that we carry on as we have been doing, IMO, and call for a referendum when the Brexit deal is clarified. We’ll have the vast majority of businesses on our side, for one, I’m sure. But more than anything get support from Joe Public to over 50% and with the help of Brexit that shouldn’t be too difficult to do. Catalonia had no alternative other than the route that they have taken. A route, however, to where at the end of the day?

………………………..

@ Yesindyref2 at 5:08pm ……… “There’s a good few reasonable comments on the WP…”

Nearly 400 when I checked it out and extremely refreshing to see that there’s no foul language being used, swear words or immature name calling of other posters. Maybe they’ve been deleted, but whatever the case, no matter their views, it made for a half-decent civilised read.

Brian Powell
If people want it to act directly in the internal matters of constituents then they need to get their governments to tell the EU this.

——————
Guy Verhofstadt?Verified account @GuyVerhofstadt 3h3 hours ago

A “fake independence” is what I call it and I don’t recognize it.
——————–

you dont think this is a direct act in the internal matters of a constituent?

I know the eu doesnt have any tanks it can send into spain but it does have a tongue in its head

@Tinto Chiel says: 27 October, 2017 at 9:04 pm:

“Mr P: as a long-term believer in the EU, like yourself, I feel the foundations now seem to be of the bricks-without-straw variety.
This is a huge test of their project. If other, “peripheral” states are beginning to mutter in support of Catalunya, then, the whole edifice may start to rock.”

Well, Tinto Chiel, I may be wrong but I still have faith that the EU will survive. I also believe it has just entered a phase of change. Not in the actual rules but of the smaller member states making their presence felt.

As I have pointed out several times the EU parliament is both democratic and consensual but to date the smaller member states have allowed themselves to be browbeaten to accept things they were none too comfortable with and that was how such as Germany and France more or less got their way.

However, the EU presidency changes on a, “Buggin’s Turn”, basis and each member state thus gets a turn at the helm as they set the agenda and their leader chairs the EU parliament.

Thus each smaller nation gains experience and more confidence in itself after their turn at the helm. The other factor is that all member states have a veto but have, in the past, been reluctant to use it. After a Buggin’s Turn though, they become more confident and so the bigger member states can find their big noses put a bit out of joint and it only takes one member state to stop a matter stone dead – or more likely as EU history shows, they compromise.

Far as I can see there is already a split opening up between those presently holding office and some member states and the UN has already made a statement favourable to Catalonia.

I do believe that after the initial statements made today sanity will prevail. The facts are quite simple, really.

The EU is a member, (as are every EU member state), in the Council of Europe. However, the Council of Europe has 47 member states including the EU 28 member states.

The Council of Europe is the World’s main Human Rights organisation and the World’s main Human rights Court. So every EU member state and the EU itself is signed up to the Council of Europe Human Rights laws. And these are almost identical to those of the UN and thus they are all, including the UK and Spain, signed up to the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Laws.

I’m almost certain that the Council of Europe will have already made themselves felt by both Spain and the UK. Furthermore, I posted a comment just the other day that listed a great big long list of European groups that are seeking self determination and independence from established European states. Yet state control has seen these groups getting little public exposure just as the SNP is suppressed by the UK.

The number of independence movements in Europe is far, far larger than is generally recognised but they are now beginning to make their presence felt.

On reflection,sad to say I don’t think Madrid should let Puigdemont away with this affront.

Never mind unconstitutional.It is botched,uncouth, provocative and borderline criminal in equal order.

His haircut,that is.

The government of Catalonia has made it clear that they will continue to use civil disobedience to pursue their cause, and instructed government workers accordingly.

That should trump any constitutional formalities – GuyV, Tusk and their buddies are gambling that Spain will not use brute force, but they’ve been proved wrong already, sadly wanting when it came to any meaningful condemnation of the aggression.

If the official reaction to what’s happening in Barcelona right now is any indication of how EU high-heid yins view actual ‘self-determination’ in action, we should be very worried. In any event, we should *never* again assume EU support for Scotland, and be wary of them even when they appear to offer it – their behaviour right now renders them untrustworthy, nay disreputable.

All football fans who support self determination should be displaying their Catalan flags at games to-morrow.

Rock
You do appreciate nihilism is a weapon of the New Right?

Ian Brotherhood says:
we should *never* again assume EU support for Scotland, and be wary of them even when they appear to offer it –
——————
agreed, i still remain hopeful that the eu will come out during indyref2 in support of scotland (it was pointed out yesterday on a thread that cos the uk is leaving there is a chance they may do this)

we should not plan our campaign on the basis that they will do this.
ergo in indyref2 yes=efta not eu membership

Ian Brotherhood@10.40.
You hit the nail on the head, it seems each passing day the EU is starting to sport the “headless chicken” routine.
I still say I am a EuroScot, but I think the next 48 hours will be the vision of what the EU really is.
If and its a big IF, Rahoy goes in with the Franco play book again, and the EU stand back and do FK all in the blatant abuse of EU citizens, then the EU is finished.
No surprise Westminster are doing FK all as they have FK all clue about anything.

Robert Peffers says:
27 October, 2017 at 10:42 pm
@Pacman says: 27 October, 2017 at 9:16 pm:

“The Scottish parliament does not represent a sovereign nation and does not have the legal right to recognise another sovereign nation succeeding from another an already established one.”

No doubt then, Pacman, you can, on request, furnish the legal evidence to prove that Scotland IS NOT, as you claim, A Sovereign Nation?.

On the other hand I can provide legal proof that Scots are a legally sovereign people and I quote for you, “Article of Union Number 19”, as legal proof of that fact:-
……………………

It is late and I am tired but I have read the copy of Article 19 that you posted, twice, but cannot see where it says the people of Scotland are sovereign or in any way provides the legal proof that you claim for it.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your reasons for thinking that Article 19 provides legal proof that the people of Scotland are sovereign.

schrodingers cat @ 10:58 pm and Ian Brotherhood

“we should *never* again assume EU support for Scotland, ….”

“we should not plan our campaign on the basis that they will do this.”

I am strongly of the view that the proposition in IndyRef2 must reduce to a minimum – and handle very carefully in campaigning – any reliance on ‘big issue’ matters that are in the gift of (unreliable or hostile) third parties. We must learn from the way our opponents exploited the ‘currency union’ and the use of Sterling in 2014.

Catalonia needs to go to the UN, not the EU. The UN Charter is quite clear that the decision on self-determination does not require the approval of the supreme authority of a country. I think it was Nana who posted a link to the comments from the UN Human Rights Office of High Commissioner link to ohchr.org

Guy Verhofstadt was a founding member of the Spinelli Group of the European Parliament. The Spinelli Group is against nationalism and intergovernmentalism (the notion that states and national governments are the primary actors).

Well, that’s me boycotting Spanish stuff.
Easy to do, but if enough people do, and make enough noise about doing…
Next FMQ’s, someone needs to propose giving full recognition to Catalonia, and then we’ll see the fur fly 😉

Good luck Catalonia,

few will remember the complete hash the EU nations made in Yugoslavia in the 90’s .

Red tape and constant bickering among members on what to do gave us the slaughter not seen in Europe since WW2. Troops deployed had no orders and watched helplessly as cities were destroyed with huge casualties.

The US eventually go fed up with the EU they bombed a few bases and peace was restored in months.

I fear Spain could go the same way. The EU have no real power because it was designed that way . The Spanish are willing to use militia and someones gonna die and boom ……

WE’re looking to the wrong ones for help in Europe , it;s too close to home . The UN or NATO should step in now . As someone already mentioned above there are many “Unionists” in the EU . They will stall and huff and puff and people will be hurt and their rights walked over .

We Scots are in a totally different position i know but this gives us an insight in to mechanisms of the EU and what it stands for . Spain can make or break them make no mistake this is dangerous ground.

Fellow Wingers please keep us informed of the comings and goings . I wont watch TV any more . Strangely wonder why i ever watched it . The lies are drip fed on every channel .

You guys are my news sources . 🙂

@ defo – you can buy Estrella beer. It’s made in Barcelona. I have some cooling in the fridge as we speak.
link to en.wikipedia.org

Finland and Argentina have announced that they intend to recognise Catalonia tomorrow.

Thousands of ‘Unionists’ marching through Barcelona just now. Including elected councillors of opposition parties.
Shouting re ‘the Mossos” these Police do not represent us.

link to twitter.com
some up to date reports on this page, showing Catalans pacifist – Spaniards violent.

Julian Assange urging Americans to support Catalunya – help them win their independence.

A nostalgic Johnny Rotten on BBC4 a few minutes ago. Paraphrasing “A lot of people banned the Sex Pistols in the seventies. The worst one was the Lord Provost of Scotland.”
Geez!

Robert Peffers we have covered this before. Scotland has no sovereign powers.The Supreme Court overruled any Scottish say on article 50 back in January.

Oil $60 a barrel.

It is the SNP’s fault.

I see old Jeremy is at the pro Brit unite conference in Glasgow, no mention of the lies by his team on the shipyards during the days of the vow.

Will he support the Spanish fascists? Of course