Snowflake Patrol
We’ve written a couple of articles about the media coverage of this already, but as the slow summer season continues it’s worth taking a little time to have a proper look at the source material, because it’s your cash that’s being spent on it, and used to shape public policy in Scotland.
And it’s very hard to overstate both what a waste of money, and what a colossal insult to every woman in Scotland, it represents.
The report is produced by Engender, who pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer funding every year to sit around and think “feminist” thoughts. Almost all of that money goes straight into the pockets of its staff, with very little actually produced to show for it, and the organisation directly helps nobody.
(They claim to deliver “research, analysis, and recommendations for intersectional feminist legislation and programmes”. Intersectional feminism is the type of feminism that primarily centres men, so Engender’s work is invaluable to a Scottish Government that remains committed to the destruction of women’s rights even if it has to defy the Supreme Court to do it.)
So let’s see what we’re getting for our money.
Wow, 159 SurveyMonkey polls (115 of them fully completed) and 15 interviews. That must have taken hours.
Gay, trans, disabled and Green people were all massively over-represented in the survey cohort – gay people by at least 5x compared to the general population of Scotland, trans people by at least 50x, disabled people by at least 1.5x and Greens by at least 2.5x – which was curious because the overwhelming majority of respondents were over 45.
(A remarkable 22% also refused to disclose their sexuality and 14% their ethnicity, so those figures could be far higher.)
Curiously, the report nevertheless proclaims there’s “chronic underrepresentation of BAME women and younger women” in Scottish politics. Indeed it felt it was such an important point that it said it twice in a row.
So it’s slightly unfortunate that it’s completely untrue. Statistically around 2% of the Scottish Parliament’s MSPs – that’d be 2.58 MSPs – should be women of BAME backgrounds. The actual number is two – Pam Gosal and Kaukab Stewart – so there’s a very slight underrepresentation of half an MSP. (Although Maggie Chapman is from Africa – specifically Zimbabwe so you could make an argument that she counts for a half, or much less if we’re factoring in IQ.)
“Younger women” is a vague and subjective term, but the average age of female MSPs is 49, exactly the same as it is for men even though women live on average four years longer.
The minimum age requirement to be an MSP is 18, and the median age of Scottish adult females (measured from 16) is 43, so overall female MSPs are only 3-4 years older than the female population as a whole (and younger than male MSPs), and there’s certainly no evidence that young women are suffering from “chronic underrepresentation”.
Indeed, the exact opposite is true – if any age group is underrepresented it’s the over-65s, who make up 20% of the adult population and should therefore have 26 MSPs, but in fact have less than half that many – 12, of which only Beatrice Wishart and Christine Grahame are female. It’s older women, not younger ones, who are in fact chronically underrepresented in Parliament, with only 14% as many MSPs as they should have.
As we previously noted, the report starts off by listing some of the drawbacks of being a politician, none of which were particular to being female.
It then makes some comments about the nature of the candidate-selection process, which again offer no evidence of any sex bias. Women are every bit as capable – indeed, many people would say more so – of forming “personal connections” and “networks” as men are.
And as 84% of the respondents had survived vetting and, of those, had a spectacular 89% success rate in being selected as candidates by their various political parties, it certainly doesn’t seem as if they’ve suffered much in the way of disadvantage, despite the highly scientific cartoon illustration above.
Although apparently unsuccessful female candidates need more hugs.
(We should take a brief moment here to salute the simply magnificent portrayal of diversity in all the illustrations in the report, despite the text’s insistence that everyone involved in politics is a straight white able-bodied middle-class man, although we’re a bit concerned that all of the people in the pic below are VERY small.)
But after 14 pages of padding and waffle, we finally get to the “Key Findings”.
No details are given as to what any of these “many aspects” actually are, or exactly who is imagining this “default candidate”. The finding is asserted as unquestioned fact, but not supported with any evidence. Readers should get used to that, because it’s going to be happening a lot.
This does not appear to be a gendered issue.
Is such “formal support, guidance and training” made available to men? If not (and we’re given no suggestion to the contrary), this is not a gendered issue.
Who feels this, and on what basis? We’re not told.
It’s true that women still tend to have more caring responsibilities than men, but the gap isn’t that huge. According to Carers UK (England and Wales figures), the division is 59-41 between men and women, and that figure is very heavily distorted by women over 75, who we already know aren’t MSPs anyway.
(And if they are, they likely got through selection processes a long time ago.)
Another vague assertion unburdened by evidence or specifics.
All politicians deal with abuse and threats. Two have been murdered in recent years, one of each sex. This is not a gendered issue, unless the claim is being made by Engender that women are intrinsically weaker and less resilient than men, which doesn’t seem very feminist.
It turns out people don’t like unfairness and discrimination, no matter how much you call it “positive action” because it favours you. Who knew?
Once more, in no way a gendered issue. Men fail to get elected too.
Is it? Must it? Says who? Based on what evidence?
The report’s “Key Findings”, then, appear to be uniformly total guff. Most are unsupported assertions and in any event very few are actually in any way related to anyone’s sex. Having listed them, though, the report then attempts to put some meat on the bones.
We very strongly suspect that most people, both inside political parties and in the general public, would much prefer competence to be prioritised in candidate selection than “diversity and inclusion”. In almost all areas, large majorities of British voters think diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies are either fine as they are or have already gone too far, except with regard to the disabled.
57% of Britons think DEI measures advantaging women are already sufficient or excessive, with just 31% believing more are needed. (65-35 if you remove Don’t Knows.) Whereas almost everyone thinks politicians are useless crooked idiots, regardless of their sex, age or race.
People want better politicians, not gayer or browner or more female ones. Neither gay nor straight people, nor white or non-white people, nor male or female people, are automatically more suited to politics by virtue of those characteristics.
But then it’s time to get into the serious stuff.
We apologise for failing to provide a trigger warning there, in case any sensitive readers may have been traumatised by the fact that women may occasionally have been referred to as “young lady” in unspecified circumstances.
(We fairly regularly get called “young man” by older people despite being 57. It’s just how they talk, the old weirdos.)
But then we’re straight back to entirely non-gendered issues.
Although one respondent harrowingly related how she’d been forced to repeatedly complain about not being given sufficiently preferential treatment.
The next bit was odd, though.
Firstly it’s interesting to see the issue framed as “24% experienced sexist language” rather than “76% didn’t”, and at no point are we given any details about what was deemed to constitute “sexist language” anyway. (Other than the horrifying “young lady” example above, of course, which we’d in fact say was ageist rather than sexist. But we digress.)
But this respondent commented on her own perceptions that women were seen as weaker, only to then reveal that she HAD in fact disproved that perception by being selected as the candidate, only to then “almost” resign, not because of sexism but because some people were unhappy that she’d won.
Politics is an intrinsically hostile occupation, whether from voters or opponents or competitors within your own party, as every politician from Joanna Cherry to Jeremy Corbyn will ruefully tell you. It might reasonably be argued that it’s a public service to weed out those who can’t cope with hostility as early as possible, because if you don’t get it from the selection committee you’re sure as heck going to get it from your constituents or in the chamber, and no amount of pious lecturing from the likes of Engender will stop them.
The report remarkably then suggests that the real reason for women’s underrepresentation in politics isn’t due to prejudice, but to the fact that women simply can’t be bothered.
Even more remarkably, it then immediately contradicts itself, saying it’s “clear” that women are in fact just as interested as men, and adding as evidence for the claim that if you FORCE parties to select more women by using discriminatory measures that exclude men, more women are selected.
Well, duh.
We’re still only 28 pages in at this point (out of 73), so we better speed up.
“Financial security” is an odd complaint, since MPs are paid more than three times the average wage, with all kinds of other perks and support on top (in the case of Holyrood, for example, an onsite creche). Very few people take a pay cut to become an MP. But wow, check out that diversity!
(We don’t know how many actual mixed-race lesbian couples with children there are in Scotland. If you can find the answer in the census, let us know in the comments.)
We are gravely disturbed to learn that the process of selecting politicians is biased in favour of clever people who can understand complex things, because of course making laws and running a country are not at all complicated. We’re also saddened to hear from a feminist charity that intelligence-based selection apparently favours white men, which we’re pretty sure would be an extremely sexist AND racist claim if WE made it.
(Fortunately, calling people “pale, male and stale” isn’t sexist, racist or ageist. Because it just isn’t, okay? Because we said so. Shut up.)
IMPORTANT BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: FRIENDS AND CONTACTS ARE OFTEN USEFUL IN PROGRESSING ONE’S CAREER! FOR SOME REASON THIS DOESN’T APPLY TO WOMEN, WE THINK! SPECIAL REPORT AT 11!
Okay, we’ve got quite a few questions here. Firstly, that kid looks plenty old enough to be taking care of himself in front of the telly or on his iPad rather than being dragged to some godawful party meeting. Secondly, WHY IS NOBODY IN THAT PICTURE DIVERSE? (Unless tattoos count as a disability now.) Thirdly, “feeling” something doesn’t mean it actually happened. Maybe you’re just paranoid. Fourthly, doesn’t ANY job involve a conflict if you have caring responsibilities?
This is neither a gendered issue nor one specific to politics. Most people who apply for any sort of job don’t even get a rejection letter, never mind a programme of personal sodding counselling about it. What sort of needy, attention-seeking milksops are we breeding here, and why do we want them in Parliament?
BREAKING STORY UPDATE! IN LIFE, SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON’T LIKE YOU, WHATEVER SEX YOU ARE! WE NOW GO OVER TO OUR CORRESPONDENT LIVE ON THE SCENE FOR MORE DETAIL ON WHY YOU’RE SUCH A TEDIOUS WHINY CHORE.
For anyone struggling to remember, this report is supposedly about “Women’s Political Journey” and why women are supposedly subject to exclusion and bias. We’ve checked several sources, all of which have confirmed that men can be poor too.
We’re definitely calling bullshit on this one, as anyone who was a woman AND a lesbian AND disabled AND old would be ticking so many boxes that any party in the country would stab their own children through the eyes and sell their livers to select them. Maybe you were just an arse, hen.
But if we’re being flippant there, it’s because we’re now more than halfway through the report and all we’ve had in the way of actual evidence for anything is some anonymous people who FELT like they were POSSIBLY being discriminated against in some way, which may or may not have been related to their sex, but who almost all succeeded in getting selected anyway.
As justification for either vast public funding or TWO Sunday-paper front cover stories, it’s the most astonishingly weak case we’ve ever read. Engender treat it as axiomatic that they (and all women, including the ones who are men) are entitled to everything they demand, and even the tiniest bump or bend in the road on the way to getting it is a self-evident outrage against civilisation which must be urgently eradicated with primary legislation.
The entire document treats women as pathetically delicate flowers incapable of overcoming the most trivial obstacle en route to a difficult, important, challenging and highly-paid job (get elected as an SNP MSP, for example, and you’ve got a 50% chance of walking straight into a six-figure salary), as if weeding out weak candidates is something akin to genocide.
(Indeed, the entire point of “affirmative action” programmes and quotas is to actively advantage weaker candidates over stronger ones. But as we’ve already noted, for their own wellbeing someone who’s reduced to a shattered wreck after one selection interview or a couple of days of door-knocking needs to be protected from the stressful life of a politician, or they’re going to end up in a mental hospital or dead.)
The document mostly comprises page after page after page of people complaining about things that are absolutely nothing to do with their sex, but are in fact central to any occupation which on some level is a popularity contest, and particularly those which inherently involve conflict by their nature.
The people interviewed wanted to be politicians, but some sort of fantasy Disney politicians in a lovely pastel-coloured cartoon land of ice-creams and lollipops and GIRL BOSS ENERGY, but without any of the downsides that inescapably come as part of that profession.
And the other recurring theme of the report is endless assertions that there are all sorts of “structural and cultural barriers” to women’s involvement in politics, but in 73 pages it never manages to name a single one that doesn’t also apply to men.
And woe betide any dreadful males who object to being discriminated against.
That millions of pounds of public money have been thrown at the likes of Engender to produce this fatuous, content-free, self-serving and – ironically – misogynist, sexist, racist and ageist drivel while quarter of a million Scottish children live in poverty ought to be a source of shame to everyone responsible.
But faced with the choice between slashing some actual useful service or putting some of their cosy quangocrat pals out of their cushy jobs, we all know which option the Scottish Government will take every single time.
We’re probably the only people in Britain who’ve read the whole of this report other than the people who compiled it, because it was never meant to be actually read. It exists to justify another year’s salaries for otherwise-unemployable middle-class dunderheads, and for the Scottish Government to be able to say “Look, this entirely independent and totally feminist organisation supports our latest terrible woman-betraying policy!” whenever required.
Now if you’ll excuse us, we’re going to go and throw rocks at something.
You are a heroic young man for reading this tripe and sharing your analysis with old biddies such as myself. I couldn’t have forced myself to read beyond the first page.
Robin McAlpine also points out the huge amount of public funding that is being wasted on such pointless entities.
It is well known. So how are we going to end such an abuse?
There’s the ICCPR route to gaining Direct Democracy. The voters would then have a toehold on putting an end to these quangos and lobbyist over-influence. The Holyrood petition PE2135is still running at http://www.petitions.parliament.scot Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] in Scottish legislation.
Thank you Sarah, let me put in the full link here:
link to petitions.parliament.scot
It’s a game changer if passed into law. The first rung of the ladder to a different model of governance.
Thanks for the link! I hope it will encourage many Wingers to sign up.
It’s obvious. Scottish women are more colonised than Scottish men.
One look at some of the “profiles” of the staff will inform as to why the report that you have valiantly waded through is full of such vague, evidence-free, bollox.
e.g.
“background in third sector funding and capacity building, with a particular interest in participative approaches to grantmaking”
“years of experience of grassroots political campaigning and activism, and is passionate about finding ways for this space to be more inclusive”
“supporting the delivery of the Equally Safe Strategy by thinking about how we can integrate primary prevention of men’s violence into policy development in Scotland”
“aims to increase the number and diversity of women elected and involved in politics in Scotland.”
etc
link to engender.org.uk
SURELY you made those up, no?
Bone fide.
Check the link … I’ve only selected a sample.
Scum sure floats to the top in Quango-land..
Maybe the rush to have everyone University or College trained has backfired given the gibberish courses and mind numbing brainwashing it seems to have bequeathed us..
Here’s to proper useful further education courses and more emphasis on STEM practical “making things” skills that together may drag us out of this swamp that the country is drowning in..
First step: defund the John Smith centre, it’s a wastrels charter masquerading as education.
Where are the Scottish women who went into politics?
Sturgeon- Gone for good a living under a cloud.
Dugdale- Drove Labour to its lowest depths and earning money in a jungle.
Kate Forbes- Gone and likely for good.
Mhairi Black- Great opening speech and then Drag Artist down into the gutter. Flo Job?
Joanna Cherry attacked by SNP colleagues and Unionists – unlikely to recover unfortunately.
Ruth Davidson- made Baroness for services against Scotland and abandoning constituents.
Now making a fortune for a few hours on the board of Royal London.
Jo Swinson-Lib Dem jolly hockey sticks failure.
Does this list above entice women or voters to seek more of the same?
Mhairi Black’s “great opening speech” was written by Jim Sillars!!! Says it all, doesn’t it – a phony reputation for wit and incisiveness. She could have confessed but no….
Don’t these idiots realise they are doing more harm to their own. LGBTQ is ignored or banned from most real situations in life. If it can only exist in ‘civil’ and political Scotland then it doesn’t exist at all.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Somebody needs to put in an official complaint.
I’m almost certain that in the green and white picture at the top of this article there is an indigenous, white Scot at bottom left.
I can’t be categorical, because she has her back to us. But her arms look white and she’s not wearing a letterbox, keffiyeh, colourful tribal dishcloot, or a great mass of hair shaped into a spiky amphibious landing craft or other such ludicrous monstrosity.
For how much longer are the white Scots majority going to be allowed this kind of official visibility in Scotland? This has to stop now.
And read some of Angela Constance input into the Justice Committee to see where this is going. Misogyny Bill (No Misandry equivalent), Conversion therapy Bill. No repeal of the GRR Act. An equal strategy against violence of what ever form and derivative deemed to be a problem by women Justice reform disabling centuries of legal rights of the statutory obligations of the Judiciary to fair trials. If you think the last ten years has been bad the next 5 years will be worse. Polling says an SNP/Green Government. If you are a white male run while you can it’s all your fault.And we will get you one way or another. Vote SNP 1 and 2 for a Scottish Green Government.
In summary organisations such as Engender have created the conditions were women now feel undervalued, ignored and actually feel under physical threat. That is some achievement.
Police Scotland have complied wth the EHRC guidelines. This means the perverts are going into the Beast Cage with other men! OOPS!
Dugdale is issued out of her mind. The issue being “ME”.
A Nicola Sturgeon interview on Monday on Stv. What happened to Operation Broadcroft, Operation Branchform and every other Operation since, No action including Operation Beetroot which is how Police Scotland have red faces having delivered nothing, including the FOIs on costs. This can’t go on.
Operation Beetroot’ love it.
In reference to ‘weak women ‘ I’d like to meet them. Every woman I’ve ever known is both smarter and stronger than I am.
@ Jim4Indy: your link at 5.49 to the Holyrood petition has worked! The number of signatures hadn’t moved all day and since your link was posted it has increased. Admittedly it’s not by hundreds but some is a lot better than none!
I am always surprised that these petitions etc don’t do much better. They are such good ideas and they would be welcomed by every type of reader, not only those of us who want Scotland to stop being a subservient country/nation. This petition would gain voters the direct power over politicians
@sarah – the petition is already under consideration – further signatures will make no difference.
I see that the “Call an immediate general election” petition is up to 445,552 signatures and rising by the second. Sorry for not giving the link but I can’t be arsed fighting with whatever unknown word filter I was obviously falling foul of… 🙄
Can you post the link Sarah, i don’t see it above.
link to petitions.parliament.scot
These petitions get no traction because they are a complete waste of time. Nobody serious thinks that incorporating the ICCPR into domestic law means the Scottish government is going to be forced to offer referendums on a whole range of subjects, certainly not the existence or otherwise of some quangos. The only way that anything is going to change is by websites like this highlighting the issue and for MSP’s to feel they risk losing a significant number of votes unless they do something about it.
@ Jim4Indy: Many thanks for posting the link at 5.49 to the Holyrood petition to incorporate the direct democracy provisions into Scottish legislation. It worked! Some more signatures have come since then, having been static all day.
This petition is such a good idea for all types of voter – not only independence supporters. It gives we voters power over the politicians at last. What’s not to like?
Funny how Sarah supposedly loves “direct democracy” yet rejects the results of the one instance of “direct democracy” we’ve had in Scotland–the Indy Referendum.
Hypocrisy is not confined to the SNP.
Hopefully the coverage of Sturgeon’s book (and there is going to be a lot of it) will make people ask why the Murrell trial hasn’t started yet.
The overrepresentation of certain groups in the SP has reduced the representation of the majority, not increased it. The SP is now becoming more and more distant from the folk it is there to represent.
Also, most folk don’t really care whether there MSP is black, white, green, has three legs, likes sheep or whatever.
They want them there to represent them and do the things that are best for them and their kin.
Nobody cares what sex or orientation an MSP is as long as they do their job well.
Positive discrimination just pisses folk off and increases the belief that they got where they are because of who or what they are, not because they are good aat what they do.
Tell us something we didn’t already know…
As seen in the Herald;
“Nicola Sturgeon has revealed that she has never considered her own sexuality to be “binary” despite spending most of her life in relationships with men.
The former First Minister has made the candid admission in her memoir ‘Frankly’, which is due to be published on Thursday – but has now been detailed in an extract published by The Times Newspaper.”
That’s one half of the lavender marriage outed…
It’s like something out of TV comedies’ Benidorm;
Peter – Fancy a French fancy and a smashing little rug to munch on?
Tricky Nicky – Oooooh yesss!
It’s access to the bairns they want. I spent a lot of money and time preventing Named Person being enacted. And ditto the GRRB which is still not enacted thank goodness. What you should know is the SNP won’t repeal the GRRB and they will claim that children have rights that superscede parental rights. No wonder by daughter hasn’t send her eldest daughter to school. A great decision. And that’s before we consider future leglisation on the fathers of these children. How about practical policies that advance the entire population. Isn’t that why the Scottish Parliament was set up?
Well done for putting time and money into trying to protect our youngsters, George. Your daughter is completely right to keep hers out of school whilst the evil brainwashing continues. I can’t understand teachers allowing poisonous material to be introduced into schools – not only allowing but also promoting it, in some cases.
Sturgeon says “Moreover, sexual relationships should be private matters.”
But yet she made sexual relationships to be the most important part of her Government policies.
Put yourself out there with a tome- like autobiography for profit and you renounce that right to privacy over a long publicly speculated matter and the influence it will have had on her now controversial career and particularly her policies..
I do not know what field of law she studied in and practised for a short while but the common held belief that lawyers are trained liars and defenders of the indefensible means her wishy-washy doublespeak isn’t going to cut it for her anymore.
Nowhere to hide now; not even in pal Vals closet..
“The real crime of fascism was the application to white people of colonial procedures” (Robin D G Kelley).
Falsch, falsch, falsch.
So Nicola Sturgeon gets to name her spontaneous abortion as Isla. What about the spontaneous abortion my wife suffered? Coincidentally my eldest Grandaugher is also called Isla. The one that doesn’t go to her State School because of Sturgeons policies. Be awake to the revision of history.
I don’t believe ANYTHING Sturgeon says or writes.
That post of yours at 9:45 Professor Baird makes no sense whatsoever.
So fascism is exclusively white and colonising?
Even on your terms, that’s a patently nonsensical argument.
The Japanese in WW2 were Asian Fascists and colonisers, I think they can safely be described as “non-white”.
There were also black admirers of Fascism in the US in the 1930’s.
Fascism was not founded upon racism, as Benito Mussolini made clear.
So your comment, like so many you, have made is pure bunkum.
Colonialism is “at root fascism” and always involves “hateful racism” (Cesaire) no matter who it is inflicted on.
As Du Bois wrote:
“..it was not until later that I realized that the colonialism of Great Britain and France had exactly the same object and methods as the fascists and the Nazis were trying clearly to use.”
Du Bois
These new names of yours keep coming out of the woods 🙂
Why not face facts, Alf.
Fascist and N@zi are code words for any individuals or groups you dislike, and the cause for dislike is often no more than a difference of opinion, usually a trivial one at that.
It’s a little less pathetically childish than labelling individuals you disagree with after genitals, or minority sexual practices, but not by much!
No Scottish, Irish, English or French coloniser ever set up an organised, mechanised, efficiently implemented system for the eradication of specific religions, races, sexual practices, political orientations, and susceptibility to certain inheritable, debilitating diseases.
You know that, yet you insist on making claims that are not true.
Why is that, Alf? Are you so lacking in faith that you have concluded Indy can only be achieved through lies?
As an academic you are aware that I prefer to rely on postcolonial theory, which explains colonial procedures built upon a mass of evidence as well as providing correct definitions. You can stick with ‘code words’ if you wish, but maybe better to find yersel a book?
One of the most critical contributions made by Cesaire was that: “civilization helps us locate the origins of fascism within colonialism”. England-as-Britain lead the pack there, with France and USA etc not far behind.
Black intellectuals such as W.E.B Du Bois also understood fascism “as a blood relative of slavery and imperialism, global systems rooted not only in capitalist political economy but racist ideologies that were already in place at the dawn of modernity”.
Hence the longstanding colonial exploitation of Scots (and others) is not merely economic, political, and cultural, it is at root a racist ideology.
“One of the most critical contributions made by Cesaire was that: “civilization helps us locate the origins of fascism within colonialism”. England-as-Britain lead the pack there, with France and USA etc not far behind.”
This is patent nonsense.
I note you studiously avoid dealing with Japanese Fascism, because it does not fit your theory, because obviously only white folks can be Fascists apparently.
*Any* empire can be labelled as “Fascist”, so again by your own yardstick, trying to pin things on just the French and British alone is absurd.
Presumably the Romans were Fascists using your definition, so they beat the English/British by some margin to be first in the field.
Scots also could be classed as being white Fascist colonisers, due to the “Plantation’s” in Ireland, predating the emergence of the British state.
Which torpedoes your very feeble case.
Good post, Stuart.
Meantime, Alf studiously ignores the largest empire by land mass currently existing – the RF.
A Caesar in Moscow ruling by personal decree more than 20 nations, countries, ethnic groups, former independent states and recently annexed colonies.
Obviously “fascist” yet still officially fighting the Second World War against their former allies – the supposed “fascists”.
As I wrote earlier, “fascist” is a meaningless, lazy catch-all insult hurled by the short-of-imagination at people who refuse to agree with them.
Stuart, your valid remark regarding Mussolini seems I think not widely known. I add support below from Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) who endured the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. (The family sheltered a Jewish woman.)
In his magnum opus “A New Critique of Theoretical Thought”, written in the decades after WW2, Dooyeweerd compares German and Italian fascism. A few quotes:
« Italian fascism was State-minded, whereas German national-socialism was folk-minded, an ideological difference on which the German nazis laid strong emphasis. »
« Mussolini’s statement in his quoted article on the Dottrina Fascista II,13: ‘The fascist State is a will to power and dominion’ (‘una voluntà di potenza e d’emperio’). It is the tradition of ancient Rome which is appealed to here. »
« Compare Mussolini’s statement in the the Enciclopedia ltaliana: ‘It is not the nation that creates the State, as was asserted in the naturalistic doctrine of the 19th century. But the nation is created by the State which only gives the people the consciousness of its own moral unity, a will, and therefore its real existence’. The German national-socialist doctrine of the nation as ‘a community of blood’, as a ‘racial community’, was unconditionally rejected by Mussolini. »
« There was a reminiscense of irrationalistic Romanticism in the German national-socialist ideology of the ‘pure racial community of blood of the German people’, though it was deprived of any Romantic idealism. It was connected with the old Germanic myth of a common descent claimed for all Germanic peoples. The mythology of Italian fascism, on the other hand, consciously fell back on the old idea of the eternal Roman empire. »
« Mussolini’s pronouncement at Naples in October 1922: ‘We have created a myth; a myth is a belief, a noble enthusiasm; it need not be a reality; it is an impulse and a hope, faith and courage. Our myth is the nation, the great nation, which we want to make into a concrete reality. »
« Their [ie such myths] essential aim was to elevate the historically developed nationality (the ‘cultural race’, or the ‘national State’ respectively) to a ‘spiritual power’. This power should be actual and always again be actualized and assume all-absorbing validity in the conviction of the people. […] The political myths also aimed at exorcizing powers that were alleged to be a menace to the deified nationality. »
« Cf. the Duce’s essay: My Thought on Militarism (1934): ‘The doom of a nation lacking a military spirit is sealed. For in the last instance it is war that is decisive in the relations between States. In my definition war is the supreme court of justice of the nations’. »
« In his famous article in the Enciclopedia Italiana on the Dottrina fascista (1932), Mussolini made the following observation as to fascism as a view of life and the world: ‘To fascism the cosmos is not that material world in which man is led by a law of nature’, and: ‘Fascism is a mental attitude born out of the general reaction of our century to the superficial and materialistic positivism of the 19th century’. This could be taken over literally by German national Socialism. »
“The doom of a nation lacking a military spirit is sealed”
If that is true, then surely Scotland is fecked.
link to theconversation.com
And Franky my dear. I couldn’t give a damn. Reject the modern words, you’re either straight. Bi gay or lesbian. And that’s it.
Sturgeon and her gender binary woke language is for weirdos.
She’s not HOT as Donald Trump describes WOKE for losers!
Hahaha.
And everyone here at Wings all knows, that the real worst day of Mrs Lavender: Sturgeon the Judas Handmaiden and destroyer of women’s rights. Was when the majority female Jury said Alex Salmond is innocent and free.
She’s forever in his shadow. And she drove him into an early grave with all of the stess.
I won’t be buying her book but I hope that JK Rowling does, and rips it to shreds so we don’t have to.
Or then perhaps the worst day of failed conspirator, and allegedly ex wife of the trouserer of missing 600K Mr Murrell. Was when gender self ID which passed in parliament was overturned by the nasty nasty big bad Tories!
What an embarrassment for the Scottish parliament that day was. She’s disgraced the country. And took one massive turd in Edinburgh
A horrible bigoted and corrupt clinical sociopathic loon, I hope we never see the likes of again. Lock her up!
What else can we say about Mrs Murrell and the Cornton Vale Diaries… there’s nothing nice I can say about her. She’s the swindler of Scottish Independence.
And she’s signed the deal to hand over ScotWind to the Swedish and Spanish States and foreign oil companies.
She hates this country.
She hates Scotland. I wish we could deport her and sent her to a Guantanamo Bay, lock her up with the Clintons and the war mongers in the deep state.
Update Rev.
Went to Sturgeons fake gig last night inda southside, with the amazing Ruglonian.
I challenged, I spoke up, somebody needed to say something. I was that guy. Sturgeon looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights… again.
I recorded the gig on my phone and I can share if ye like.
The snowflakes are everywhere, I saw it first hand.
Iona Fyfe was in the crowd.
She was sleeping most of the time.
IT. WAS. IMPORTANT. TO. SPEAK. UP.
Loved the reaction from the snowflakes…
I snowblinded Sturgeon.
Morning all. Herewith a statement that should gladden everyone’s hearts this morning.
Scottish Labour Finance spokesperson Michael Marra said “Labour is delivering for working people and making families across Scotland better off.
“From lowering mortgage costs to boosting pay, Labour is working tirelessly to put more money in people’s pockets – but we know the job isn’t done.
So there you are soaring taxes, slumping economic output, monstrous economic black hole and all wrapped up with cuts and soaring shop prices.
You’ve never had it so good. Britain’s new promised golden age is upon us. Better together even. And a post Brexit miracle.
Enjoy your cornflakes all!
The despair has come ower me… it will pass – but until it does, there’s this:
Tomorrow, perhaps, my thoughts might dance to a brighter air.
If you’re greetin intae yer dram, mind nae to dilute it too much.
NC just remember arseholes like Bastard Tax and his fellow Scotland haters HAVE to WIN every time WE only have to WIN ONCE, then we can DEPORT them to their glorious engerland or in Bastard Tax’s case glorious Is rahel
Calm doon. The assisted dying boys will be chapping your door soon enough.
Nae need to gie them cause tae put you on the priority list.
Alright Twat, I wouldn’t be getting so brave. I doubt you’re sober enough to deport me out of your own house.
You been skipping your medication again, twatboy ?
Aye, they Yoons don’t like it up ’em!
Three in a row – Bingo!
The sound of one hand clapping.
The whole woke bandwagon needs to be rooted out of public life, as do these women’s and gender studies in universities unless that are undertaken as part of a real sociological/psychological study of homosapiens. Every ‘trans’ affiliated organization, likewise. Where I do believe sex is important in politics is in consultation, due diligence, pre passing of legislation’s risk assessment and impact assessment. Because men are the default sex when it comes to public policy (through historical accident), women’s lives and experiences do need to be factored into all legislation. The ‘trans’ lobby would have fallen at the first hurdle had all those been done prior to the GRR Bill.
We need people with the skills required to govern, regardless of sex, and we need these people to be grown-ups with compassion for their fellow human beings, but not puppets of the tech and pharmaceutical industries, which, of course, have their place – just not in the corridors of power. Most politicians are the same, anyway, regardless of sex. They are a breed apart from the rest of us. I rather think they would have to be. Keyboard warriors attack women they see as weak (and men, ditto) but not because of any fundamental characteristic. They do it because the internet enables them to do so, usually anonymously. Cowards.
Massively cutting back on lobbying would go a long way to fixing many of the problems that the woke and their puppet masters have engineered to keep us from looking at the real issues facing all of humanity, regardless of sex, ethnicity, race, colour, creed or physical or mental ability, but holding politicians liable for their actions and decisions (unless mistakes that anyone could make) based on sheer pigheadedness and gross stupidity in the teeth of public disquiet.
Yes, female people were at a huge disadvantage in any public role until fairly recently in human history, but preferment based on any characteristic which is normally an accident of birth (apart from disability, of course, which may be met later in life) is doomed to failure because merit and ability are almost always set aside for the favoured characteristic, fatally weakening the entire political structure from top to bottom.
This upsets the balance of society and leads to unnecessary strains that can tear it apart as we are seeing now from the ‘trans’ lobby being pushed to the fore. In the past, we had people of stature in politics as well as the pygmies – statesmen and women, although, to be fair, more statesmen than women – whereas now, we have only the pygmies, with anyone with indicators that show they could be someone of stature, of ability, of leadership, being crushed out of existence. Suicidal empathy is no substitute for hard facts and pragmatism, nor for innate ability and competence in office, and jealousy and envy of others is no substitute either.
Having read the Scottish law Society comments years ago, it was interesting to read that just because Westminster altered the text or repealed acts from the treaty of union did not mean that Westminster had any legal right to do so without breaching the treaty of union itself.
The problem is that Westminster has made the personal decision to hold on to bits of the treaty of union and to dismiss the articles that ties its hands,
Of course it is not a treaty of union if only one side has decided to Colonise the articles of union to itself.
The breaches are manifold, and wreckless,
It fails to capture Scots or Scotland, it breaches what it once had, it manipulates words and sentences, and selectively turns the treaty into old guff parchment where it requires and retains the rest whereby It surmises that is enough to hold Scotland.
But the treaty of union is not just the Articles of union, they are and include the terms and preconditions set out to prepare and bind the treaty.
The conditions to be maintained under which a treaty can be agreed or will maintain that treaty in the future if the conditions are upheld.
Then we come to the article that were agreed themselves that are unalterable.
One of those is ….Scots laws was to remain in Scotland as per pre-union.
Another is that…..Scots have private rights for the evident utility of the Scottish people,
And that the monarch would defend ‘the faith and protect its people….
To name but a select few,
To study one of those which undoubtable is being breached at the moment by all parties,
Is the article on….Scottish Private Rights….which is solely for use in Scotland, by the Scottish people.
Private rights would include how you think, as it comes from your person from inside your head, from a Scottish perspective,
To try capture that under public right or government right , interferes with that evident utility that is for the use of the Scottish people….. Not for the use of any government including the devolved Government,
The fact is it is a…..Scottish peoples right ……wrote out, agreed and part of the treaty of union.
That the SNP have run over this “article” by law with a barge pole when bringing in the Hate Crime bill in Scotland or gender rights in Scotland or protection of a Scottish peoples private personable – private data around banking and sharing digital information to be contained and restricted within Scotland for the use of private rights of Scottish people has been ignored,
That the Private Rights for the evident utility of the Scottish people was not to be used by or for the purpose of Government, which use is obvious,
But for the private use of people of Scotland only.
There are a number of positions that can be held the treaty of union between Scotland andd England.
1)
That it is/was a International treaty between Scotland and England, was unalterable, and lasted until 1801/1802.
2)
That is not a international treaty of union at all and is was therefore faux.
3)
That the treaty was a colonising treaty of union and therefore subsumed Scotland by England,
4)
That the treaty of union between Scotland and England is spent or voided due to it being old nonsense wrote on old parchment paper that no one recognises or takes notice of anymore.
However it cannot be all of them,
There is no doubt that the devolved government could be challenged on private rights for the evident utility of the Scottish people. If the treaty of union is not Faux, but is genuine, and did not end in 1801/1802.
Because Scots laws that were to be retained after the treaty were to be the same as prior to the treaty of union, and the treaty of union itself confirmed and made Private Rights for the evident utility of Scottish people part of Scotlands Constitution,
and agreed to by England during ratification as terms and conditions.
And no article in the treaty of union allows for more than one and the same parliament of Great Britain,
As an interesting and additional piece of information,
There is no Pre- term conditions, agreement or article of the 1707 Treaty of union that is capable of changing the Nationality of Scots to be that of British without breaching the treaty of union between the Scots and the English,
This paper puts me in mind of the (presumably now ex-) lecturer from Manchester who wrote a paper on what it felt like after wanking to child porn.
Probably got a job with “Aidan” and the 77th in “Fifeshire”.
Lets presume that the 1707 treaty of union is an International treaty,
And let us also presume that the treaty of union did not end in 1801/1802.
For the sake of argument we will also have to presume, that Englands side of the treaty of union cannot systematically destroy Scotlands side of the international treaty without destroying the invented “State of Great-Britain” first.
The “State of Great- Britain” or its invented parliament cannot subsume Scotland while in a international treaty with Scotland, again without destroying its own self.
So in this first scenario that Great – Britain and its parliament would not exist without Scotlands side of the International treaty of union still being a ” live entity today ” and in a equal in that 1707 treaty of union.
Second scenario,
That the 1707 union was not an International treaty of union at all and therefore Westminster parliament is the parliament of England and Wales,
That if it is faux as a international treaty of union then Scotland has no monarch or parliament at present, and has not had since Charles 11.
If it is not a international treaty of union it is not binding in any way on Scotland other than asking for reparations for being Colonised for hundreds of years by England,
The third scenario.
Places England and Scotland in the same geographical and political position as the second.
A colonised Scotland.
The forth scenario,.
This position is interesting in that some modernist claim that the treaty of union is so old and useless it is no longer recognised by other Countries,
In this case there would be no Great- Britain any longer, no parliament of Great- Britain,
The created State of Great Britain would be spent and voided. Along with the old parchment paper….
And yet they also simultaniously claim there is a 1707 international Treaty of union of sorts that holds Scotland to England to make Great- Britains United kingdom(S).
So for Great-Britain to exist until 1801/1802 there has to a recognised international political treaty of union by other Countries,
And that Englands political class and politicians in Westminster parliament could not dismiss, alter, change the words or repeal any part of it, be it minor or major.
Which includes,
trial by jury,
The royal burghs
Scots law.
Land mass boundaries
Sea boundaries,
Private rights,
Taxation.
Religion.
Monarchy. As monarch of England. by succession.
Scots laws on Treason ( see laws act 1708)
The devolved government.
Etc etc.
.
James: laws can be altered to take into account evolution of society. Every so often, a chosen jurist (Lord Stairs, Gordon, in the past) sets out to give the existing laws an overhaul. However, this is done normally within the existing legal system/structure (i.e. Scottish laws, both civil and criminal upgrades are carried out within the Scottish legal framework and system.
Much of what has passed for British Law (i.e. laws pertaining to all parts of the UK) usually have Scottish adjuncts tacked on to them, but are still binding in every part of the UK, including Scotland, albeit they begin life in Westminster and the Lords.
The Treaty was, without doubt, an international treaty between two independent, sovereign nation states, and the celebrations were attended by many invited ambassadors from the European and other nations as witnesses to the event. This never occurs in normal passing of legislation.
That almost every Article has been breached unilaterally by England-as-the-UK is, again, indisputable. Therefore, the breachings have been ultra vires (beyond the power of the law; illegitimate; illegal). Devolution itself is illegal because England did not devolve as a country at the same time as the rest of the UK, breaching the very spirit of the Treaty.
That the Treaty was confirmed in the 18th century is neither here nor there in international law, and Scotland was not subsumed. Just because England started immediately to breach the Treaty did not make it a subsumption; it made it a serious breach of faith and legality on the part of England. What is of even greater concern, given Albion’s well-deserved reputation and propensity for perfidy, is that the Scots acquiesced in every breaching, or, if they did object, it was a mere whimper of protest.
England wanted Scotland as its reinforced backdoor in the 18th century; and England, having, by far, the largest population per capita of the four UK parts; and the double jeopardy of Scotland in providing warriors and administrators in roughly equal numbers, it can be no surprise to anyone that England began to push the boundaries. What is far more unforgivable is the fact that the Scots (the elites) rolled over so easily, like a puppy wanting its belly stroked – and that they continue to do so. That is our real problem, not England. It was only when Ireland began to understand that its release from the Union with Britain was in its own hands did movement start to occur towards independence. That was a painful journey for the Irish, and it will be no less painful for us.
Lorn,
You are correct that laws can change over time, However treaties are a entirely different matter,
The laws surrounding these issues are pretty static, treaties are usually more binding and in that sense a Westminster parliament alone cannot alter, change wording or repeal a treaty between two Countries.
It cannot take that treaty to become its own, it cannot colonise the treaty itself, it cannot even claim to be a Parliament of Great Britain or the State of Great Britain.
Without Scotlands side of the treaty upheld to Englands,
But history tells us that these contrary actions are those that Westminster parliament and its politicians have been taken since the treaty was first signed, as I referenced in the treason act 1708.
Which contradicts that Scots law should remain the same after the treaty of union as prior to the political treaty of union,
Most of the laws that have been altered or repealed are the Scots laws, by acts of law reform ( Scotland
But undoubtable England used Westminster parliament as a continuation of the parliament of Englands old parliament and even used the same members.
I have never made the Claim that Scotland was subsumed, that is a unionist claim often repeated that I quoted.
But here we must recognise the difference between the laws that are domestic and the legal gap jump to treaty laws,
Treaty laws cannot be changed without mutual consent of both party parliaments.
Unfortunately the parliament of Scotland was dissolved down South and Sine die in Scotland.
And Englands continued, with the same members resting in Westminster parliament along with the crown of England.
Does that cement the international treaty of political union that was agreed?
Does that allow England Westminster parliament to delete Scots law ?, to remove any treaty that Scotland may hold ? to change Scotlands borders, to banish the Scots native tongue, their national dress or weapons, universities and education, as these thing took place after the so called union.
That is whereby the instance of 1707 political parliamentary treaty of union with England became the treaty of union with England. Until…on 1801/1802. When the Anglo- Ireland treaty was signed,
It forgot to inform Scotland that it was dropped during that Ireland treaty with England but quickly added on great britain afterwards,
Nevertheless, my point is as follows, If the international political parliamentary 1707 treaty of union between Scotland and England is to be upheld as a treaty in reality,
Then those terms, conditions and articles cannot be Altered by internal domestic laws made by the Westminster parliament of great britain which only exists due to a union with Scotland, Westminster is unable to repeal or alter a International treaty on its own under domestic law,
Scotland has no parliament and no parliament members to sign or counter sign to any such agreement,
So England would have to acknowledge, that the treaty of union was ended in 1801/ 1802. When it ( Westminster parliament ) made and signed up to the Anglo– Irish treaty,
Is that particular instance the could have had a covering law for all GB without repealing Scots law, the Scots law
No, James, I know you did not say that Scotland was subsumed. Professor Black said that recently. I agree that international treaties are not so easily changed, but they can be if the circumstances demand it because societies do evolve over time and that needs to be taken into consideration. The fundamental aspects of the Articles remain static, however.
The Acts of Union are not the basis of the Union; only the Treaty is. The Acts are secondary legislation, the Treaty being the primary legislation, and they translated the Treaty into domestic law. They had and have, in reality, no power to change the fundamentals of the Treaty. Secondary legislation cannot, unilaterally, override primary legislation. Everyone should understand that from the EU treaties.
The Anglo-Irish Treaty was actually the Great Britain and Ireland Treaty (1800), and we were also a party to it, if it is accepted that the Treaty of Union exists. The 1921 Treaty, also between Great Britain and Ireland established the Irish Free State (ceding NI to GB). We have to accept that we have been party to all treaties made between GB/UK and other states since 1707. We also need to accept that we are going nowhere without a fight, although that need not be a physical conflict as it was in Ireland, but it will take a resolute backbone and great mental acuity to negotiate with rUK. At the moment, we simply have no one with the requisite political ability to do so, and nor will we have so long as the woke remain in positions of influence in Scotland, weakening us at every level.
It is going to take a UDI and then negotiations to get us out of the Union, having first established that a majority of our people want to resile the Treaty and end the Union – and I think that is entirely feasible with the right people to lead us. Sadly, no one appears to have the backbone to do so, and the woke still call the tune, with no one standing up to them. Have been saying this for so long, I am quite wearied.
To all intents and purposes the laws of Treaties cannot be altered, repealed or rectified by the domestic internal law of the new State, that the treaty created.
Correct, James. They just banked on no one up here knowing that or, failing that, not caring.
The Westminster parliament of Great Britain that was created by a treaty between two Countries until 1801/02 applied itself as a working continuation parliament of England and Wales,
Mentally presuming that the 1707 treaty belonged to the parliament of England and Wales under a new brand name.
And the Anglo-Ireland treaty confirms this stance, tacking on their new rebrand name of Great Britain as if the Anglo – parliament had acquired Scotland after the treaty with Ireland was made.
Other instances occur that ones attention should be drawn to,
The Bank of England never became the bank of Great Britain, Nor did it share the treasury of England, it always remained the bank of England, and is still known as the bank of England today.
Meanwhile the mint for Scots money was closed, which was supposed to remain in Scotland, but equalise.
How does Scotland share National debt with the Bank of England and the Treasury of England.
It is not just in a name, the Bank of England was never the bank of Great Britain, like wise the Treasury was never the treasury for all of Great Britain.
At some point the politicians and Westminster parliament of England thought it had acquired Scotland through a treaty and they could alter, repeal, or use that treaty as its own weaponised tool over Scotland,
Except it is supposed to be an International treaty of political union between two parliamentary Countries.
It makes a joke of the word treaty, that is why I hold the persistent view that the treaty is a Faux treaty. It follows none of the required protocol to uphold a treaty, and none is followed, as a Treaty it is abused, colonised and weaponised by Westminster parliament.
However we can follow their thought processes.
If the 1707 treaty of union is not being recognised as a International treaty and none of the protocols for a treaty are recognised by Westminster parliament, where does that leave the Monarchy of England?
Devolution is illegal because it is not (one and the same parliament) as stated in the treaty of union articles,
They are in two different Countries, under two different names,
In a sense Scotland is still rolling over when it does not contest or call out these breaches of the treaty of union,
For undoubtable this is the way forward for Scotland especially since 1802, although Salvo is doing great work on our behalf , it is up to the Scottish people to start the list of breaches and to call this one out.
There are as many Scots that are unionist as there are as many Scots whom are ignorant of these breaches.
Do they not wonder how or why their money and taxes are not Shared but go to the treasury of England and thus the bank of England.
Not the Bank of Great Britain,
Do they not wonder why they pay for a national debt into the coffers of England structure,
WHAT SCOTS DO FOR OTHERS,
«William Paterson was a Scottish trader and banker. He was a founding member of the Bank of England and was one of the main proponents of the catastrophic Darien scheme. Later he became an advocate of union with England» from Wikipedia.
John Law, a taker of risks, encouraged the French to establish a national bank which they did, more or less. He proposed the foundation of a Scottish national bank, an idea rejected in favour of union with England. His tombe is in the church of San Moisè in Venice.
How many have actually heard of either i wonder?
TURABDIN.
The bank of England had stronger connections to the East India Company first.
And for all that is still the Bank of England, not the Bank of Great Britain.
The treaty of union agreed to a bank of Scotland and a Scottish mint, (although a lot of people get confused with the Royal bank of Scotland, they are not one and the Same),
Regardless of this, for decades money from Scotland goes into the bank and treasury of England,
TURABDIN,
However, I agree with you that Scotland often seems to be the brains in general, while Certain parts of England cheat at their homework.
At the moment only one bank benefits from being the bank of England, just as the benefits of being the treasury to England does,
These establishment are not pooling and Sharing under or as part of the treaty of union, but they would and are quick enough to ask for Scots money for taxes for the treasury and would be equally quick enough to ask for National Debt sharing with Scotland,
The Barnett formula is akin to paying a bank overdraft to the Bank of England which no one in Scotland asked for. With interest.
Why do Scots think its ok to be cheated by these breaches of the treaty, then still pretend that its Englands fault that they won’t let us go,
Not knowing about breaches to the treaty is one thing.
But knowing about the breaches and being complicit is another.
This ‘report’ is a veritable cornucopia of bollocks.