Wings Over Scotland

May kicking the Brexit can all the way to the next Scottish Elections. (But only if the EU let her away with it).

Credit where it’s due. Very insightful, well done!

2019..the year of the long stare off into the distance.

Is it Halloween yet?

Stu writes:

So one way or another, we’d have been looking at a decisive resolution to the situation within a matter of months.

I wish that were true. But in present circumstances, I don’t believe a UKGE will solve anything, alas. Just compound the difficulties. Who can Remainers in England vote for? Would Corbyn do any better than May? Really?

The way I see it no-one does forward planning or thought and ‘strategists’ employed by political parties are being paid for what?

Labour just agree to most things in Westminster as seen in their rush to vote for article 50 without putting forward a plan. Of course the heid bummers wanted BRexit!

Good article Stu. 😀

The ups and downs of the Westminster Magic Roundabout.

Can I have some of Dylan’s teacakes please?

As you’ve previously stated Rev, there’ll be no GE as things stand.
But, I do wonder, from Corbyn’s point of view) if he declared publicly for EUref2 if that might actually destabilise the situation enough to make a GE happen.
The problem at the moment is one party, officially at least, offering something nobody wants with a leader who everyone is sick of against a party that’s offering nothing of any substance with a leader you wouldn’t trust to run a bath.
If Labour became the vehicle for Remain support to get behind it may just make something happen.
Which is what Scotland needs because from the rather jaded mood on these pages lately, it’s obvious we’re stuck until this Brexit log jam is shifted.

political sunamis are rare in england, the fall of the libdems being the last smallish one.

however, brexit has pissed off loads of folk, both tory and lab.

i think in the up coming ge we will see exactly that. traditional labour voters who generally dont give much thought to politics at all, (ma faither voted lab etc) may well switch to a no deal supporting tory party. traditional tory voters, farmers and business types may well switch to labour.

many may not vote at all

many may switch to smaller parties, eg greens and libdems.

the upshot will be that while such an event may not win the greens and the libdems more seats, it may effect result and decide who actually wins any particular seat.

so unless either the tories or labour open up a sustained lead in the polls (which are fluctuating wildly at the mo) it is going to be extremely difficult for psephologists to predict the outcome. previous election results will be much less reliable as a possible indicator.

(the reason i didnt mention ukip/BP is because if there is a ge, treeza will resign and the next tory leader will almost certainly pro no deal brexit. ukip/BP would not stand in such a case, they would probably join the tory party)

I agree galamcennalath….

England’s Westminster only want brexit if they can force Northern Ireland Scotland and wales to do the same, Wales was easy they voted for brexit.
England know that if Scotland becomes independent the follow up will be the reunification of Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland and then wales may well seek independence too followed by Gibraltar.

Scotland’s oil and gas and fishing rights are important to England too not just for the resource but for negotiation as we have seen in the brexit negotiations.

Where are we now ?
Sadly Nicola Sturgeon is saying nothing which disappoints me greatly ,there have been so many people asking why she is using up so much time and energy trying to reverse England’s vote to leave the E.U. and yet she says nothing about that ?

Odd

I still believe that when you choose a political leader, you must stay with them as long as possible.
To give them every possible opportunity to carry out the task they were elected to do.
So for now I’m sticking with Nicola Sturgeon.

Sometimes politics requires a politician to keep their intentions secret until the time is right to release , I just hope that is why we have heard nothing about this matter from Nicola Sturgeon alternatively I hope that it turns out that I have misinterpreted matters.

I just hope “the plan” as a whole is not “keeping the UK in the E.U.”

Nicola Sturgeon was not elected as SNP leader “to keep the UK in the E.U.”

Nicola Sturgeon was elected to lead the cause for Scottish independence and was given the mandate to call another Scottish independence referendum if Scotland was taken out of the E.U. against its will which does not include overturning England’s decision to leave the E.U.

We will see.

I wouldn’t be so quick to write off May’s election as a total disaster. Yes, she did forfeit her majority and suffer a dependency on the DUP because of it, but it is difficult to ignore the fact the Election result did give the SNP a shock, forced a strategic rethink upon them, and despite the occasional noise, Theresa May has had an easy run for her Brexit in the context of disruption from Scotland. She might argue the dark money was well spent.

I don’t believe it for a minute, but if Theresa May and Nicola actually had done a deal to put Independence on the back burner, just until Brexit was “steadied”, it is difficult to see what events would have unfolded any differently. What resistance there has been has been excruciatingly pedestrian.

Scotland could easily have secured a Constitutional backstop based upon our Constitutional sovereignty to match Ireland’s, but the SNP has shown no appetite for pursuing such a thing. Not SNPBAD, but statement of fact.

When Mike Russell appears to suggest IndyRef2 is dependent upon Westminster’s cooperation, it doesn’t sit easily beside Ian Blackford’s assertions about Scotland’s sovereignty being ascendant. But in wider context, it is Ian Blackford who seems to lack consistency with the previous three years of relative caution and timidity from the SNP. Who knows? All we are treated to is more enigmatic kite flying.

I have tried my best to think positive thoughts about a People’s Vote and second EU referendum, but can’t avoid the anxious belief we have simply boarded the wrong bus.

A lot is going to depend on the SNP conference, because faith in Nicola as this master tactician who has everything under control is getting a little threadbare.

I hope I’m wrong, if the SNP Conference chooses to focus on EU elections which might not even happen, rather than aligning itself with Ian Blackford’s Constitutional escape from Brexit, then I fear the disappointment will be very damaging. There is a point when being an enigma ceases to be convincing. As a strategy, it is leaving the grassroots strength of YES2014 sidelined and politically malnourished. I see no genius in that.

Try as I might, it is difficult to account for a 6% rise for support for the Greens with 1.2% rise for the SNP as a quasi protest vote for Indy supporters who want more from the SNP.

Terry callachan

Sometimes politics requires a politician to keep their intentions secret until the time is right to release ,

Nicola Sturgeon was not elected as SNP leader “to keep the UK in the E.U.”

Nicola Sturgeon was elected to lead the cause for Scottish independence
—————————–

leading the cause of independence means getting more than 45%, convincing the 55% to switch from no to yes. the PV is a popular idea amongst the 55%. support for a policy which will never happen which at the same time increases support for yes is an example of a politician keeping their intentions secret.

the campaign for a PV will die the death the moment a ge is announced

The SNP would still have had 54 MP’s, and 50% of the vote, the claim of ‘now is not the time’ would have been impossible to maintain. The reduction of SNP MP’s gave Theresa May breathing space regarding Scotland as she could claim the SNP had lost support. It didn’t matter they were still the largest party the narrative was to be they had lost seats, the MSM were given their instructions and have stuck to them.

I think we remember that during the 15-17 period the MSM decided that every SNP MP they could smear they would. Only one has come to anything, strangely now back on the Herald website front page.

I think we need to look at Theresa May. No, really!

In her mind she’s the best and the only one to steer the UK through these difficult times, she’s Thatcher, she’s Churchill, the weight of the UK is on her shoulders.

From that point of view, her revolting party is second, despite what everyone says. She wants to be in the history books. For the Tories it might be all about the Tories, but for her, it’s about the UK – and her perhaps.

That’s my Devil’s Advocate hypothesis!

My usual fee of £squillions per hour is, I presume, in the post.

Orri says:

16 April, 2019 at 1:59 pm

[…]

However I rather suspect that when they were pre merger they simply sold out Scotland without any actual input, regardless of how diluted, into the Conservative Party of England and Wales. Simply took the whip and voted regardless of the mandate they stood on.

______

Point of order for future reference. Of course it’s a Branch Office, but the Welsh Conservatives (yuk!) are actually apart from the English Conservatives. Doesn’t mean to say they don’t do HQ’s bidding, mind.

_______

Robert J. Sutherland says:

16 April, 2019 at 2:02 pm

[…]

Who can Remainers in England vote for? Would Corbyn do any better than May? Really?

_______

My problem in a nutshell. Although have been ‘in exile’ for less than 15 years here in England and a Member of both PC and SNP I can not vote for them. (Ex-pats overseas for less than 15 years, can …)

We have already received our voting cards for the Local elections here in England (3 May) and unless I can think of something better, I’m going to vote Green (of England and Wales – no devolution there) or spoil my paper.

What do you advise?

Breeks says:
16 April, 2019 at 2:54 pm
I wouldn’t be so quick to write off May’s election as a total disaster. Yes, she did forfeit her majority and suffer a dependency on the DUP because of it, but it is difficult to ignore the fact the Election result did give the SNP a shock, forced a strategic rethink upon them
————–

this is correct, however it is worth looking at the actual voter numbers, rather than the % or number of mps elected

2015 turnout 66.4%
snp 1,454,436
lab 707,147
tory 434,097
lib 219,675

2017 turnout 71.1%
snp 977,569
tory 757,949
lab 717,007
lib 179,061

labour increased by a paltry 10k, no real increase on the 2015 result

lib dems lost votes, but in line with lower turn out

tories increased their support by ~30%

the biggest causualty was us. our voters didnt turn up. it was pissing with rain that day if i remember.

the tories didnt even produce a manifesto, or even a leaflet with the word tory on it, just ruth davidson saying no means no, now is not the time etc.

however shallow this ploy was/is, it resonated with the unionist voters. it got out their vote

I canvassed right across my constituency using our normal canvas sheet question, eg, who did you vote for last time who will you vote next time etc, but it was the last question on the sheet about ndyref2 which drew the biggest intake of breath. that the unionists said no was expected but it was the reaction of snp voters (and even a few members) which was the greatest surprise. with brexit dominating their replies. they were luke warm towards the idea of indyref2 at that moment.

it was brexit they were more concerned about.

this is only a personal anecdote, nothing scientific, but i believe this was one of the main reasons (that and voter fatigue) why we failed to get out our vote.

we failed right across scotland to get our our supports and why nicola parked indyref2 (rightly so) until the brexit goat rodeo at wm comes to a conclusion. she continues to make the right noises while the uk media is desperate to focus on anything other than brexit in scotland, and when they do it is usually some lame attempt to blame us for the brexit failure. This wont wash, the tories and perhaps even labour will end up owning this fiasco, not the snp.

nicola should carry on as she has been doing, (keeping indyre2 off the table) it is treeza that will be forced to blink first, by her own party. it is treeza that has run out of places to hide, not us

ps
2015
snp 18k
lib 14k

2017
snp 14k
lib 14k

we still won but by only 2 votes 🙂

The Tory support has just started falling. So even a GE now might have still left the Tories in (coalition?) power. Back to square one. Even with the Brexit shambles. Another few years of this the Tories will be finished. The average Tory member is male over seventy. Not much hope for them.

Scotland will be off to Independence. Nae more Tories to muck up the economy. Labour are finished in Scotland. Win, win.

Arbroath1320 says:
Now some folks may call me a cynic but could history be repeating itself here perhaps?
—————

no it wont since she has already told the tory mps she wont lead them into another ge.

she has failed to pass her deal 3 times in the commons, fought and won an internal tory party vonc and a hoc vonc.

her latest wheeze is to appeal to corbyn for help, even though it is destroying he own party. 2 tory mps are publicly calling for another hoc vonc.

her last chance is corbyn and her jointly agreeing a deal. I cant see him doing that, why would he?

vonc are a numbers game, the phones will be ringing off the hook, once corbyn and treeza know that corbyn has a majority. she will resign, probably towards the end of the holidays in 10 days

why on earth would the snp announce indyref2 before then?

I DON’T THINK WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN ANY DIFFERENT POSITION IF THERE HAD NOT BEEN AN ELECTION IN 2017. FOR ONE SIMPLE REASON THE ERG WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THE SAME THING AND NOT VOTING FOR THE DEAL AS I THINK THERE ARE AROUND 60 OF THEM.

yesindyref2 says:
She will hold on tooth and nail, already has.
—————-

yes, but only until she cant. if corbyn walks out of the talks what will she do then?

she contested 2 vonc already because she believed she could win, and she was right.

what happens when the whips show her that she cant win? what then?

that’s when she will down the liquorice torpedo 🙂

Thanks for the link Ronnie (4:57pm). A real damning indictment re. Westminster democracy (what’s that?) from Alyn Smith.

Petra and the SNP are sitting on their arses doing nothing , thats wan in the eye fur the Implement the Mandate Brigade

Still not found a full conflict theory analysis of Brexit, though I am finding lots of interesting stuff. What to post first, some International Relations Theory or something more along the lines of an integrative theory of intergroup conflict? Decisions, eh? 🙂

link to ft.com

Phurp phurp phurp Sphincters tightening in the City of London , hope they have invested in toilet paper .

Briandoonthetoon dont you be offering to help them oot from your stash .

OK, let’s start with a wide-angle view.

Battling prejudice in Europe

Prejudice is not necessarily the result of conflicting interests, poverty and unemployment. It is more likely fueled by perceptions of illegitimacy, pushed forward by far-right politics.

link to opendemocracy.net

David Cameron thought he could resolve internal Tory party difference through opening the British constitution to attract by far-right populism. The Tories have a hell of a lot to answer for, so it’s just as well that that is exactly where most Tories will end up. In a metaphorical if not spiritual sense anyway.

Brexit: the day of reckoning for the neo-functionalist paradigm of European Union

The unprecedented geopolitical shift resulting from Brexit reflects deep socio-economic fault lines within and beyond the UK. In many ways foreshadowing the US presidential election of Donald Trump, Brexit brought to the surface and gave a public voice to socio-economic divisions that were deeply embedded, sometimes illogical, but until now had either been ignored or hushed out of ‘respectable’ public debate.

This Discussion Forum emanates from a spontaneous seminar organized 2 days after the Brexit vote on June 25, 2016 as part of the SASE conference held in University of California–Berkeley and followed by an open call for papers by Socio-Economic Review. The papers here draw attention to the origins of the Brexit vote in deep-seated socio-economic divisions (O’Reilly), widening differences in economic performance across sectors and regions of the UK (Froud, Sukhdev and Williams) and the growth of poor quality jobs (Warhurst). Meanwhile, the political dynamics of the Brexit vote were also shaped by the fractured nature of UK business elites (Morgan), divisions between locals and cosmopolitans (Grey) and creative but muddled actions of elites that arguably generated consequences they themselves failed to fully anticipate (Wood and Wright).

From the perspective of Europe, Brexit reflects a history of dysfunctional economic policy in Europe that prioritized market competition in ways that neglected and ultimately undermined solidarity (Boyer). Here, Brexit reflects a political strategy to both renationalize and recommodify solidarity in the face of fears over migration, and which are likely to have major consequences for social solidarity in Europe more generally (Frerichs and Sankari). However, Brexit is unlikely to provide a durable social and political solution to the wider tensions between globalization and democracy, which also affect all countries throughout Europe (Rona-Tas). Ultimately, the Brexit vote underlines social divisions that combine class inequalities with regional ones, not just in Britain but throughout Europe (Le Galès).

link to robertboyer.org

Interesting that Alyn Smith in the YouTube clip (thanks Ronnie) makes a point of asking for international observers to supervise a European Parliamenary election in the UK to ascertain that they are conducted fairly.
This suggests very publickly that this is not the case in our elections which many of us recognise. In the event of another Indyref, there would be even more need for international supervision to prevent things like the last minute Vow, the dodgy postal votes etc.

Terry callachan at 2.48

The best position for us to campaign for independence from is from a UK that has cancelled Brexit. It removes the nawbags scare tactic of a “hard border between Scotland and England”.

I can assure you that Nicola and the SNP’s attempt to save England from itself is having a very productive effect with a lot of previous NO voters and particularly among the English vote in Scotland. I am meeting them every day expressing support for a sensible independent Scotland.

And if Brexit actually happens againat our best efforts our support will rocket up.

Meanwhile lots and lots of work is going on behind the scenes. Be ready to be surprised.

OK, that clip make me think a bit of International Relations Theory is needed to help re-edumicate Scotland’s leftist No voters. IMHO, the EU in intrinsically more democratic than Westminster and British parliamentarian practice. It respects territorial sovereignty, though this can bring it in to conflict with the EU’s supportive position re. the human rights of individuals and peoples (see Catalonia).

Globalisation, Agency, Theory:
A Critical Analysis of Marxism in Light of Brexit

Introduction

There has long been a vivid debate about the growing interconnection of the world into a global system of interaction referred to as globalisation.[1] Two centuries ago, Marx and Engels postulated that the global expansion of capitalism would lead to a “universal interdependence of nations”[2] through which national differences become homogenised under a ruling bourgeoisie that “creates a world after its own image.”[3] The Marxist debate on globalisation and its effect on the nation-state has come a long way since, and yet, it still centres around the question of whether growing economic interconnectedness automatically leads to a transnationalising process that gradually surpasses the nation-state, or whether instead, the fragmented character of the nation-state system is an inherent feature of capitalist modernity.[4]

This paper sets out to critically review these two main strands of the Marxist globalisation debate. The structure of this essay is as follows. Firstly, part one introduces Robinson’s theory of a global capitalist state formation and the decline of inter-state rivalry, which, to some extent, resembles Marx and Engels’ argument above. However, the essay argues that inter-societal fragmentation undoubtedly persists in the contemporary age of globalisation, which has only recently been illustrated with the British decision to exit from the European Union (Brexit). The second part then introduces the theory of ‘new imperialism’ advanced by Callinicos, who seeks to explain the persistence of geopolitical competition.

Here, the essay supports the argument that a Marxist theory of the relationship between capitalism and the inter-state system must be able to take account of the centrifugal pulls of geopolitics, which demands the integration of the international as a determining feature in the analysis. However, in the following, it is argued that it is not enough to simply add the international as an external determinacy, as suggested by Callinicos.[5] Rather, in order to make sense of the complex socio-economic reality that shapes historically situated actors’ decision-making, the international must be re-integrated into an analysis of the social, as proposed by the theory of uneven and combined development (U&CD).[6]

The third and last section of the essay is then applying this prior established critique to a case study of Brexit, in order to show that, while the theory of new imperialism enables the conceptualisation of the EU as an imperialist project in which national interests are at play, Callinicos’ ‘realist moment’ is unable to explain the complex social dynamics involved Britain’s decision to leave the EU.

link to e-ir.info

Reluctant Nationalist
Why do you want to know?

Cameron B Brodie

I can say quite categorically that RN didn’t attend the Dow’s Wingers night out, did you meet anyone with that name , i already know your answer to that .

DMH @6.45pm

Good post.

There has never been an ounce of doubt that there has been an immense amount of work being done out of the public glare, by the Scotsgov, i totally agree with you there.

Nicola has not been sightseeing on her trips to europe, well, not just sightseeing …!

If England’s ever increasing right wing population ever realise that brexit has not happened because a Tory gov is petrified of losing Scottish resources, after 3 centuries of telling England they subsidise Scots and Scotland, they will be mightily unimpressed to put it mildly.

I posted as such recently to an excellent post by Maria F on here.
………

maria F 3.48pm

Good post maria F, and totally agree that Ukexit has long since been about getting a ‘brexit’ that England wants, without losing the Scottish resources, by us gaining enough support for independence, because of our clear objection and rejection of leaving the EU.

The SNP have been busy for a couple of years now, whittling away at the options for WM trying to stop ukexit driving Scots indy.

The Continuity Bill highlighted brilliantly that WM think they can walk over Scots Law by employing “sleekit” means, but the reality is, Scots Law was indeed subjugated, as The Queen had no right to give the Wrecking Bill Royal Assent before the Scots Law Bill (Continuity).

Sleekit means is still subjugation, it just moved to being sleekit subjugation.

That alone is reason for Sovereign Scots to p unt Betty.

The thing is though, WM knows that was not going to fly later in international courts, as once they are informed that the Queen had a LEGAL duty to protect the interests of Scots Law and CHOSE to allow WM to employ sleekit means, and not only that, SHE enabled them by giving Royal Assent priority to the wrecking bill, they will have no option but to rule with Scotsgov on that one.

And that means that the international courts, must find the Treaty of Union in full and open breach, and Holyrood is recognised as the government of the now independent, Scotland.

If WM think they are on strong legal ground re: over ruling Scots Law/Sovereignty of the Scots People, and simply saying ‘No’ to a Section 30 and tough titty, then why do they not simply ‘get on’ with a No Deal ukexit ?

Simply, because they KNOW the legal position they sit on, is just not legally competent and will be eviscerated by a Scottish gov/parliamentary presented case to the international courts/bodies.

WM is crippled by fear of losing Scotland’s revenues, and are apopletic with rage over Scotsgov refusal to show its hand too early, allowing WM to find more ‘sleekit’ ways to circumvent our case for indy.

There is only ONE route WM can take, which allows them a hope of keeping Scotland tied to the Union.

A Section 30 referendum, at a time of Scotsgov choosing, and on Scotland’s terms to the fore.

Thanks to some great work over the last few years by the SNP (and others-revoke A.50 case) there are ZERO other scenario’s which do not involve the Scotsgov having the right to simply dissolve the Treaty of Union for subjugation of Scots Law (Continuity Bill) subjugation of Scots Sovereign Will (ANY ukexit) EVEL (denial of legally equal union partner status) amongst others.

Even if Nicola writes to Treeza and states “We will be having an indyref on xyz day / date, with a S.30 order” and treeza tries her “now is not the time” patter, then its off to Holyrood and a dissolution motion as the United Nations charters, which WM is a signatory to, is VERY specific.
……..

link to un.org

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
……….

In other words, now IS the time.

No matter the political shambles of ukexit, no matter if it destroys the WM led economy, no matter what, an indyref, with or without a S.30, called by Scotsgov/Holyrood, MUST be respected as by rights afforded by the U.N. never mind a cast iron mandate by Sovereign Scots and Holyrood.

Imagine if English voters ever figured out that they are actually being denied their precious ‘brexit’ because WM gov is petrified of losing Scotland ?

Having to admit Scotland keeps England afloat, after centuries of propaganda saying the complete opposite !

Not sure English political establishment, as is, could survive such a monumental earthquake.

THAT is down to the hard work and great patience of the SNP.

Why would people think, after years of brilliant positioning/politiking, that the SNP have suddenly decided to contrive to shit the bed at the moment of proof ?

Makes no sense if you examine the big picture, so i shall continue to keep the faith, and remain supremely confident in the job the SNP/Scotsgov are doing.

We ARE winning, i have zero doubt about that at all.
……….

Interesting analysis.
Let’s take it from another angle: Assume Corbyn and Labour knew (and still do) they couldn’t win a GE – not then and not now – What to do in the meantime other than shuffle change in their pockets?
Do damage to the Tories is pretty much all there is. Hope to do so much damage that they have a shot in coalition, or part of a ‘Government of National Unity” Neither of those options is possible without the Tories first being weakened.

The first part they did with the obvious, go along with a snap GE – the second part is the trickier choice now – form a coalition with a party/parties or stir further anarchy and a potential ‘Unity Government’? That is their current phase: teetering between having to choke on SNP support, or push a further disruption in the hope they don’t have to.

Decisions, decisions. They’ve already sat with May (and God alone only knows what was being cooked up there) which hints at the outside chance of a ‘Unity’ government or major concessions, even to the point of offering them the next 5 years in Government. Is that so insane? The Tories need breathing space from the toxicity of Brexit to regroup and consolidate their party. Brexit will already have happened, so half of the Tories will be filling their boots and the other half will cry all the way to the bank.
5 years on the backbenches is nothing to them, especially when Labour can only be in the firing line and get weaker in government, not stronger.

We know they are two cheeks of the same arse and it’s a Buggins Turn establishment. Labour wouldn’t care what hot potato they get, they are just desperate for government. All in all, there was no downside to jumping into bed with the Tories for the snap GE. Only disruption, chaos and desperation could bring them anywhere near power.

As for Scotland – why should they care? They can abuse or ignore Scotland all they want, They only have to dangle the carrot of an S30 for SNP support if it’s ever needed – its a banker.

Just a thought.

The Tories were stupid to hold the EU referendum just to placate their psychotic right wing.

But since they have committed this folly,they ought to do what the Swiss have done and declare the result void because the electorate did not have the information required for an informed decision. This is because the electorate were comprehensively lied to.

So instead of a “People’s Vote”, they ought to have a second referendum. Of course, they don’t want to set a precedent for Scotland to also have a second vote because of the catalogue of lies told. So stuck.

link to bbc.co.uk

‘We know what we know.’

It’s quite refreshing to see you keep quiet about something for once, albeit unnecessarily.

ronnie anderson
The guy has nefarious motives, please don’t give him any assistance. I’m more than capable of handling this particular “man of the world”.

I think everyone should remember the prime objective of the Brit Nats – Divide & Rule.

Time to pause the “post wars” and remember who the real enemy is!

Cameron B Brodie I have no intention of disclosing anything concerning you , but dont let people get under your skin

Reluctant Nationalist
Sorry I want to be accurate and have no interest in your personal movements.

That’s you in three words, wanker wank.

LOL tempest tempest or is that me & Cam tempests

Cameron B Brodie aye we wur taught tae gudle at a early age

Right, shall we get back on topic with a bit of scientific Brexitology?

Brexit and the psychology of identity
Psychology of identity

Your identity is your definition of who you are and it is partly influenced by your genes, early life experiences and enduring predispositions – your personal identity, or personality if you like. But in social situations your social identity is much more important[1]. This is the sense of self you get from categorising yourself as belonging to a social group. Self-categorisation is an unconscious cognitive process that happens constantly. In social situations, once you categorise yourself as belonging to a group you exhibit unconscious biases to favour others in your group and to be prejudiced against those outside it. We see this in obvious behaviours such as between rival groups of football fans, but it also happens in subtle ways permeating the way you think without you being aware of it….

link to teamdevelopment-training.co.uk

I’ve just found a group conflict theory that examines the dynamic character of ethnic competition, such as welfare chauvinism and attitudes towards immigration. I’ll save that for later, I’m of to look out some relevant personal and social psychology, which is nice. 😉

@ Welsh Sion at 6:49pm …… “They say if you go up Cader Idris in the evening you come down in the morning as a poet or insane.”

So the Welsh air was to blame for the GE, Welsh Sion. Good Welsh air went right to her head? Too much for her to cope with being used to the stench of Westminster?

Taking it that Big T can hardly string a sentence together, rather uses her political speech writers, I doubt that she came down as a poet. That leaves us with ….eh, eh, eh ….. insane. Sounds about right.

…………………

Another night of Cameron B Brody being hounded on here? Give it a rest. Give us all a break. And Cameron PLEASE ignore. Responding to such people just keeps the whole childish saga going.

Petra
At least I know somebody is paying attention. Will try to follow your advice, though sometimes I see an opportunity to shoehorn some relevant edumicational material into the debate. 🙂

Speaking of the long drop…

How low can and will they go?

Nothing is beyond them in their pursuit of destruction

Well Man Utd the British team exiting soon. 4-0

O/T 🙂

Jings! History programme on early inventions ‘you tube’.
—————————————————————
James Watt and James Nasmyth were ‘English’inventors who led the early production of the industrial ‘machine tools’

Later American machine tools in the war armaments industry helped win the World War I and II for England.
————————————————————–

Nothing new there then 🙂

@Cubby

I’m not that clued up on the Footy but I wonder how many of these great England British players for these two great all British clubs are actually from all great Britain

Time for a bit more scientific Brexitology? Try to bear in mind Brexit represents a breakdown in England’s social psychology and acceptance of multiculturalism. Scotland must minimise that harm this will cause to our civil society, and choose national sovereignty within the EU.

Social identity, personality and connectedness: probing the identity and community divides behind Brexit

Abstract
The UK vote to leave the European Union in June 2016 surprised and confounded academics and commentators alike. Existing accounts have focused on anti-immigration attitudes, anti-establishment sentiment and on the ‘left behind’, as well as national identity. This paper expands the range of possible explanations for the vote by considering a wider range of identity measures, including class and racial identities, and by considering in detail how ‘connectedness’ to others and to localities may have played a role in processes.

We find evidence that racial identity was a factor in attitudes towards the European Union for White British voters, extending our understanding of the relationship between territorial identities, ethnicity and attitudes towards the European Union.

Connectedness via networks also structures attitudes, with those with higher levels of and more diverse connections having more favourable attitudes towards the EU. Whilst these effects are smaller than those of education and age, they are nonetheless comparable with those of class and income, and suggest that we should be wary of accounts of attitudes towards the EU that fail to locate voters within their social contexts.

link to osf.io

Stand out paragraph in todays National for me (from Hamish MacPhersons “The Scot who gave Canada free healthcare” about Tommy Douglas) is this one:

An avowed anti-fascist he warned in 1937 that war was coming in Europe and later said “Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.”

That pretty much sums up for me where the UK is today

1. Westminster fearing us Scots using our political democracy and realising Scotland’s desire for independence (and our nations resultant economic benefit at rUKs expense) and so their answer, North of the Border is the opposition to Indy through the binary ‘No Surrender to IndyRef2’ One Nation British Nationalism we see.

But as the UK is a Bipartite Political Union so it is a double edged sword of fear with the addition of:

2. Westminster fearing being on the wrong end of the Blood and Soil English Nationalist genie they have actively encouraged and courted (which led to Brexit, and now they can’t put back in the bottle) threatening their grip on the power of exploitation and special privilege and it’s “follow through on the Democratic Will of the People” is their answer South of the Border

As has been said before:

Brexit means that England can either have the UK Union or the EU Union it can’t have both.

This circle will have to be squared very, very soon.

I for one can’t wait.

I also love surprises @DMH says at 6.45pm 🙂

Missing the point entirely there, P’rick. I’m not asking his name.

The appropriate equivalent would be for me to say that I was not at the last wings ‘meetup’.

The smell of shite around everything Brodie does just gets stronger. But I think whoever sees this absurdity of a comments section would have figured out something’s a bit off by now.

mike cassidy @ 21:01,

Farage is a hypocritical leech, constantly haranguing the EU for its alleged “wastefulness” while happily pocketing his salary/pension as MEP.

Oh, and even having that salary docked for alleged misuse of EU funds, IIRC.

It takes a serious disconnect from reality to be able to vote for that chancer. (But there’s a lot of that going around at the moment, unfortunately.)

Reluctant Nationalist’s attempts to undermine trust in my credibility, suggests he is politically motivated and not concerned with moral reason. I’ve already suggested he’s David Torrance in real life. Can I change my mind to Prof. Tompkins? 🙂

Robert J. Sutherland says:
“So if you are suggesting we continue to stall until another UKGE to put us back in contention, that’s a serious error, IMO, that concedes far too much initiative to the Cartel.”
=============

I dont really disagree with anything in your post rjs. but we have followed this path for quite a while, i believe we are nearing the end game. literally, we are now talking days and weeks. I merely suggest we dont blink.

once treeza resigns, things will move very quickly. once the new pm is chosen, the ge called and the unionist manifestos published, the unionist will be commited to a certain path,
that is when we strike. the present direction of travel of the london parties runs a very high risk of destroying their scottish branches.

it is the scottish unionist branches who are our opposition, not the london groups, and westminster is in the process of defeating them for us.

i merely urge caution and waiting a short time more

This might help folk understand why I’m hostile to RN.

Political theory and the multicultural society

Political cultures, cultural politics

….The political theorist is culturally situated and prone to its inescapable biases, thus raising the question whether and how he or she can rise above his or her culture and, if not, what the intended audience and theoretical ambition should be. He or she cannot theorise about political life without at least some general conception of human being, raising again the question whether and how we can arrive at the latter and, if not, how theory can avoid becoming a justi?catory ideology of society.

Even if one decides in the light of these dif?culties to con?ne oneself to one?s own kind of society, as John Rawls has done in his later writings, one?s problems do not end. The theorist is located within or likely to be deeply committed to one of his/her society?s several cultures, and his/her concepts and assumptions might not carry conviction with fellow-citizens belonging to different cultural, religious or moral traditions, as Rawls?s critics have shown.

A political theory of the multicultural society needs to address these and related questions. Since they are all in one form or another connected with culture, a political theory of the multicultural society cannot offer coherent answers to them without developing a well-considered theory of the nature, structure, inner dynamics and role of culture in human life.

The traditional political theory either ignores this subject altogether or gives a highly misleading account of it. Broadly speaking, traditional political theory is dominated by two major approaches to the subject – naturalism and culturalism – one making human nature and the other culture its basis. Arguing rightly that a well-considered political theory should be grounded in a philosophical anthropology or a theory of human being, and wrongly equating the latter with a theory of human nature, the naturalists based their views on the nature and structure of political life on a particular view of human nature.

This is as true of the Greek and Christian political philosophers, who took a fairly ?thick? or substantive view of human nature, as of their modern successors such as Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, J.S. Mill and Kant, who took a fairly ?thin? and largely formal view of it. For all of them human nature was universally uniform, unchanging, unaffected in its essentials by culture and society, more or less transparent, accessible in its entirety to philosophical re?ection, and capable of indicating what way of life was the best. Their thought left little conceptual space for culture, which was largely seen as epiphenomenal, dealing with the morally indifferent areas of customs and rituals, and making little difference to how social and political life should be organized.

link to radicalphilosophy.com

The upcoming European elections I feel are going to assume a significance far beyond their usual scope.

Taking part in them at all will be hugely symbolic after May’s endless chunterings that ‘we’ would leave the EU on March 29.

For Scotland they represent a chance to reinforce our EU membership ambitions by electing SNP MEPs. Winning three out of the six seats must be a realistic target.

Labour and the Tories can’t expect anymore than one each, meaning the Greens are in with a shout of claiming the final seat if they out-poll the LibDems.

Should that happen it would deliver a 4-2 Indy victory which would not only be a sensational result, but also a internationalist declaration of intent that Scotland will never give up her place in Europe.

Meanwhile on the ither side o’ Tweed? By way of grotesque irony a likely scenario will be those parties who hate Europe most, Kippers mark 1 and 2, will profit from the situation they wanted least – remaining in Europe long enough to take part in EU parliamentary elections.

English Europhobia will stamp all over the campaign and the rightward shift will widen the political chasm between Scotland and England even further.

The FM is dead right – the incompetence of May’s lunatic government has been underestimated.

And critically that fact is not lost on a large slice of the Scottish electorate who hitherto would never have contemplated voting for the SNP or independence.

IF these elections happen – and I believe they will – a huge opportunity beckons. If those voters can be won over the positive consequences for our cause could be a game-changer.

So stop the sniping and enervating navel gazing, and get out there. Agitate, educate, organise, persuade, even cajole if need be. Our opponents have never been weaker.

Schrodingers cat
Dave Mcewen Hill

I admire your confident views ,I’m not so sure it’s as straightforward as you say
Nice if it is
Time will tell
Brexit May still progress

I will give you a pat on the back if you’re correct.

Trident is an outdated “tactical” weapon of aggression. It is all about posturing and has sod all to do with defense, IMHO. My primary interest in defense concerns my biological security, as Brexitania threaten to be a very hostile environment for the vulnerable.

After the long drop there is the Drop Off
link to youtube.com

Turtles can live for hundreds of years
link to youtube.com

“Rip it, roll it and punch it!”

yesindyref2
Ah, told you I was only really interested in the biological. 🙂

That’s the biopsychosocial, actually. Time for some more scientific Brexitology? 😉

The myths of Brexit

Abstract

Cassirer’s notion of myth and Langer’s process philosophy are used to provide a novel perspective upon how feelings were both expressed and organised in the Brexit referendum, showing how multiple, overlapping organisations of feelings created a set of emergent rationalities. Political parties and campaigns, the media, and lived experience serve as analytic foci, and various feelings are identified. It is concluded that the result was largely rational on its own terms and that understanding this is central to the social psychology of Brexit.

link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Honestly folk, the full-English Brexit poses a direct challenge to the rule-of-law and moral democracy in Britain. Subsequently, the full-English Brexit poses an existential threat to Scottish culture and the liberty of the Scottish public. An electorate who voted to avoid the chaos of the full-English Brexit.

The Law & Politics of Brexit
The Process: Brexit and the Anatomy of Article 50

The chapter offers a holistic legal analysis of the treaty provision regulating withdrawal from the EU. Craig examines Article 50 TEU and maintains that the process of exit from the EU should be divided into three stages, each of which raises major substantive and procedural questions. Stage 1 is the triggering of Article 50 TEU. Stage 2 concerns the withdrawal negotiations, and stage 3 relates to the outcome of the negotiations.

As Craig explains, each stage poses specific challenges both for the EU and for the UK, and there are legal questions that have been—and will have to be—answered along the way. According to Craig, however, politics will heavily shape the law, with both the EU and the UK seeking to leverage specific legal argument in support of their preferred bargaining position.

Keywords: Brexit, process, law, EU treaties, UK constitution, Parliament, courts, government, withdrawal, notification

link to oxfordscholarship.com

schrodingers cat says:
16 April, 2019 at 11:02 pm

it is the scottish unionist branches who are our opposition, not the london groups, and westminster is in the process of defeating them for us….

Define “defeating them”.

The SNP had an outright majority at Holyrood, and virtually wiped out opposition MP’s at Westminster. You present “defeating them” as a material objective, but we have already defeated them before, in fact annihilated them at Westminster, and nothing changed. The Union has revealed considerable resilience against Scotland’s democracy.

Defeating the Unionist parties at Holyrood, even Westminster too, is a game inside a game. We are playing that game at “user” level, where win, lose, or draw is an irrelevant and ephemeral result. If we want permanent change, we need to access the game at “super-user” level, which gives a higher level of access to alter and rewrite the rules of the game. We need to be a programmer writing the rules, not a player imprisoned by them.

Trying to get people to grasp the significance of sovereignty, and what it means to be sovereign is like bashing your head into a wall over, and over, and over again. We are sovereign. If we decide we don’t need a Section 30 Agreement, NOBODY can overrule us, because that would mean we weren’t sovereign, they were.

We are mesmerised by democracy. In fact, we are double mesmerised. First, we cannot grasp that sovereignty is an absolute condition that is infinitely more powerful than an ephemeral democratic majority. And second, we seem utterly flummoxed in how to deal with a democracy hopelessly compromised by corrupt media indoctrination, shady electoral malpractice, illegal funding and covert influence, and blatant unashamed outright dishonesty of the “Establishment”.

Yet time, after time, after time, democracy is spun as the sacred cow, while the pure indefatigable principles of Constitutional Sovereignty are criminally misinterpreted and underplayed. It is beyond tiresome. When we cannot respect our own sovereignty, what chance is there in getting it recognised internationally?

Sovereignty is a super-user concept. Sadly it seems beyond the grasp of our leadership and strategists, with the notable exception of Ian Blackford.

P’rick, once again for you okay? I’m not asking for his name, his address or anything like that, and just because you decided to post under your real name (if it is your real name, P’rick) doesn’t mean you’re Superman. Despite clearly being something you’re proud of doing – like a child’s first jobby without help – it means nothing, you tiny gobshite.

Links

link to gov.scot

Alyn smith’s speech to plenary yesterday
link to youtube.com

Reposting this. Say No to Flamingoland
link to greens.scot

Glasgow Royal Infirmary ranked amongst world’s top 100
link to archive.fo

link to indyscotnews.com

New instituteforgov Brexit report: “the Prime Minister made bold promises to the Scottish First Minister on her first visit to Edinburgh in July 2016 which her Government then notably failed to follow through”
link to report here
link to twitter.com

link to politics.co.uk

link to irishnews.com

Sinn Fein: British Government ‘covering up’ state killings role
link to archive.fo

EU gives ‘high-level’ protection to whistleblowers
link to archive.is

link to taxresearch.org.uk

Brexit: magical thinking
link to eureferendum.com

link to fastcompany.com

link to ted.com?

Brilliant Brexit tales for big and small kids
link to twitter.com

That’s it folks, I’m taking a break.

Worth reading.

link to weegingerdug.wordpress.com

I leave this link here without comment:-

link to youtube.com

Macart @ 8.26am

Well worth a read indeed!

Cheer up, people!

The Notre Dame fire explained at 3.00 in

link to youtube.com

On acronyms in Brexit vein:

How about

SCORE (SCOtland Remain in Europe)

or acronymising a suggestion from the past,

SCOOT (Scotland Out Of Thraldom)

I leave this link here without comment:-

link to youtube.com

Without comment:-

link to youtube.com

@Robert Peffers 11.06am

Really good video but disappointed that Alyn Smith says “its not about Independence”!

To me it’s ALL ABOUT Scottish Independence. How long can the SNP keep waiting until Brexit actually happens or not. The BritNat Government is quite happy to keep kicking the Brexit can down the road.

@Robert Peffers 11:29am

Support has doubled for Scottish Independence says

Professor Keith Dickson Lyon University

Oh and Jenny Marra tells more lies

Strange watching these films of other countries talking about us then reading the anti Scottish bile from England and Scottish Unionists below in the comments, just filled with absolute hatred towards Scotland and it negates their entire anti Independence argument about being part of a Union that hates you

I watched the Latvian representative in the EU Parliament’s description on when his country was part of the old Soviet Union and the conditions placed upon Latvia and they were exactly the same political iron chain tools that England uses to hold Scotland

Every time I take a look at what’s going on in the rest of the EU with regards to Scotland I’m always taken by the quizzical way they don’t understand why Scotland doesn’t separate ourselves from the Union as if it should be something that’s much easier to do and I guess much of that lack of understanding comes from the fact that many europeans don’t understand that the UK they thought was a democratic place

Just isn’t

Another day, another nail in the coffin of so-called ‘journalism’. A wee while ago, Adam Boulton of SKY ‘news’, conducted an interview with a climate change protestor. Whether you agree with them or not, what Boulton did was just behave like a smug, self opinionated, patronising bigot. The whole interview was conducted by him in the most sneering patronising and utterly biased manner.

People of Boulton’s age bracket may not live to see the disaster that is looming with the environment, so maybe he doesn’t care, but young people KNOW that they really will face it, and they are right to be very, very worried.

What an absolute joke SKY ‘news’ is becoming. Too many long in the tooth presenters now at SKY who have been their too long, whose massive ego outshines any journalistic merit. No wonder folks no longer believe a word they hear from these so-called ‘journalists’ in the mainstream media.

Old wifie in the cafe says the cathedral will be insured.

Anyhoo! had a wee look see.

Jings! Notre Dame is not insured it seems?

Belongs to the French Nation (since 1905)and the state will pick up all costs.

Lots of philanthropic donations coming forward which is a good thing.

Maybe the wealthiest organisation in the world will chip in a few francs?

The First Minister has a legal training, not a social science training. Perhaps this is why she has got this all wrong. Or perhaps her advisers have filled her head with mince (see Mermaids).

Trans-women already have legal protection of their human rights. The TRA movement has misappropriated the terminology and language of third-wave feminism, in order to destroy feminism. It is not possible to change biological sex and sex is the single largest determinant of human health.

@Scottish Governmernt
You have been duped by pseudo-science and are now supporting the erasure of any meaningful sense of “womanhood”.

Thanks for the links this morning Nana, Robert and Macart X

@ Nana …. Alyn smith’s speech to plenary yesterday.”

link to youtube.com

We’ll definitely need International observers, a whole army of them, lol, monitoring our next IndyRef plus exit polls and a postal vote system akin to the one that’s used in NIreland. We’ll also need to keep on top of exposing the Tories and Libdems use of dark money to win elections, imo.

link to eoni.org.uk

……………………………

@ Flower of Scotland says at 11:47 am …. ”Robert Peffers – Really good video but disappointed that Alyn Smith says “its not about Independence”! To me it’s ALL ABOUT Scottish Independence. How long can the SNP keep waiting until Brexit actually happens or not. The BritNat Government is quite happy to keep kicking the Brexit can down the road…

FoS, I reckon that his statement can be accounted for due to the timing of the release of the video, that is following the EURef result in 2016, nearly 3 years ago. All of his updates since then highlight that he’s as desperate as you and I to free Scotland from this dictatorship and he’s clearly been working his socks off to that effect.

I would also say, that there’s no point in asking the people of Scotland to make choices about their future, at this time, if one of the ”choices” is still obscure, hence Nicola Sturgeon’s fine balancing act. It’s all very well for us to be impatient with all that’s going on. We don’t carry the burden of the future of Scotland on our shoulders and more than anything we’re not acquainted with all of the facts to make such a decision. We have no idea of what’s going on behind the scenes.

……………………………..

@ Cameron B Brody …

I can’t believe that you’re still falling into the trap CBB and keeping the childish saga going on here.

And when it comes to Nicola Sturgeon whom you say ”has a legal training, not a social science training. Perhaps this is why she has got this all wrong”..

What’s training got to do with it? I’d say that not everyone, most people in fact, needs ”training” or a ”degree’ to exhibit genuine kindness, understanding, compassion, sympathy and empathy which she has in bucket-loads. You’ve either got it or you’ve not got it like the Unionist cabal at Westminster. Amazing how some people seem to have a short memory on here, the fairweather friends, and would gladly stab you in the back at the drop of a hat.

Petra
It’s disappointing that you appear not to have read any of the relevant science I’ve provided, supporting evidence based medical practice. Do you think it possible to change sex? I’ll look forward to your reply in OT.