Wings Over Scotland

Is that Rory the Tory who has replaced Williamson? He reminds me of Michael Forsythe (not Arbroath High School’s favourite son) Thatcher’s all purpose lap dog

The privatisation of NHS England continues. NHS Scotland will not be immune unless there is control of all policies that impact on the NHS Scotland. The solution is surprisingly straight forward.

‘The government is currently attempting – and not for the first time – to privatise the NHS in England on a wholesale basis through the NHS Long Term Plan. The “plan” includes the creation and rollout of Integrated Care Systems (ICSs), and Integrated Care Providers (ICPs), formerly known as Accountable Care Organisations (ACOs), across the entirety of England by over the next few years. There are no guarantees these organisations won’t be made up significantly of private healthcare providers. They won’t be accountable to patients and communities as they aren’t statutory bodies. There has been no vote in Westminster legislating for the creation of these bodies. But they will have the power to decide who does and who does not receive care and how to manage and spend billions of pounds for 44 long-term health care budgets covering entire regions of England. The creation of these organisations will also involve the mass closure of services.

Consequently, if you support Brexit – or what some are now also calling “Lexit” – then you have to ask yourself the following question, “can I trust the Conservatives not to offer up the NHS on a platter to larger economies such as the US or China in order to strike trade deals?”. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty must admit that they can’t, as Theresa May’s remarks on the issue have made clear. It’s clear from the soundings coming out of the Department for International Trade that they are desperate to take the UK into free trade agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This free-trade agreement would open huge swathes of the NHS up to private companies, and make drugs more expensive, which leading Brexit experts have warned would be a complete catastrophe for the NHS. It would also prevent any future progressive government from being able to renationalise the NHS; as the agreement would be underpinned by the UK being subject to ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms’

link to opendemocracy.net

The choice is very stark. If we meekly adopt the US health care model many will be excluded from health care provision including children. Those that cannot afford their medical bills will be plunged into debt and homelessness.

‘The objective of this study was to elucidate the medical causes and consequences of foreclosure. We surveyed 90 households undergoing foreclosure in 2013-2014 in Maricopa County, Arizona on two occasions approximately five months apart. At baseline, median monthly household income was $3,000, and median mortgage payment $1,350. Only 10% of respondents lacked health insurance when surveyed, although 28% had experienced a gap in coverage within the past two years. Fifty-seven percent identified a medical debt or another medical cause of their foreclosure, and 54% had taken on new debt to pay medical bills; 10% had mortgaged their home for this reason. Although 57% of respondents had a chronic condition requiring ongoing care, more than half reported delaying or skipping a needed medical visit. At follow-up, one-third of respondents had been unable to afford food, and 3 respondents reported becoming homeless; 46% said foreclosure had worsened their health; and 63% had already incurred new medical debts. Medical debt and medical problems frequently contribute to foreclosure, even among insured families. Foreclosure compromises access to care and basic necessities like food and shelter, and worsens self-reported health’

Cutshaw, C. A et al (2016). Medical Causes and Consequences of Home Foreclosures. Int J Health Serv. 46(1), 36-47.

‘Routine “well child” doctor and dental visits are free under CHIP. But there may be copayments for other services. Some states charge a monthly premium for CHIP coverage. The costs are different in each state, but you won’t have to pay more than 5% of your family’s income for the year’

link to healthcare.gov

So who to trust? Our own government in Scotland that is committed to supporting Scotland’s citizens, economy, institutions or a WM cartel that has no solutions to combat Beveridge’s 5 giants ‘Want, Ignorance, Disease, Squalor and Idleness’ and has sytematically mis-managed the UK economy, has a deep mistrust of state provision, squandered the possibility of a sovereign wealth fund and would happily push citizens over a cliff edge.

‘The LGA calls on the government to “deliver concrete ideas”… Social care and wider council services provide vital support every day to support people in the lives they want to live. But with people living longer and more people with disabilities needing support, increases in costs and decreases in funding, the current system of adult social care is at breaking point, and faces a £3.5 billion funding gap by 2025 just to maintain existing levels of provision’

link to onmedica.com.

‘While differences in health between housed socioeconomic groups can be described as a ‘slope’, differences in health between housed and homeless people are better understood as a ‘cliff’

link to bmjopen.bmj.com

Poverty and rampant inequality is not inevitable in an independent Scotland.

‘Health inequalities persist in Scotland, they are unjust but they are not inevitable. Their causes are complex – but we have a good understanding of the range of actions required to reduce them and improve health. For policy makers, knowing where to focus energy and resources to do this is crucial’

link to healthscotland.scot

Was listening to an out and out British Nationalist and his support for the British Army and hatred for all things SG and SNP Sadly my friend was agreeing with him
Good point tho was the British nationalised army guy eventually accepted that Scotland would be Independent. Why? Because of the current Westminster disregard of Scotland.

?_nc_cat=108&_nc_eui2=AeG-f_Zyp04FjGkPMKn3tx4ZLauVdI4lmdW0CTzdI_ZTvRCcGLElVBCQ89GnvpVioWLEs-PXR2eKbTU9FnM3IRpyu6k0rS5VTV1qCMdfU_Xa_w&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=0ec9c525410f5d9b282aa38735a8c9d7&oe=5D2A44AA

Bill Glen .

Given we all want Scottish independence, can we move on from this o/t topic which despite my sympathy seems personal and self indulgent.

Hamish 100 @ 8.05
I’m actually wondering if we can prosecute?
I mean we are the one’s most at risk from a security breach!
They did want Scotland and her Laws in their Union,didn’t they 🙂 .

Liz g. Your mouth is a security breach which disseminates information for the Vaudville stage. We can all sleep safely in our beds due to the likes of Liz g.

It’s simple:

In the short term, we have to maximise the SNP vote in the Euro election, because it will be reported in the MSM and may make up the minds of waverers who previously felt that “now is not the time”.

Then, when indyref2 comes along, who knows?

Mad Unionist
And you ain’t seen nuthin yet…..sweet dreams in the last day’s of the Union 🙂

link to caltonjock.com

This article provides a look-back at the unfettered growth of the political Spad, many of whom go on to become career politicians.

By result the austerity punished taxpayer is lumbered with an additional massive and ever expanding expense in the £billions supporting many hundreds of privileged party animals who, from the time they leave university until retirement age sponge of the state.

The Spad monstrosity should be discontinued and the Civil Service reinstated.

CUBBY……And I did it AGAIN I saw the minute I hit send and couldn’t stop it… Sorry!!! 🙂

Bring ‘it’ back alive… ladies
link to youtube.com

Hey Liz, them things are made of these things xx
link to youtube.com

Glasgow, Kelvingrove Park for 1pm (next to the bowling greens)
link to howmanydaystill.com

The article that Rev retweeted, (top of his feed right now) is a Telegraph article which dealt with the climate of PIE in the 70’s and 80’s and debunks the pish of the so called ‘academics’ who were making claims about paedophilia being ‘normal’ in adult males from those times, this retweeted article was written on the 5th July 2014.

Without this being mentioned in the retweet, it gave the strong impression that this was a current and/or recent article. It isn’t. It’s context free presentation isn’t a good look for such a factual based site as Wings.

There aren’t ‘currently’ phoney academics promoting these attitudes in our current academic institutions but yes, there is a warning at the end of said retweeted article that certainly warns against ‘going back to the intellectual climate which allowed them’.

K1 @ 2.17
Agreed that it could have been put in context
But… and there’s always a but… lol
It is clear when ye read it that it’s an old article and reading the thing is also the Wings thing 🙂

Aye would imagine oor First Minister’s Questions will be on today

Tune in on either of the following links for coverage at 12pm

link to scottishparliament.tv
link to indylive.radio

Register to vote

NOW

History lessons

Try this online history 2nd edition published 1575.

The History of the Scots from their first origin by Hector Boece of Dundee

link to philological.bham.ac.uk

Support Paul Kavanagh as he has steadfastly supported us over many years. Buy the book, folks.

WGD:- ‘Barking Up The Right Tree – 2019.’

link to weegingerdug.wordpress.com

Links

22nd National Economic Forum: First Minister’s speech
link to gov.scot

link to thoughtcontrolscotland.com

link to petewishart.wordpress.com

PeteWishart explains why he wants to be Speaker of the House of Commons.
link to twitter.com

link to fraserofallander.org

SNP Westminster Leader @IanBlackfordMP challenged the Tories to match the SNP Scottish Government’s pledge to maintain free EU student fees to 2021, and make a commitment that Scottish university students will have access to 4-year visas but Theresa May refused
link to twitter.com

1/ A few clips from this morning’s @CommonsEUexit. Incredible exchange between @joannaccherry and @RuthLeaEcon. Ruth Lea seems to think the port of Calais could ignore EU law to keep trade flowing freely between the EU27 & UK after Brexit under any circumstances
link to twitter.com

link to scottishlegal.com

link to bylinetimes.com

If you missed TM’s appearance at the yesterday’s Liaison committee. Never mind Ian Dunt has a thread
link to twitter.com

Julian Lewis MP skewers Theresa May over Huawei & China, and implications for UK 5G network
link to youtube.com

This is why there will be no enquiry into the leak, it would lead to all Cameron’s men and Cameron himself
link to twitter.com

I no longer have a subscription, perhaps someone here does?
Financial times article
Brexit makes the case for an independent Scotland
link to twitter.com

link to cnduk.org

link to prospectmagazine.co.uk

link to nytimes.com

prof Macdonald Scotland the only country in Scotland where any currency will be a disaster

Her reaction to victory was to deny the case had ever been about the thing it had always been about and was obviously about

Yeah but it wasn’t, was it? A defamation action is about proving liability, which you failed to do. People defame each other as a daily fact of life. Proving a statement was defamatory is a necessary but insufficient element of succeeding in litigation, as you should well know by now.

Also, for someone who regularly speaks truth to power, you have a weirdly fetishised view of the judiciary. Their job is to interpret and apply the law, not to force their opinion on the world at large as you repeatedly imply. Why don’t you quote the portions of the judgement where he describes Dugdale’s comments were logically defensible? Or where he says that his reasoning about the truth quality of the statements would only have impacted the outcome if your lawyers had successfully proved her comments were a statement of fact?

The Transgender arguments affects .000000000001 % of the population. It is nonsensical to project it as a main stream problem. There have been mixed changing room etc in swimming pools, sports facilities etc for years without any problems. It helps family groups, friend change together if they want. Disable toilets both sexes can and do use. Just relabel them. There has been absolutely no problems, There are no transgender people attacking others (out of relevant low poroportion compared to the norm). Anyone behaviour badly or giving offence would just be chucked out of the premises or facilities. They are trained staff monitoring the facilities/premises.

The British have such a problem with human bodies, Everyone has one. There is now much more awareness of abuse. More open discussions and warnings.

Transgender people in sport would make more people watch. To see if they win. It would incease interest in women’s sport. More people would watch it. It would receive more funding, sponsorship and prize monies etc, it would actually promote woman’s sport. Make it more interesting. There are regulations around who can compete physically. Testosterone levels etc, it is not a gender issue.

Violent/attacks are a gender issue. It is mainly (young) men who (violently) attack others. Males who attack others. Other men are more likely to be attacked than women. 3time more men are attacked than women. Statistically. E.g. There are 500 murders on average. 100 are women 400 are men etc. Running through the numbers. Most murders happen between people who know each other e.g. In the home. A high proportion. Obviously every death is regrettable and should not be happening. Appalling.

More men than women commit suicide. Men are more inclined to lash out. Get violent. Women internalise get anxiety and depressed. Nature or nurture. Or the structure of society? Testosterone contributes. The human desire/drive to reproduce not regulated properly. Some offensive sexual images. People still like ‘good looking’ people or people that look like themselves. That can be a (unhealthy) attraction. An obsession. That is better projected on to something else with guidance not control.

No child (person) should ever be subject to sexual abuse that should just not be happening. It should be investigated not covered up by authorities in collusion. Collaboration Law in Scotland should be dropped for abuse/rape crime. By it’s very nature, secretive. There is unlikely to be any witnesses. That is why there are so few complaints or convictions. Less convictions lead to less complaint. .

The Police in Scotland act on malicious complain. Lock up too many innocent people on ‘charges’ that cannot come to Court . Totally wasting time and public money trying to criminalise the public. When they should have better commitments to equality and diversity training.

Too many people on the spectrum are locked up in jail. Instead of being given the support they need in the community, 50%. Too many people are in jail instead of being given proper treatment in drink/drug ‘total abstinence’ rehab. Far cheaper and cost effective.

Unionist councils are not funding essential services. Proper rehab facilities. It used to be more the Health Boards providing. Except Grampian. The only authority in Scotland that would not provide primary care for drink/drug addiction. Instead spending £Million/Billions on groteque monstrosities of no value. No one wants. Instead of open, pedestrianised spaces. A total waste of monies but not funding essential services. Total neglect and delegation of responsibility. Acting illegally. Not funding schools and houses. Using the Gov statutory limit (30) to keep class sizes too high. They are given funding per pupil to keep class sizes lower and properly support additional needs. . The unionists councils cut the funding at every opportunity and waste the monies on meaningless projects of no consequence or value.

There is a total connection of crime to drink/drug consumption. Major crime is committed under the influence of drink or drugs. MUP will help.

Iraqi war, Dunblane, Lockerbie kept secret for 100 years under the Offucial Secrets Act. Abuse deliberately hidden by corrupt Westminster unionist Government. A disgrace.

Judy Murray says tennis/sports facilities in Scotland are totally underfunded. Women’s sport. £60Million is allocated to tennis facilities and support in the UK. Scotland receives £800K. A major shortfall. Pro rata it should be £6Million. Maybe the Scottish Gov could find some funding. Scotland does not receive it’s full share of funding from the Lottery monies. A total deficit.

So, another one scurrys off to join some kind of academic, socio-politico body, already home to political types of the Unionist persuasion it would appear.

Will they be hammering home the mantra of SNP-Bad, Holyrood-Bad, Scotland-Bad to the next generation of wannabe politicians I wonder?

Or are they simply trying to improve upon their current standard of low-flying Jimmys and Marys that sit and steal the oxygen in the chambers of Holyrood and Westminster at public expense?

‘Troughers’ and ‘Roasters’ come to mind.

@galamcennalath says: 1 May, 2019 at 2:42 pm:

” … Once the polluted agricultural products and food stuffs are allowed into the system it becomes compromised. Cleaning it up again will be nigh impossible.
Scotland needs to depart while we still full comply to high EU standards.”

I could well be wrong but I keep a watch on what goes on within the EU parliament debating channel. The good will towards Scotland’s MEPs is really wonderful to behold. Meanwhile the openly displayed hostility towards such as Farage of the English Brexit faction is just as obvious.

Thing is we don’t see any of this in the MSM or among the unionist broadcasters. For example I’d warrant almost anyone you speak to in Scotland will tell you that in Scotland becomes independent then they, “will join the back of the long queue”, to get back into the EU and will have to, “adopt the Euro”.

This is all implanted in their minds by the Westminster Establishment propaganda machine. First of all there is no queue to get into the EU. It simply doesn’t exist. If a country or state applies to join the EU and doesn’t get in it has nothing to do with queues and everything to do with compliance with EU rules and regulations. It did not take long for West Germany to get into the EU.

There are many myths about the EU fostered by the MSM/British Broadcasters. Have a read at this :-

link to blogs.lse.ac.uk

It explains away some of the myths. As to the having to, “Join the Euro”, – one third of EU Member states do not use the Euro. The EU are adept at compromise and the truth is that if the EU wants Scotland as a member state, and it does, it will find a way and that way may be to not let Scotland become a non-EU state upon the United Kingdom’s two kingdoms splitting up.

The fact being that the EU sees the United Kingdom as a two kingdom UK while Westminster thinks of it as a Westminster that is the de facto parliament of the country of England that is sovereign over three dominion countries of England.

Thing is it is the EU that is legally correct and all they need do to keep Scotland’s great assets in the EU is to rule that as the United Kingdom has split in two and one kingdom wants to stay while the other wants out is to declare the Kingdom of Scotland as the legacy member state and wish the Kingdom of England well as it sails away into the sunset.

link to spice-spotlight.scot

At last, an MP brave enough to say: Twitter hates women
link to archive.fo

‘Seldom uses front door’: report reveals how China spies on Muslim minority
link to archive.fo

Here is how the Chinese govt is using an app to collect staggering amounts of data about its Uyghur population, and eventually send hundreds of thousands to political reeducation camps.
video
link to twitter.com

Dan at 8:00 a.m.

“A defamation action is about proving liability, which you failed to do.”

Can’t let you away with that, Dan. Any civil action is about establishing that harm has been done by the defender to the pursuer. The harm must be the direct consequence of the defender’s actions or inactions. If it is established that harm was done and that the defender caused it, a court will then seek to equate the harm done to an amount of money and award damages of that amount. But first and foremost a case is about establishing that harm was done.

The harm in the Campbell v. Dugdale case was defamation. The Sheriff stated unequivocally that the comments made by Dugdale were defamatory of Campbell so harm was done. That is the core of the case. However, he then went on to state that notwithstanding the defamation, the comments were covered by the “fair comment” exception to the general rule that damages will be awarded if defamation is established.

The case was about whether or not Dugdale defamed Campbell. The matter of damages is secondary. I don’t believe that Stu went into this case for financial gain, but rather to protect his reputation. He has emerged with his reputation restored so he achieved his objective. The media reporting of the case (i.e. that Dugdale won) is simplistic and disingenuous. It is true that she did not have to pay damages and if that was her objective, then she succeeded. But by any normal standards she lost. She was demonstrated to be ignorant of the subject she was commenting on (homophobia) and any credibility she had was destroyed. She has been publicly humiliated. If that is winning, she is welcome to it.

There’s Julian Assange banged up on trumped up charges.

And there’s slime ball Williamson walking away scot free for leaking highest level state security secrets.

What a rotten and corrupt Jackinory.

Nana 9.30

That Chinese app report.

Does this mean I have to have some sympathy with Gavin Williamson?

Its a bit early in the day for me to get my head round that.

And here’s a footnote to yesterday’s discussion of accents Scottish or otherwise.

Tory Councillor: people with different accents are “scary”

link to archive.is

And does anybody remember Ch4 News dubbing John Major’s voice with a Belfast accent as mentioned by a btl?

Are we agreed we have established we are not ignorant of our own history and no one has been hiding our history from us? The myriad of resources and references is truly good to see. We all understand we do not need someone to give us a version of history when we can find out for ourselves?

Mr Peffers rightly admits he is a propagandist, putting into print his interpretation of historical events specifically to counter what he sees as propaganda from the other side. Nothing wrong with that, just as long as it is made clear it is his interpretation and if others disagree they are entitled to.

Let’s take the central tenet of his work that the Scottish people are sovereign so it is simple, from his point of view, to overturn events by remembering that single ‘fact’.

If that were the case why did the Act of Union come in to being if the people were so against it? Surely then, as now, the people are sovereign? Even after the Act, the people were angry but they could not do anything. But they are sovereign I hear you say.

link to thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com

An attempt to repeal the Act in 1713 failed because of political will. Nothing to do with sovereignty of the people, just simple politics, not enough people in the place of power wanted it. Is that an opinion worth considering?

That, I believe, is the crux of the matter, we can march, show our anger at each other BTL in online blogs. We can decry our craven politicians for not doing enough and insult them with unpleasant and truthful remarks but until we have sufficient numbers to achieve a win in a vote either in a referendum or in some other legitimate way we are trapped in this Union.

Attempting a legal manoeuvre when we do not have the will of the people behind it will not succeed and should not. Yet some of us continue to be whipped up into a frenzy of outrage at perceived sleight of hand tricksiness by Westminster.

That is politics and it is politics that will eventually get us out of Westminster if we do it properly. The legal arguments have their place to ensure the vote is watertight and were we to vote and get a majority that was not recognised , then the legal route may have value. But Brexit should be a warning, imagine we had won by 52% and were in the stalemate of Brexit trying to leave?

My quarrel with Mr Peffers, whoever he is, is that he presents his interpretation of events as the only truthful version and that is dishonest. Longevity, prolific posting or even real life knowledge of a person does not convey upon them infallibility.

On another note, this is an interesting site for dispelling myths about the EU:
link to blogs.ec.europa.eu

Dan at 10:21

“…if liability is proved.

Couching fair comment as “an exception to the rule” is disingenuous; it is not some technicality or loop hole, it is protected speech.”

Liability is proved by demonstrating that harm – in this case defamation – was done. There is normally then a presumption that damages would be due with the amount to be assessed by the court. Fair comment is indeed not a technicality or loop hole, but it is an exception to the presumption that if harm is done, damages are due. Had it not been for the fair comment rule, damages in this case would have been due.

Dugdale’s statement that the case was not about homophobia is patently ridiculous and it is to the shame of the media that they have publicised this line without challenge. What Dugdale said only qualifies as fair comment because the Sheriff found that she did not understand the term “homophobia”. By implication, if the Sheriff had been satisfied that Dugdale did understand the term, then fair comment would not have applied as she would have been making a statement of fact that was defamatory. In other words, the only reason that she has not had to pay for defaming Stuart is that she is ignorant.

As I said before, if that is winning then you, and she, are welcome to it.

Breeks, today at 9:33 am.

Excellent.

RobertTheTruth

“Are we agreed we have established we are not ignorant of our own history and no one has been hiding our history from us”

No I do not agree and who are you to speak for the whole of the Scottish people Mr Truth. Who do you think you are Neil Oliver. So is your version of events the truth and nothing but the truth Mr Truth. Your criticism of Peffers applies to yourself.

Anyone who calls himself The Truth criticising other people for their truth is full of it. That’s my truth Mr Truth and its more than fair comment on your post.

On the Kezia roundabout…
Kevin McKenna’s piece in yesterdays’s National on her is a keeper. His best yet

Robert the truth @ 10.34
Firstly … The act of Union came into being despite the people being against it,because the means by which they could express their Sovereignty at that time were closed off to those who were even aware of said sovereignty. Which would have been gye few (nae internet ) but nevertheless the people who were at that time entrusted with Scottish Sovereignty were the same people who signed the Treaty to have our Sovereignty managed from Westminster.

And secondly
Sovereignty is no a magical power Robert the T …
It not only has to rest somewhere,in Scotland’s case it has been caught in this Treaty before it was properly defined to be easily actionable WITHIN the Treaty
( E.G. The USA got it right with their, For the People,Of the People,By the People a concept not only enshrined,but crucially,understood by the said “reasonable man”).

That it has never seen a Court is clearly because up until very recently Sovereignty was enforced by military might, and, that, because of the existence of the Treaty Westminster DARE not Write a Constitution to throw daylight in on the dark arts of the Crown in Parliament!
This will be their undoing…
They cannot define English Sovereignty without addressing Ours and so must leave it as a whimsical thing which in turn leaves absolute power in the hands of Westminster…
And ye do know what they say about Absolute Power don’t ye?

Scotland is in the process of establishing our Sovereignty to define it in modern accessible Law and we are using The Declaration of Arbroath and The Claim of Right as the Foundations to do so.
As I said not a magical power,that pretends everything flows from being born from the right womb. We know that to be Disnay thinking, and Scotland disnay, want Disnay, for our people’s anymore!
We can learn from History Robert the T,but we shouldn’t become bound by it.That would be as stupid as trying to govern ” by habit and repute ” and thinking ye could do it without using an army,don’t ye think?

@ Breeks,

“Dugdale was the Sooty to Ruth Davidson’s Sweep, ”

Brilliant! just brilliant 🙂

galamcennalath

I thought Sweep was the dug.

x-x-x-x-x

After FMQs this afternoon, I reckon Jackass Carsales’ erse will be as red as his face. Nicola gave him a richt guid skelping.

Gavin Williamson bad boy sacked but NOT deemed bad enough that police investigation warranted….so move along.

So was thinking shurely now IS the time to ask Tank Commander …..What has happened with Scottish Tory internal inquiry on Ross Thomson ? Have I missed something being reported re their findings ? Obvs resolved as he is very much acting as if …politically..not a dead man walking within his party….not suspended..tweeting..out and about in his constituency….still sitting in HOC…so is anyone in media interested is conclusion of inquiry ?

Shurely not swept under the carpet .

Miles Briggs inappropriate behaviour re sexual harassment allegations….move along nowt to see here.

Plus numerous Scottish Tory Councillors reinstated after racist and offensive remarks.

Then Labour party

Hugh Gaffney’s racist and homophobic comments…move along nowt to see here.

Anas Sarwar inquiry re Davie McLachlan’s racist comment…move along nowt to see here.

Above list not exhaustive in rogue line up of Unionist politicians who seem to break some kind of political or moral conduct yet continue in their role ….redeemed and past sins to be forgotten .

However……….Nicola Sturgeon/Alex Salmond….full inquiry at Holyrood for public and parliamentary scrutiny….

My God I am no journalist but even I see a pattern here…it’s do as I say not as I do…shurely !

Shurely shome mishtake if NO journalists or average voters cannot see double standards applying here….note this posting is rhetorical as poster has NO DOUBTS as to what is really happening but just needed to get it off chest….or rather note one of many observations at the blatant hypocrisy being applied time and time again.

But hey Better Together .

Scottish history in schools. In primary we were issued with a history book. I’m guessing P7 and have no idea what the book was. We probably didn’t cover it all, just specific key events.

As a youngster I remember reading about the Massacre of Monzievaird, in said book, and being horrified. A church being set on fire to kill or drive out those taking refuge there. Truth is that’s a fairly obscure event but it was in our school book.

link to en.m.wikipedia.org

TD at 10:50:
Liability is proved by demonstrating that harm – in this case defamation – was done. There is normally then a presumption that damages would be due with the amount to be assessed by the court

No, it isn’t. That isn’t how liability operates in the Scots law context. Proving a statement is capable of being defamatory is simply proving that there is a delict. You are describing the law as you imagine it to be, not as it actually is. To quote from the judgement:

[the law of defamation] It recognises that there is significant public interest in allowing people to freely express opinions without fear of legal penalty. Accordingly not every damaging comment about character will result in legal liability for harm or distress

Your claim that fair defence is an exception to the presumption that “if harm is done, damages are due” is a meaningless statement since proving harm is just one element of a successful action. You could just as accurately say that if Dugdale’s comments were shown to relate to a matter that wasn’t of public interest, this would be an “exception” to the “presumption” that it was fair comment.

What Dugdale said only qualifies as fair comment because the Sheriff found that she did not understand the term “homophobia”.

That simply isn’t true. He considered it fair comment because, among other things, he regarded it as a value judgement, not a statement of fact and therefore even if he considered it incorrect, the diversity of perspective on the matter meant that his opinion on the tweet was ultimately of no greater validity than Dugdale’s. I know Stu has been pushing the line that Dugdale won because she was too thick to understand why what she said was defamatory, but that just isn’t what the Sheriff said, nor does it reflect the principle of fair comment. In my opinion he’s just saying it save a bit of face. Why not turn your media-critical eye to Wings Over Scotland from time to time?

TD says:
2 May, 2019 at 11:56 am
Robert the Truth at 10.34 a.m.

I do agree with you when you say “Attempting a legal manoeuvre when we do not have the will of the people behind it will not succeed and should not.” An independent Scotland founded on some technical argument in court if a majority were against independence would be off to the worst possible start.

I absolutely don’t agree with you.

Sovereignty cuts both ways. Even supposing you lacked faith that Scotland might win its case in a Constitutional Court, you can leave Scottish Constitutional Sovereignty out of your equation and simply challenge Westminster to prove the origin and veracity of their claim to be Sovereign. Sovereignty is an absolute and binary condition. Proving we are Sovereign is no lesser or greater a benchmark than proving they are not.

As I have argued in the past, I would have taken a more indirect approach, and challenged the ECJ to clarify it’s recent judgement that Article 50 could be revoked as a sovereign prerogative, and sought specific clarity about whether Scotland might use its sovereignty to revoke Article 50 unilaterally. Assuming the ECJ concluded that Scotland could indeed revoke Article 50 unilaterally, the case and any action would remain hypothetical, but the Constitutional principles and benchmarks would be clarified. Scotland would establish the full legitimacy what it could do, but hold the action of doing it in abeyance until the appropriate moment.

The truth is the issue of UK/ Scottish Constitutional Sovereignty has never been tested in Court, but it has been tested in Westminster and the Claim of Right affirmed. Westminster has already conceded the people of Scotland are Sovereign. If they would now dispute that sovereignty in lieu of their own sovereignty, then them present submit their “alternative” Constitution to forensic scrutiny.

It’s is an entirely Unionist perspective to maintain that the Union must be valid simply because it has lasted for 300 years and never been overturned. The Union was born from corruption, coercion, sophistry and intimidation, it has been maintained throughout by the same colonial principles, and it is a measure of how all pervasive the Union was that Scotland has been powerless to overturn the corruptions and improprieties. Whether through bribery, coercion, intimidation, indoctrination, or simply the force of a lawyers letter upon the argument of a layman without a lawyer.

It is academic why former generations of Scots have not been successful in repealing the Union or testing its illegitimacy. Let them and their history account for their own actions, but let us not judge them. Even now, in the 21st Century, we Scots must overturn a monopolised media absolutely determined to indoctrinate our people into supine compliance with the BritNat narrative, and it is only the modern phenomenon of social media which has finally allowed the alternative narrative and true Constitutional arguments to emerge and develop into mainstream arguments. Don’t let’s kid ourselves, no former generation of Scots had anything like this capacity.

Britishness has only ever rewarded those who bend to their colonial rule, and done all in its power to distort and alter Scotland’s Constitutional truth to suit its own ends, NEVER Scotland’s.

The Americans are way ahead of the Chinese, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple etc all busy harvesting data for a foreign power. That power is considered ‘friendly’ and most speak English so that’s OK.
Trump’s tweeting was once considered ‘inappropriate’ now every politician’s at it. Imagine what they might do with 140* Chinese characters? An autobiography perhaps?
*The Chinese, Koreans and Japanese are character restricted.

Thanks Legerwood who mentioned at 1:14pm:
“…..
In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph there was an article by their business correspondent, Jeremy Warner:
”Is an Independent Scotland now inevitable? I’m beginning to believe it might be.”

Here’s a link to the The Telegraph.
Unfortunately it’s protected by The Telegraph’s Paywall.

link to archive.is

Some info about the author:

” Jeremy Warner, assistant editor of The Daily Telegraph, is one of Britain’s leading business and economics commentators.

A serial winner of awards, he has also been honoured for an “outstanding contribution in defence of freedom of the media” by the Society of Editors for his refusal to reveal sources to Government inspectors. ” [from The Telegraph].

Breeks says

It is academic why former generations of Scots have not been successful in repealing the Union or testing its illegitimacy. Let them and their history account for their own actions, but let us not judge them.

I have often wondered about the Scottish Home Rule Bill 1913. Passed second reading but was then abandoned because of WW1.

Just been reading the discussion at WM then. Forgetting about some long lost opportunity for devolution, but concentrating on the language and arguments used by MPs.

link to api.parliament.uk

I am struck by the apparent better understanding standing of the nature of the Union and the relationship of the countries within it. Certainly, a clearer understanding than present day WM politicians have!

So when did the UK move towards a Greater England model? IMO the pre WW2 National gov, WW2, post war govs with new nationalised industries and centralisation, and broadcasting.

Couple of good debates going in.

I’m with Dan over the Sheriff’s judgement, the meaning of the word “homophobia”, his decision basically was that she was as entitled to her definition as he was to his, hence it ended up as “fair comment”. If we think about a couple of things that run through Wings, there’s the definition of the words “country” and “nation”, which Wingers have different definitions of, and the way modern language works based on usage rather than a permanently laid down set of rules, that means as long as enough people use a definition, then it is correct, or at least, recognised.

As for Sovereignty, back in 1707 the People didn’t have the vote, didn’t have any means of voting, only the “estates” were able to vote, and Sovereigny was written in terms of the estates rather than the common people. see for isntance the calim of right 1689. Same basically as the Declaration of Arbroath, with the famous:

“As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

That’s not plebs like you and I, well, me as for all I know you’re not a pleb, it was the barons and earls:

“The Declaration was written in Latin and was sealed by eight earls and about forty barons.”

So such Sovereignty was of the barons, earls, dukes later on, the landed gentry. Not non-landowning plebs, that came way later in history, and by stages with, I think, some land-owning women actually getting the vote before the mass of plebs.

Not until the last 20 to 30 years has Sovereignty actually rested with us plebs.

@Scottish Law Society
In what respect can the full-English Brexit be considered compatible with a “RATIONAL” and “IMPARTIAL” application of law? Would you not agree that the full-English Brexit aims to totalise the concept of Britain, in the form of a right-wing little-England? If you can’t bring yourselves to support Scotland’s independence, at least defend Scottish law within the British constitution. Who will if you won’t?

Legal philosophy as practical philosophy
2 A general conception of philosophy

I will adopt the view of the philosophy of law as the “rational and critical totalisation of the phenomenon of law”, as suggested by Manuel Atienza.1 The key to this conception (which was inspired by the Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno)2 lies in the distinction between concepts and ideas. Concepts are inherent to the sciences (in a broad sense, including technical fields), while ideas are the very stuff of philosophy. Both —scientific concepts and philosophical ideas— are “critical totalisations” (“criticism” is not exclusive to philosophy) and both encompass universality.

However, the totalisation and universality of ideas is not the same as, and cannot be reduced to the totalisation of concepts. Philosophical problems abide by their own format: they are neither technical nor scientific problems, but rather emerge directly or spring up at the same time as technical or scientific problems, representing a second degree of reflexivity.

Philosophy is not an original or “first-degree” body of knowledge. It is independently justified as a unique, substantive body of knowledge and cannot be reduced either to simple “adjectival” knowledge, doomed to be “liquidated” by the sciences; or “genitive” knowledge, confined to a simple logical analysis or encyclopaedic synthesis in relation to scientific knowledge. Nor, obviously, can it be reduced to some kind of “dogmatic” or “metaphysical” knowledge, disconnected from the sciences.

Without question, the sciences are the most universal exponent of knowledge at our disposal. However, theirs is a universality that is restricted or bound to certain conceptual domains (or “universes of discourse”) which are more or less closed according to objective theories and laws. Following a traditional nomenclature, Bueno called these domains “categories”: the physical, chemical, mathematical, anthropological, sociological, psychological and other categories.

Scientific concepts (including techniques and technologies) would be universal relative to or within each of these categorical domains, filtering out everything that is conceptually irrelevant, or external to them. However, for this very reason, everything that can be said rationally about each category individually or about all of them together (i.e., on the conceptualisation of the world) would not be exhausted. Thus, at the very least, questions such as the relationships between these diverse categories (how many sciences there are and how they differ among each other), their scope (how far the universality of each science stretches) and their validity (what it means to consider a given scientific knowledge universally grounded) could no longer be resolved from inside the categories themselves, as they do not constitute scientific or technical problems to be analysed using their own conceptual instruments.

On the contrary, they require a different kind of rational treatment, a totalisation of a different type, one that is also universalist. And this, precisely, is what philosophical discourse is. There would then be another genre of “second-tier” concepts, the universality of which cross-cuts and cannot be reduced to the categorical concepts. These are transcendental concepts in that they “transcend” each of the categories, but not all of them as a whole (just like the three classical ideas of traditional metaphysics laid out by Kant in his first Critique).3

These concepts could actually be called philosophical ideas, once again following a tradition that begins with Plato and reaches down to Kant and Hegel, although this does not mean that we are required to adhere to the traditional idealist conception of metaphysics. Ideas are neither separated forms, nor a priori units of knowledge, nor figures of an unfolding Spirit; rather, they can be viewed as ideas in an historical-cultural sense, bearing in mind that although associated with “ideologies” in the Marxist sense, they cannot be understood merely as ideological-conjunctural contents either.

Philosophical theories are therefore nothing other than more or less systematic elaborations and interpretations of these ideas throughout their historical development. They thus reflect problems which have been sparked repeatedly by the concepts of the sciences, yet they resist being equated with or reduced to mere scientific or technical problems. As they involve ideas and not only concepts, philosophical problems truly have their own format. They are not resolved by the sciences or techniques but instead reframed by them (hence their historical persistence).

A philosophical problem is characterised primarily by the fact that it questions an entire category as a whole, and does so in a particular way, connecting it to others and inquiring into its foundations and validity. This is what happens, for example, with epistemological and ontological questions, which question how categories represent or conceptualise the world and how the world is represented or conceptualised by them. The answer to this requires a kind of totalising reflection which encompasses criticism —that is analysis, comparison, classification, setting limits— of the scientific concepts themselves according to more or less systematic general conceptions which deal with epistemological ideas (a certain theory of science or of knowledge) and ontological ideas (a certain theory of the elements which make up the real)….

link to journals.openedition.org

OT.
It seems there are two Dans posting on Wings.
The Dan posting at 8am today and having the conversation with TD is not me.
I also noticed another post tucked on the end of a thread a week or so ago by another poster using the name Dan.

What’s the best way to resolve this situation?
I’ll put up an avatar image when I get a chance but have a feeling this may still lead to confusion.
As a relatively recent poster I apologise if I have inadvertently used an existing but non-prolific poster’s name.

I’ll be travelling through to Glasgow for the AUOB march this Saturday on one of the two coach fulls of Indy supporters from my area, and I’ll try to pop by the Wings stall to say hello.

Talking to a chum this afternoon, he said something about a lady from the SNP or Scot Gov on Good Morning Shortbread this morning talking about the health service/raising tax and off-setting funding or something, anyone hear it?

Robert Peffers at 12.55 p.m.

Just to be clear, the quote at the start of your post was of me quoting RoberttheTruth. Those were not my words.

My main point is and was that yes, the Scottish people are sovereign but that does not mean that in practice, the Scottish people get to decide what happens in Scotland. I was responding to RoberttheTruth’s point that the people were against the Act of Union so how could it happen. The answer is that what happens is not always right in either a legal or moral sense and just saying that something is unlawful or unconstitutional does not mean that it won’t or didn’t happen.

Arguably, that is the main problem with the union that we find ourselves in. The most recent and topical example of this is Brexit. The UK government does not recognise Scotland as an entity for these purposes and declares that our right to not be taken out of Europe is no more compelling than London’s. They are wrong of course, but unless a majority of Scottish people are prepared to leave the UK over it, they will in practice be right. Hence my point that whatever the legal and constitutional arguments, the most important thing is to convince a majority that Scottish interests would best be served out of the UK.

@ Robert Louis.

Further to your comment regarding Scotland’s Parliament and the Treaty of Union.

Lord Cooper made a very clear statement regarding Parliamentary Sovereignty.

‘ Parliamentary Sovereignty is a purely English principle, and one not recognised in Scots Constitutional law ‘.

Now his comment referred to another matter, but they rather set the cat among the pigeons.
In other words, Scotland’s Parliament was not recognised as Sovereign in Scottish Constitutional law.

Sovereignty rests with the people.

This new line of attack is proving productive already. 🙂

Hegel, Identity Politics and the Problem of Slavery

Abstract

This article examines the relevance of Hegel’s philosophy and political thought, and especially his views on slavery, for contemporary identity politics. It offers an account of Hegel’s metaphysical beliefs and explores the relevance of those beliefs for our understanding of his views on ‘the self’. It is suggested that for Hegel all individual selves are comprised of two component elements, one of which possesses the quality of universality and the other that of particularity. The particular self, or the particular component of an individual self, is a social construction. It is this dimension of the self that provides all individuals with their determinate social identity.

The article applies this insight to a reading of the well-known ‘master–slave’ section of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, which presents Hegel’s understanding of the role that slavery has for the development of self-consciousness. The article considers two interpretations of Hegel’s views on slavery. One of these considers slavery to be a socio-historical phenomenon, a social institution associated with a particular type of society. The other thinks of ‘slavery’, using the term in a quite different sense, as being a necessary condition for the development of self-consciousness in all societies everywhere.

As such, slavery is an ahistorical or supra-historical phenomenon that could never be transcended. The article concludes by suggesting that a modified version of this second interpretation of Hegel’s views on slavery in the
Phenomenology has provided a source of theoretical inspiration for an anarchist critique of social institutions that was developed by a number of French social theorists and philosophers in the twentieth century.

link to researchgate.net

I think I’ve hit the mother-load. 🙂

Identity, Recognition, Rights or What Can Hegel Teach Us About Human Rights?

Abstract

Rights play a crucial role in shaping identity by organizing the recognition of self by others and by legal and social institutions. For Hegel, legal rights lead to an abstract type of recognition based on the universality of the law. The concreteness of the person, alongside the respect bestowed by legal recognition, calls for the acknowledgment of honour and esteem. Human rights move in this direction, by validating both the similarity of claimants with abstract humanity and their difference and uniqueness. But law’s necessary generality cannot meet the demands for the full recognition of the postmodern self with its polymorphous desires and its complex struggles for recognition as a unique individual.

link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com

The Tories are just waiting, milking the system till they are voted out. So someone else has to clear up their mess, as usual. The usual Westminster total mess and shambles costing £Billions. They could not make a bigger mess. No one wants the poison chalice. A bunch of total imbeciles.

Just re post as Dan not Dan. Or Dan2. Or Dannyboy, Dainty Dan. No problem.

The Principal has sone questions to answer regarding this appointment. Being funded with loads public monies. Cronyism and patronage. Supposed to be more impartial and follow a code of professional conduct. Non compliance.

@RobertTheTruth says: 2 May, 2019 at 10:34 am:

” … Oh! And by the way, you will have to show me where I admit to being a propagandist, Robert the Mooth?

Henceforth you will be ignored by me. I’m not here to pick fights with numpties.

Scottish Sovereignty resides with the people as an principle of Law. Scotland has a different Legal system guaranteed by the terms of the Treaty of Union. Forever. Scotland was guaranteed a separate (Protestant) Church with a shared Protestant monarch. Separate Church system led to a separate education system. Originally Church education. Paid by the parish. Until it became public system paid by taxpayers.

English Law is based on Roman Law.

Scottish Law is based on Latin Law

Look it up two different legal systems.

@ Robert the Truth – you won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t agree with you either, for reasons amply spelt out by others above.

You don’t appear to understand what democratic decision making actually involves. No decision taken in Westminster reflects the will of the Scottish people. We are so outnumbered that it is a joke to pretend that Westminster has ever represented the will of the Scottish people.

My mother was seven when women got the franchise in 1928. Until c 1948 no decision made in Westminster was democratic (voting age was then 21). The last time Scotland voted for a Tory Government was in 1955. There is a “democratic deficit” i.e. no democracy at all. Democracy is when you always get the government you vote for.

I won’t bother repeating my comment on the suppression of Scottish History as you probably wouldn’t be interested.

One for the Jackie Baillie, who’s conception of justice appears to need updating.

From Natural Rights to Human Rights—And Beyond

Abstract

The idea of rights is central to our moral vocabulary. Over the past century, however, the concept of rights has changed significantly: the original faculties-based natural rights doctrine is being replaced by a needs-based and dependency-based human rights doctrine. This change is best represented in the sharp contrast between rights claims expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This shift in theory has and will continue to have broad practical consequences.

The human rights view, in understanding human beings as needy and dependent rather than as distinctively capable of responsible liberty, leads to the endless proliferation of rights claims, which become self-negating. In a situation where everyone has a right to everything, there can be no justice. If the idea that we possess rights by virtue of our rational nature is to remain viable as the core of our understanding of justice, the identification of those rights must be grounded in a defensible account of our morally distinctive nature and subject to a sound limiting principle.

link to heritage.org

@Tatu3 3:06pm
Re: Archive.is

One possibility is if you’re using a custom DNS server, specifically Cloudlflare, in your router or within your mobi settings, or an app
Archive.is etc have a long standing policy of bumping anything resolving from Cloudlflare servers (there are a few threads on t’internet about it)

I had that specific issue before (and still do if I forget to kill my custom DNS in my mobi)
If you’re just using your default ISP DNS servers its unlikely to be that though. Sometimes it could just be high traffic.

@Cubby says:2 May, 2019 at 4:29 pm@

” … pigeons you have been warned. Get out of Scotland.”

Just by coincidence I found a dead pigeon in my front garden this morning. I’ve been hearing them for quite a wile and seen the occasional one in flight. Now I also noted of recent weeks I had magpies hanging around the garden and magpies are prone to attacking pigeons especially in breeding season.

Capella @ 4.49
I agree…
What I find astounding is that given her position as “a potential First Minister of Scotland” , ( I know, but that’s where Labour promoted her to ) she had to have had media training and would, or should, have been very well aware of the power of her word’s!
Yet her position on the tweet was held to be of equal weight to the Revs who has had no such access to these kinds of professional spinners and happened to have had the right interpretation….That’s not balance….

Dan at 03:00……

Just add some rubbish at the end of your name like I did.

Surprisingly there is more than one Tam on this site!

@ Capella 4:49 pm – it is not a remotely novel way of applying defamation law. Read the judgement again: the Sheriff cites precedent from decades ago, including one that is well over a century old. In fact, the application was so straightforward that I cannot conceive of what grounds there could be for appeal and would strongly advise Stuart against attempting it.

What is your source for the £2000 for hurt feelings? The equivalent concept in Scots law is solatium and it is usually only relevant in personal injury actions where emotional injury has also occurred.

It doesn’t follow that Dugdale should apologise because the judge ruled that the statement had defamatory character. If that seems counterintuitive, then you lack a fundamental understanding of defamation has been handled by Scottish courts and why the fair comment defence exists. To quote from the judgement again:

t is common sense that the analysis applied by a heterosexual (a dispassionate application of logic based on the dictionary meaning of words) may be entirely different from the analysis applied by a homosexual person (a dismayed search for justification for an unnecessary joke at the apparent expense of a homosexual man). It is not possible to dismiss the latter as less worthy, or less rational, or less fair, than the former. It is the kind of subjective, rational and honest reading of the tweet, leading to a subjective, rational and honest public comment, which will be protected by the law as fair comment. Accordingly, the comment was fair, because it can be rationally justified from the underlying facts.

For the record, I’m an indy supporter with at best mild contempt for Dugdale herself. However, the consistent, clear application of Scots law (which I believe can develop yet more progressively if completely uncoupled from London) is more important than seeing Unionists getting a bloody nose courtesy of the judiciary.

Hi yesindyref2 sorry to hear of your probs, if you crave try ecigs i’ve been on them for about 5 years and huvnae geed in yet , keep on going ye might be a contrary bugger at times but we need awe us contrary buggers

@Prime-minister
Take your authoritarian, (white) British/English, nationalism and ram it!

THE POLITICAL CULTURE;
POLITICIAL SOCIALIZATION AND ACCULTURATION

ABSTRACT.

In this article, the author, after having comparatively analyzed senses and significations of the concept of politic culture, as stated by several renowned authors in the world of science, proceeds to a differentiation of general political culture from those political cultures that are integrated into the lives of contemporary political agents (subcultures, political countercultures, marginal cultures, political cultures of public policy makers etc.) which coexist on the territory of a state.

Using praxeological and systemic approaches, the author discusses the place and role of contemporary ideologies in their quality as a directional and dynamogenic factor in political practices, as well as political socialization and acculturation as methods of reproducing and developing political culture in accordance with the necessities imposed by the global development of society and by its subsystems.

The formation of a solid political culture, through education and communication in general, both at individual and at social level, conditions the maturation of democracy, and the launching of public policies likely to solve individual and community issues.

Keywords: participative political culture, subcultures and countercultures, socialization, acculturation, ideology.

link to degruyter.com

Ken 500 @ 4.20 PM

Scots Law has absorbed a lot of Roman Law especially from the 15th century onwards and possibly reflects the practice of law students to complete their training on the Continent.

English Law is largely based on common law, Acts of Parliament etc. It does have some elements of Roman Law within it.

Dan at 1.00 p.m.

Sorry to be so long responding – had to go out.

I think you misunderstand the law. You say “Proving a statement is capable of being defamatory is simply proving that there is a delict.” There are many definitions of “delict” available but they all agree that delict is about compensation for harm done. The default is that compensation is due if harm is done. There are of course many exceptions to this and the fair comment defence is one of them. The Sheriff’s judgement explains why he considered fair comment applies, but it is quite clear that without this defence, damages would have been payable.

You go on to say “He considered it fair comment because, among other things, he regarded it as a value judgement, not a statement of fact and therefore even if he considered it incorrect, the diversity of perspective on the matter meant that his opinion on the tweet was ultimately of no greater validity than Dugdale’s.” I think this is where you misunderstand the nuance of the judgement. If the Sheriff had considered that Dugdale was well-informed on the matter of homophobia and that she had written comments which were false while knowing what homophobia was, then the defence of fair comment would have failed and damages would have been payable. It could only be an opinion and therefore meeting the test for fair comment if she was literally ignorant of what the term meant.

As for the Sheriff’s opinion about homophobia he was quite clear. He stated on numerous occasions in the judgement that Dugdale was wrong – he did not state that in his opinion she was wrong. He said she was entitled to express her views, but that her views were wrong. There was no equivocation about this.

So to sum up, Stuart’s position that Dugdale’s “win” depended on her being stupid is characteristically abrasive but in substantive terms, correct.

Hamish 100.
Are you the spokesman for CamerB when he is taking tiffin.

There’s no time for tiffin when your working towards social emancipation. 😉

Political Socialization and the Making of Citizens

Abstract and Keywords

Political socialization describes the process by which citizens crystalize political identities, values and behavior that remain relatively persistent throughout later life. This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of the scholarly debate on political socialization, posing a number of questions that arise in the study of political socialization and the making of citizens.

First, what is it about early life experiences that makes them matter for political attitudes, political engagement, and political behavior? Second, what age is crucial in the development of citizens’ political outlook? Third, who and what influences political orientations and behavior in early life, and how are cohorts colored by the nature of time when they come of age? Fourth, how do political preferences and behavior develop after the impressionable years? The chapter further provides an outlook of the challenges and opportunities for the field of political socialization.

Keywords: Political socialization, impressionable years, socialization agents, generations, stability of political preferences

link to oxfordhandbooks.com

As I understand it Scots Law is a complex hybrid containing elements from the common law of the pre-unification nations, Gaels/Irish, Britons/Welsh, Norse and Anglian plus elements from Norman, Old Roman and Canon law. Later in the 15th century Roman law as practised in the Netherlands exercised considerable formative influence. After the unfortunate Union, English law became influential particularly in commercial matters. Fitting Westminster legislation to Scots Law often required square peg, round hole ‘adjustments’.

Bombardier pulling out of NIreland.

link to bbc.co.uk

………………….

Yeah, get well soon Yesindyref2. And just think when you’re really narky you can blame it on the lack of fags, lol.

…………………

Dirty Money Davidson using her maternity leave as an excuse not to answer questions on STV news earlier. “It would be unfair to say anything when I’ve been away for six months.” Who would have thought it? Wee fly wummin.

@dads

get well soon mon ami

Bombardier out of Northern Ireland Debenhams closing stores thousands of jobs going not a protest from any political leader or the public why not

Professor John Robertson:- ‘How Scotland Thrives – May 2019.’

link to thoughtcontrolscotland.com

CameronB Brodie says:
2 May, 2019 at 8:59 pm
“”I think this one appropriate given the full-English Brexit is driven by intolerance of difference, to a large extent, and the BCC in Scotland incompetent, at best. Anyone know if the Church of Scotland is still wedded to the xenophobic ideology of contemporary British nationalism? Does the Church of Scotland not care about Scotland’s poor and vulnerable?””
….

What a stupid ignorant post. Your ignorance of the Church of Scotland and its history and contribution to Scotland and the people of Scotland and their wellbeing drips from every word and speaks to a darker motive and massive ignorance.

Surprised the Scottish government are not supporting the Venezuelan people who are under attack from the USA and CIA.

Mad Unionist said
‘Surprised the Scottish government are not supporting the Venezuelan people who are under attack from the USA and CIA.’

Don’t you worry yer wee british nationalist backside about the people of Venezuela.

Your thieving warmongering britnat government in Westminster are in full support of the USA in attempting regime change in Venezuela.Foreign policy being reserved to London.

Stealing and misappropriating the natural resources of other countries is one of their fortes.

Like your auld grey 68 year ol’arse didn’t know that.