Wings Over Scotland

Rev. You were quite correct in warning us about today’s cartoon, on your twitter feed.

But, still another brilliant offering.

Mr Cairns has talent, he should consider becoming a cartoonist full-time.

Sums up the situation perfectly I like the branch office kennels especially.

The Wrecking Ball would get my vote before
Brexit, Labour or the Terrible Tories!

The UK is just too surreal these days. Literally nothing would surprise me.

Its like experiencing an out of body experience for Countries Kingdoms. You’re floating above the table as they defibrillate a bloated hypoxic UK, and you’re just not sure you wanna go back because actually, this freedom feels kinda nice.

Ah plethora of ill will on both their houses for generations to come .

Weil done Mr Cairns .

Excellent, and also terrifying, the stuff of nightmares, or even daymares! When I saw the advance apology on Stuart’s twitter, for the horror awaiting us today on WoS, I thought, it’ll be Fabage, Trump, or the not so famous six or is it seven, Tory wannabes.

The Fabage looks like he’s having a ball in his tiny Britnat flag undies, god, ( or someone) help us all!

Have a good, nightmare free weekend all!

Thanks for the warning on twitter Rev. Wow, Chris, just wow.

Well done sir, covers it all magnificently.

The sooner that crook is in jail the better.

The Fibdem lying again. The ConDems cut Education £6Billion a year from 2015 to 2020.
Incensed student fees elsewhere to £9000 a year. Clegg now making £Millions with the tax dodger.

The Tories illegally cutting Scottish budget again.

And not a hoe of the chain breaking. Well done Chris.

Brian, aye right.

A wrecking ball indeed, Chris. Did you see the Governor of the Bank of England talk of Scotland’s GDP as at least a £1 trillion? England can’t afford Scotland to reinstate self-governance.

Your essential weekend reading:

‘Collaborators’, what to do with them: link to wp.me
‘Arctic’ – a warm review of a cold film: link to wp.me

Should have had `BBC` chiseled into the wrecking ball,

whoever is really behind Farage is doing a great job of destroying the UK and the two cheeks of the Westminster erse,

is it,

Putin,American big business,money laundering banks,English nationalists,China

to what ultimate purpose,

anyhoo,

let`s `get the hell out of Dodge` before the place implodes in an orgy of ruin and carnage.

Perfect summary of the week.

Here JC still not on board with second vote – this ‘democratic’ man still not listening to membership who voted for it.

As for Swinson she’s just another one of these so called scots who want to ingratiate themselves to WM elite by bad mouthing Scotland just like Ruthie, Gove etc. I’m amazed they can’t see the reality and that their words/actions just make them look like the fools they are. She is one of the ‘dirty’ libdems who have raised lying to an art form especially in elections. Think Cole Hamilton and his leaflets saying an snp mother was going to jail and it fell into the hands of her daughter who was distraught. Very dirty players who would like you to think they are harmless but are really just gormless – talking down their own country will never get them respected.

Unfortunately with the media we have, the lack of journalists questioning and the blatantly biased bbc they are getting away with it.

Yeh Brian.

Sturgeon is formalising the way referenda are held in Scotland and no doubt the idea of permission from our betters in Westminster will be raised by the opposition parties. At which point it’ll be made clear that none is needed.

The next step will be to try another tack and outright ban or require consent on reserved topics. Once again a get to fuck will be the reply. As referenda doesn’t necessarily include legislation to implement the result a formal framework would leave the only avenue to object that if the people of Scotland give a verdict that somehow impacts on reserved matters.

At some point unionists are going to have to put on record that their intent is to restrict the ability of the people of Scotland to voice their opinions and instruct or advise their elected representatives on a course of action.

Specifically, Holyrood will be barred from asking the sovereign people of Scotland for the authority to act on their behalf in reserved matters. In other words we will be prevented from taking our sovereignty back from Westminster contrary to Scots Law.

Joseph Goebbels.

To Winnifred McCartney your post at 8.54am 1st June

Do you think it’s possible that the LibDems will take over where the Tories left off, in Scotland , will we now see a concerted effort by the media in Scotland to support Swinson and bring her to the fore as the new messiah will they claim her to be the next Scottish first minister and try and persuade all the British nationalists in Scotland to get behind her instead of Ruth Davidson.
It looks like Ruth Davidson is a dead duck in the waters of Scottish politics.
Lib Dem’s have an unshifting stronghold in a few parts of Scotland, I reckon we might now see a concerted effort by the British unionists to move disaffected Labour and Tory voters to Lib Dem purely as a British nationalist ploy to subvert Scottish independence at any cost.
I do believe Labour and Tory British nationalists will more readily move to Lib Dem’s that to each other.
What do you think ?

Mundell shooting his mouth of claiming education worse under devolution. What a surprise, he isn’t telling the truth, just being dishonestly selective with figures.

link to theferret.scot

Is it just me, but has Miley Cyrus aged a little?

Was there not someone else who only had one ball too?

With all the Tory ‘Has-Beens’ asserting that they will NOT grant a Sect 30 order it is timely to remind them The Rules of Poker as set out by Alaska Black Jack, “A loaded .45 Colt pointing at you BEATS FOUR ACES!”

Scotland in the Union.
Scotland in the United Kingdom.

Partners or Prisoners?

Partners or Prisoners?

PARTNERS OR PRISONERS?

Which are we?

Farage, campaigning for an independent Scotland! Probably not his intention but hey hoe, we certainly didn’t ask for his ‘assistance’ but it is entertaining to stand back and watch the various forms of BritNattery knocking bits off each other.

Wish I had stayed awake in the International Law 101 class but I am guessing a Treaty such as the Treaty of Union is open to review by the courts. Court of Session initially then off to the Hague to examine if its terms are breached.

Just a passing thought, but not a nice one – more a vision of accents from hell.

Can you imagine Rory Stewart, Jo Swinson, Fraser Nelson & Michael Gove all in the same room, talking at the one time? Mibbes throw in Neil Oliver for good measure?

Ther, just had to get that off my chest.

Best image of Gollum oops Farage I’ve seen in a while “the eyes have it”.

Mad as a fruit cake.. 🙂

Farage is being paid inordinate amounts of money to do this job…which is what he really really wants (Spice girl ref:)

Jo Swinson, my MP and I tried folks I really did but once the *good* people of East Dunbartonshire were fed all the lies and homophobic garbage that Swinson poured out about a good man John Nicolson they couldn’t help themselves and being the Liberals (really want to be Tories) that they are they voted him out for a (what they thought) softer version of Ruth Davidson who would lie but not run away immediately after, trouble is that’s exactly what she does and always has

This is a woman who claimed expenses for an entire flat refurbishing that she didn’t live in, right down to the teaspoons, an appalling woman with zero interest in politics exactly like Davidson, they just know how to game a system that allows them to extract vast sums of money from it and end up in the House of Lords which is the ambition of both of them as was their predecessors Lord (I know bad dirty men) Steele, or Annabel (never accomplished anything) Goldie

Or take your pick from any *Scottish* Peer, is there a difference, as long as you hold Scotland in contempt

Yer in!

Jo Swinson is Lady Macbeth cunningly disguised as a jolly Girl Guide.

Jockanese Wind Talker

Indeed :

The European Communities Act of 1972 foisted a
considerable and fundamental change of circumstances on
Scotland, without either the people, the parliament
(which was in recess at the time) or our elected
representatives in the UK Parliament being asked to vote
on it in the Scottish Grand Committee.

We must act now…before The Faragists pull the plug.

Oh I forgot…we have just had a vote on it (albeit somewhat belatedly) and we endorsed it.

Godspeed Faragists…Pull that plug!

There’s a unionist line of argument that says the Act of Union doesn’t read like an international treaty. Once corrected they pardon themselves and admit they meant the Treaty of Union.
What they’re trying to convince us of is that somehow it’s not a real international treaty that could be referred to an international adjudicator.

Failing that they try the idea that somehow it was an incorporation rather or a merger where the distinction of Scotland as a separate entity vanished despite evidence that that is not the case.

That’s why meaningful devolution is anathema to unionists who seem hell bent on obliterating any difference between Scotland and the rUK. Years of treating our languages as dying or simply a dialect have failed as has fostering a love of tragic heroes who died seemingly for challenging England.

Wallace, except he went beyond the pale and embarked on a reign of terror resulting in him being “betrayed”.

Mary Queen of Scots, except she was ousted under the tenets of The Declaration of Arbroath.

Bobby Prince Charlie, pretty much same again.

The eyes and the kennels.. 😀

Just a wee note on this S30. There can always be a referendum on whether Scotland wants an Independence referendum – since asking that does not violate any ‘constitutionally reserved’ matter.
A YES in that vote, then supercedes any requirement for an S30 for a consequent Indyref. Why so? Because the current mandates are predicated on election results, which will and have been argued as not representing a majority of all enfranchised Scots. That is the leverage and reason for currenrly refusing an S30.
A majority in pre-referendum or ‘confirmatory’ referendum, falls within the the majority of Scot’s ‘Claim of Right’ and that supercedes the ‘constitutionally reserved’ matter. Refusing the majority of enfranchised Scots their chosen referendum, under their Claim of Right, would itself be inherently unconstitutional.
Or perhaps my logic is flawed.

If tory lab and bxp stand in orkney and shetland in the coming ge, the libdems will be up against it

ORKNEY AND SHETLAND 2015 GE 65.8%
LIB 9,407
SNP 8,590
LAB 1,624
TOR 2,025
UKIP 1,082

ORKNEY SHETLAND 2016 HE
LIB 7096 7440
SNP 2562 2545
TORY 435 405
LAB 304 651
IND 137

ORKNEY AND SHETLAND 2017 68.1%
LIB 11,312
SNP 6,749
LAB 2,664
TOR 2,024
UKIP 203
IND 254

ORKNEY EU 2019 SHETLAND EU 2019
Electorate 16,804 t/o 38.3% Electorate 17,120 t/o 39.6%
CUK 75 82
TORY 499 342
LAB 204 305
LIB 2,144 2,001
SG 724 756
SNP 1,548 1,751
BXP 1,035 1,330
UKIP 157 151
IND 16 23
IND 5 9
REJ 31 28
TOT 6,438 6,778

Great toon, if disturbing imagery, Chris.

@McBoxheid

I get what you mean, Labour and Tory contributed greatly to their destruction, but that’s why Farage is dangerous, he identified the space, and set about occupying it. Now with the EU wins, he can claim legitimacy. It’s pure horror watching it, to think of the English MEPs off to the EU, cashing in, and disrupting decent elected members.

However, the flip side is that, once again, Scotland has shown a very different face of Remain to the EU.

Agree with all the comments on Swinson, as we witness her beatification. A horrible wee egotistical creature, on the make. How folk voted for her over John Nicolson is only explained by folk being Unionist Tories that like to be known as “Liberal”

Still, we’re making sure folk are informed about her voting record on Twitter. Humza Yousaf has also shared his letter to her about her lies on QT.

Breeks

You are on fire right now, your post at 12.29pm is another cracker.

I repeatedly wonder why, the SNP/Scottish Government, given they are about to be dragged out of Europe against the stated will of the Scottish people, are not following-up on every possible means of ending the Union, including the one or two you bring up in that post – or following-up on the points raised by Auld Boab below you.

I am certain, if they did, all but the most hard-nosed Orange Unionists would see the light and vote for Independence; or, if the Union was found by a recognised international court to have been breached to the detriment of Scotland, accepted the end of the Union.

We don’t perhaps hold all the aces, but, we hold most of them, so, come-on SNP, get moving.

the only thing that farage is doing is splitting the unionist vote, Im unsure that even if bojo “no deal” becomes pm, he will not stand the bxp in the subsequent ge?

in england, libs vs lab and bxp vs tory will produce a result that cannot be predicted

in scotland, snp vs tory/lab/lib and bxp will split the unionist vote everywhere

farage is wrecking the unionist vote, not the snp’s

Off Topic.

All Under One Banner [AUOB]

March in Galashiels NOW on Independence Live:
link to livestream.com

Just scroll back for earlier. 🙂

@ Brian

My undestanding is that it’s the position of the UK Govt that a S30 order is required for the Scottish Parliament to hold an indyref that would be legally binding on Westminster.

However, the new referendum Bill is about allowing Scot Govt ministers the direct power to authorise referendums, so sidestepping the question of a S30 for the Scottish Parliament. The referendum/s according to this Bill would be “advisory”.

Quite clever and worthy of praise. So, rendering the S30 question as largely irrelevant. (Though, some might argue it’s a question that should be answered).

However, I will be suprised if the UK Govt don’t legislate to remove / prevent referendum powers for the Scottish Parliament AND Scottish Govt ministers.

So, it becomes explicit in English law that Scotland’s people can only have democratic freedom when given permission by the Colonial Master: the UK state.

Hopefully in that case even more of the “I’m a proud Scot, but” apologists for British Colonialism will realise that Scotland can no longer be treated as a colony of the English Crown.

Edna Rennie says no matter what happens in the UK no matter how bad things get, Scotland stays (and fights for fair treatment from inside the UK) That’s exactly the same position as the DUP in Northern Ireland

The fact that he has to even say (fight for fair treatment) says it all

Edna has declared the Lib Dems are in Ruth Davidsons *No Surrender* party

big turnout in galashiels

link to livestream.com

100s of yesbikers, 1000s of marchers

1-0 NZ

Ironically it may be what happens in England that will deliver, or not, on Scottish independence.
It was in the aftermath of WWII and the consequently much weakened state of the UKGB that contributed to and facilitated the drive for independence in the imperial colonies.
Perhaps hanging around waiting for the system to screw up might be the strategy the FM has in mind. Hmmmm!

at least 5000 at galashiels

Dr Jim says:

England is Scotsphobic

I would say there’s more Scotsphobia in England than there is Anglophobia in Scotland.

Neither are necessary, neither show exit. But alas both are being driven by English/British Nationalists’ obsession with retaining their Greater England aka Britain/UK. Scots are seen as an existential threat and thus become a focus of phobia.

If only we could freely move along our different paths but remain good neighbours, there would be no excuse for phobias.

Might have been funnier, if I had said “English Pig”!

… Might even have been true.

Honestly folks, the BBC can try to sanitise what is happening in England, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time. The state was instrumental in enabling the full-English Brexit. The British state is an ambiguous democracy on the fast-track to failed state status.

Neoliberalism and Right-wing Populism: Conceptual Analogies

Abstract

The paper compares neoliberal market-fundamentalism and right-wing populism on the basis of its core patterns of thinking and reasoning. Hence we offer an analysis of the work of important founders of market-fundamental economic thinking (particularly von Mises) and an established definition of populism (demonstrated by the example of arguments brought forward by leading populists, like Trump).

In doing so, we highlight conceptual resemblances of these two approaches: Both assume a dually divided world that is split into only two countervailing parts. Right-wing populism shows a society split into two groups, fighting against each other. In a similar vein, neoliberal market-fundamentalists argue that there are only two possible countervailing economic and societal orders. We argue that the categorical analogies between neoliberal market-fundamentalism and right-wing populism could provide the basis for a new form of authoritarian neoliberalism.

Keywords: right-wing populism, market-fundamentalism, Ludwig von Mises, Donald Trump, patterns of thinking

link to tandfonline.com

@galamcennalath

We’ve been *othered* for so long by the hostility of successive regimes the average Joe in England thinks it’s real that we’re some kind of crazy people in the thrall of the evil mind altering wizards of the SNP

Half my family are English on my Mum’s side from the Midlands and they all feel sorry for the Scottish branch of our family to the point I’ve been offered sanctuary, none of them rich but all vote Tory and Farage in the EU election and hate foreigners because everything’s their fault

It doesn’t seem to matter to them that that’s how we vote and we rather like our political leaders and the FM is actually incredibly popular, in their minds we’re all under some kind of dictatorship from the evil Sturgeon and her Independence thugs

They truly believe their British Nationalism is spelled *Patriotism* and ours is spelled Nazi

They can’t conceive of it being any other way, it says so on the TV and in the Daily Mail so that must be the honest truth

When a people won’t hear you there’s no choice but to leave them and hope maybe later they see they were wrong by results and future developments but in truth I don’t think that’ll ever happen soon because they still think of the Republic of Ireland as lesser mortals and much poorer than them and the Republic’s had Independence for a long time and come a long way yet still the English won’t see it

The Royal media political force is strong in England

@Dr Jim, yeah thats the thing, you can’t get people to admit they were wrong. You might just convince people that the situation has changed or that they were previously duped, ie: being wrong was not their own fault.

I see there was also a great turn out of Bikers for Independence and the usual dugs for independence at Gala today.

Amazing isn’t it that even the dugs in the street can see independence is the way to go – how come the unionists can’t see it.

@ Robert Peffers

Have you ever thought of posting in The National with all the precise information that you have. There is a real thirst for it. I have tried myself but I do not have the forensic analysis that you have and somebody else comes along with a different theory. Besides you are the undoubted Master.

Many in the YES groups read and disperse the information from The National. Your information could reach and be spread by a slightly different audience. Or perhaps you could write a letter or even an article to get the information out there. Up to you. Just a thought.

Here’s another insight into what is happening to English culture.

The neo-fascist moment of neoliberalism

How can we understand the simultaneous rise of the far right and the authoritarian evolution of neoliberalism? We need an antifascism that can highlight the latter’s role in this “neo-fascist moment.”
link to opendemocracy.net

Here is another Gala podcast:-

link to youtube.com

Jings Almighty there’s some shite being posted today and I’ve only reached 2pm so far catching up. Here’s one by the usual suspect:

“The referendum/s according to this Bill would be “advisory”.“. Absolute crap.

link to parliament.scot

A scan shows no occurence of the word “advisory”. Not one. None. Zero.

Zilch, nada, b*ll*cks.

link to theguardian.com

And Yoons will swear blind and keep swearing that we’re better together” – I despair!

Jweremy Hunt in his efforts to become Prime Minister and to appease the England and or Unionist voter describes his denial of an Independence referendum in Scotland in the most ridiculous of terms yet

*Families were split up* he says *The bullying* he says

Now we were all there I wonder how many of us witnessed this armageddon, I know I didn’t

Of course I remember now, it was in all the English papers and reported widely by opposing politicians, so definitely true eh

Great work keep up the archiving,let the bastards wither on the vine.

Good turnout on the Galashiels march, I watched it on Indy Live. Oban in two week’s time.

If you spare a bob or two can you give some to our James Kelly at Scots Goes Pop as he has started a fundraiser.

link to scotgoespop.blogspot.com

Robert J Sutherland @ 6.16
Well obviously I can’t say for sure but,I suspect it’s because as 2014 showed the majority of the Sovereign People of Scotland haven’t yet gotten behind striking down the Treaty.
Why would we got to court to have the Treaty ended and have the people then say they didn’t want to?
It’s a bit of “chicken and egg” conundrum…. So ye take yer choice,and right here right now the choice seems to be that we ask the people first.
It IMHO becomes a different story if the people are prevented at any time from a decision or their decision is not implemented!
But a government,any government, should not just head to the courts to end a TREATY that the people want to keep,imagine they did that with the EU?

Listened to the Hunt interview on TV.
Sweeping statements. Who are his researchers? Are those polled Conservative voters? Why, oh, why is he and his colleagues, for that matter, not quizzed as to where.their information comes from?
If statements such as his are proved to be untrue then, as they were broadcast on a UK wide channel at prime time, shouldn’t they be retracted at prime time on these channels.
God help us. We have enough scammers as it is.

Robert Peffers, keep going you are doing a brilliant job.

Went to Galashiels (pronounced Gaully) today on the AUOB march. AUOB marches are the heartbeat of the Independence movement. Christine Graham MSP for Galashiels addressed the marchers, reminding us that the Labour and Unionist Party has been the enemy of Scotland for generations. Another brilliant day for the Yes movement. BTW, very impressed with Galashiels and its residents.

Robert Peffers @ 19:54,

A voluminous reply, as is your wont, but one which alas fails to address the burning question. Where’s the action? We have lots of talk on the subject, but apparently no walk.

As we are acutely aware, one of the favourite posturings of the BritNats, not least from their moputhpieces in the media, is that we are supposedly “impotent”. Leaving aside the obvious sawing off the branch they are sitting upon, it still rankles, because it contains a grain of truth. WM supposedly decides. Sajid David said so. =roll eyes=. Now, both you and I would be in agreement that this is by no means the end of the matter, and the game’s well afoot now as we have seen recently.

But still, many of us do hanker for a more immediate and potent counter, and it seems the constitutional issue has heretofore been sadly neglected, despite the fact that it does, on the face of it, seem to offer great potential. We have a history of 300 years of infractions of the 1707 Treaty with which to illustrate our case, not least the most recent and pending ones. Even if the Treaty remains largely unread, and in fact is hardly available online or in print, even.

If you read the American Declaration of Independence, although it starts with some extremely fine and resonant sentiments, it quickly resorts to a list of grievances against King George III as embodiment of the UK state. We have our very own list.

Currently the US Democrats are trying to get Robert Mueller to testify before the US Congress, even though he clearly will add nothing to what he has carefully put in his report, because they know full well that the vast majority of Americans won’t have read a word of the 400+ word report, whereas hearing it stated in person on oath on TV will have widespread coverage and consequent potentially huge impact. Surely we need some equivalent? In a public forum, especially one able to make judgements and free of English bias and ignorance. The ECJ, for example, as with the Art.50 case.

So we return to the question. Why not? If politicians are busy enough in their own field, why no crowdfunder, for example? Do people think it would have no legal merit, or no eventual public resonance, or are people too unadventurous, or what?

I’m genuinely curious!

@Robert J. Sutherland says:1 June, 2019 at 6:16 pm:

Further to my reply to you here is an example of how Some Articles of Union were worded that could cause neverending court arguments This is Article XVII and is worded:-

“.??THAT from and after the Union, the same Weights and Measures shall be used throughout the United Kingdom, as are now established in England, and Standards of Weights and Measures shall be kept by those Burghs in Scotland, to whom the keeping the Standards of Weights and Measures, now in Use there, does of special Right belong: All which Standards shall be sent down to such respective Burghs, from the Standards kept in the Exchequer at Westminster, subject nevertheless to such Regulations as the Parliament of Great Britain shall think fit.”

In the end this just would not wash because the stipulation is that the United Kingdom Parliament would be making those “Think Fit”, changes and that is the joint UK parliament and not that of England alone and the United Kingdom is a union of two equally sovereign kingdoms. Furthermore Westminster just continued on 1 May 1707 as if it were the Kingdom of England that had annexed Scotland and today that is even more clearly seen what with devolved English powers handed down to Scotland and the use of EVEL.

O/T
It is already obvious that “our” media -print, radio and tv – are now going to saturate available space with favourable publicity about LibDem aspirant leader Jo Swinson and comments along the lines of Liberal Values and the importance of such in public affairs.
It might be useful to reflect on examples of these Liberal Values in recent political memory other than just the example quoted above on the literature promoting Ms Swinson in the most recent General Election. Recent dramatisation of the Jeremy Thorpe affair, reports of the considerable efforts to avoid publicity about the late Cyril Smith’s activities, the lies perpetrated,without redress or censure, by Alastair Carmichael about our First Minister.
Perhaps the most extreme example in this sorry catalogue was the much heralded success -in the sixties?-of Simon Hughes in a by-election in Bermondsey when the reputation of his Labour opponent was shamefully traduced by yje Hughes team The later revelations were more than revealing on Liberal Values.
However, like Smith, he did secure a knighthood.

Here’s that article in the economist that Abulhaq referred to:
1 June, 2019 at 1:59 pm

The CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS waiting in the wings.
The next to blow
Britain’s constitutional time-bomb
Brexit is already a political crisis. Sooner or later it will become a constitutional crisis, too

Print edition | Leaders
May 30th 2019
Britons pride themselves on their “unwritten” constitution. America, France and Germany need rules to be set down in black and white. In the Mother of Parliaments democracy has blossomed for over 300 years without coups, revolution or civil war, Irish independence aside. Its politics are governed by an evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sovereign Parliament. Thanks to its stability, Britain convinced the world that its style of government was built on solid foundations laid down over centuries of commonsense adaptation.

That view is out of date. The remorseless logic of Brexit has shoved a stick of constitutional dynamite beneath the United Kingdom—and, given the difficulty of constitutional reform in a country at loggerheads, there is little that can be done to defuse it. The chances are high that Britons will soon discover that the constitution they counted on to be adaptable and robust can in fact amplify chaos, division and the threat to the union.

On June 10th, three days after Theresa May steps down as Conservative leader, the race to succeed her will formally begin (see article). Some of the runners, including the favourite, Boris Johnson, vow that, unless the European Union gives them what they want (which it won’t), they will pull out of the eu on October 31st without a deal. The 124,000 members of the Conservative Party who will choose the next prime minister, an unrepresentative sample, to put it mildly, will thus take it upon themselves to resolve the question that has split the nation down the middle.

Worse, Britain’s supposedly sovereign Parliament has voted against just such a no-deal Brexit on the ground that it would do the country grave harm. There will doubtless be more parliamentary machinations to stop a no-deal Brexit or force one through. The constitution is unclear on whether the executive or Parliament should prevail. It is unclear how to even choose between them.

Behind this uncertainty lies the fact that Britain’s constitution is a jumble of contradictions scattered across countless laws, conventions and rules. As our Briefing this week describes, these can easily be amended, by a vote in Parliament or merely on the say-so of the controversial Speaker of the House of Commons—who this week vowed to stay in office in order to ensure that Parliament’s voice is heard. There was a time when most British lawmakers were mindful that playing fast and loose with the rules could undermine democracy. Perhaps that is why they used to practise self-restraint. But in recent decades, when liberal democracy seemed unshakable, Britain’s leaders forgot their caution. Instead, in a fit of absent-mindedness, they set about reinventing the constitution wholesale.

Under Tony Blair and David Cameron, the Westminster Parliament ceded power to assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the people directly through referendums. These innovations were often well-meant and, in themselves, desirable. But nobody gave much thought to the consequences for the constitution as a whole.

The resulting mess has already stamped its mark on Brexit. The referendum endorsed leaving the eu but left the details for later. It provided a mandate for Brexit, but not for any of the very different forms Brexit can take. It is unclear how mps should reconcile their duty to honour the referendum with the duty of each one of them to act in the best interests of their constituents. Other countries avoid that mistake. Ireland holds referendums, too. But Article 46 of its constitution is clear: the people vote on a change only after a bill has passed through the Dail with the details nailed down. Britain never thought to be so sensible.

Brexit is itself sowing the seeds of further constitutional chaos, by threatening the integrity of the union. In the elections for the European Parliament (see article), the Scottish National Party (snp) won an increased share of the poll. Scotland voted Remain in the referendum, and the snp’s leaders can understandably claim that they have just won an enhanced mandate to leave the United Kingdom. Yet, at least one of the Tory leadership candidates is ruling out any further referendums.

Breaking up the union would be a constitutional nightmare—if only because no process for secession is laid down. Merely choosing to hold a second Scottish referendum could be fraught. Mr Johnson is loathed north of the border. Plenty of English voters are calling for a second Brexit referendum. Mrs May told the snp to wait until Brexit had been resolved. Legally, could Prime Minister Johnson hold the line against a determined Scottish campaign? It is unclear.

The very act of leaving the eu would also load the constitution with fresh doubts. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which enshrines eu citizens’ rights in law, would no longer govern British courts. Some would-be Tory leaders, such as Dominic Raab, want to scrap domestic legislation that embeds those rights. If Parliament passed oppressive new laws, the courts might complain, but they could not stop it. Voters who moan about meddling European judges might start to have second thoughts. Cue calls for a British Bill of Rights and another fit of ill-considered constitutional innovation.

And that leads to a final worry. Britain’s ramshackle, easily amended constitution is vulnerable to the radicalised politics produced by three years spent rowing about Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn and his colleagues on the hard left could not be clearer about their ambitions to revolutionise Britain. It is naive to think they would focus on the economy and public spending, but leave the rules alone. A Labour government under Mr Corbyn—or, for that matter, a Conservative government led by a populist Tory—would be constrained only by its ability to get its way in Parliament. Labour has already called for a constitutional convention.

Most Britons seem blithely unaware of the test ahead. Perhaps they believe that their peculiar way of doing things always leads to stability. It is indeed just possible that their constitution’s infinite flexibility will permit a compromise that gets the country through the Brexit badlands. More likely, however, it will feed claims that the other lot are cheats and ("Tractor" - Ed)s.

Brexit has long been a political crisis. Now it looks destined to become a constitutional crisis, too. It is one for which Britain is woefully underprepared.

@ Liz g says at 7:00 pm ….. ”Robert J Sutherland … Well obviously I can’t say for sure but, I suspect it’s because as 2014 showed the majority of the Sovereign People of Scotland haven’t yet gotten behind striking down the Treaty. Why would we got to court to have the Treaty ended and have the people then say they didn’t want to? It’s a bit of “chicken and egg” conundrum…. So ye take yer choice, and right here right now the choice seems to be that we ask the people first. It IMHO becomes a different story if the people are prevented at any time from a decision or their decision is not implemented! But a government, any government, should not just head to the courts to end a TREATY that the people want to keep, imagine they did that with the EU?”

Spot on Liz. Someone getting down to the nitty gritty and thank goodness talking sense. The same applies to approaching the UN to complain that we are being treated like a Colony when 55% of Scots voted to remain in the ”Colony”. What would / could the UN do other than say that after 300 years the Scots voted less than 5 years ago to maintain the status quo, with Nicola Sturgeon et al left with a big red face. In saying that it would be rejected right off. never see the light of day. Thankfully NS will most definitely know more about Constitutional issues than anyone who posts on here, hence she’ll not be left looking like an absolute fool.

Robert Peffers is right when he states over and over again, ”As I’ve maintained all along the big sticking point is getting a majority of Scots to delegate their sovereignty to the SNP or to one or other of the Parliaments. Obviously without that Westminster falls back upon the Treaty of Union and claims that the Scottish parliament of 1706/7 delegated the Scots parliament their sovereignty to lend to Westminster.”

Add to that the Scottish people delegated their (our) sovereignty to Westminster once again in 2014.

The bottom line is that we REALLY need proof that over 50% of Scots want their country to be Independent before we can reach out to any EU / International Court for help. If and when we get to that place, (the over 50%) and Westminster’s still playing silly bu**ers Nicola Sturgeon will know exactly what legal route to take.

……………………..

Well worth listening to / reading Capella.

@ Capella says at 6:54 pm – ”Petra – Thx for the link to the Scottish Parliament Culture and Tourism Committee meeting on the Census Amendment Scotland Bill on 6th December last year.

From 9.04 to 10.07.

link to scottishparliament.tv

There is also a transcript here:

link to parliament.scot

Terry (and others) at 9.57 pm

Here’s the story your looking for. (It’s a bit late for me to translate it for you personally, but the gist of what you say is right.)

Don’t quote me as a professional translator, but just this once send it through Google Translate so you know more about what Carwyn is saying.

(And perhaps tomorrow, I’ll translate it ‘properly’ for you. No charge.)

link to golwg360.cymru

ben madigan @ 10.14
Thanks for that ben…
It’s an interesting read, but once again side steps the paradoxes in the UK so called Unwritten Constitution..
As in how do they write one???
To do so would need to recognise that the foundation document of the UK Westminster Parliament is the Treaty of Union.
And That.
The Treaty expressly forbids the TWO legal systems contained with in it to be joined.

So… To write a Constitution the Treaty itself would need to end and be superseded by the new UK Constitution.
To do that,would require to acknowledge that there is a TREATY and that it needs to be replaced…

The British Nationalist establishment can never do this because it amounts to asking Scotland to sign back up to Westminster rule,and, now that we have full suffrage they daren’t.

They didn’t dare for 300 odd year’s because it would raise a question they knew they wouldn’t want the answer to,and they cannot now ask,because they know….

They haven’t yet (after 3 centuries) persuaded Scots this Union should continue.Hence the centuries of propaganda,restricted growth and hidden wealth all wrapped up in a pretty “royal” bow!!I

We always, always, hear of new ACT’s of UNION and we must always reply with …… What about the TREATY….
We should not concern ourselves with ACT’s the TREATY is where our interests lie!!!

Joe
I’m a bit of a post-colonial feminist, so that kind of places me in critical orientation to Marxist ideology. That doesn’t mean I’m a right-winger though, obvs. I am supportive of ethical self-determination and liberal democracy though.

Global Capitalism and Human Rights

Abstract

NGOs are currently involved in attempts to bring International Financial Institutions (IFIs) in line with international human rights law. In this paper I argue that approaches to humanising global capitalism are not doomed by the nature of capitalism as such (as Marxists suppose). Indeed, the cultural politics in which NGOs and those sympathetic to human rights within IFIs have been engaged over the last twenty years has made some difference to the policies adopted by the World Bank.

However, the geo-political structures of the IFIs and the nature of capitalist competition make it legitimate, necessary even, for sovereign states to pursue their ‘comparative advantage’. The difficulties of reforming global capitalism are due to economic competition between states as much as they are to capitalism as such, and to the inadequacy of global institutions to manage it in order to make equitable economic policy for the world.

Keywords
Economic and social rights; international human rights law; International Financial Institutions; cultural politics; ‘de-globalization’

link to research.gold.ac.uk

@ Liz g 10:58.

Good post. Reading the article I had similar thoughts. The mental contortions required to piece together such an article into some sort of coherent story is truly remarkable. Even so, the slippage is easily spotted.

I don’t normally pay much attention to newspaper or online polls for the obvious reasons, but I did do one in Dundee’s Tele the other day because it asked for your name address and also asked a number of questions about independence, such as how you voted in 2014 and how you would vote now etc.

They ended up sampling 8,000 people, by far the biggest sample for Scotland in a long time.

The headline is ‘Tele Poll of 8,000: Big swing in favour of YES’ with the sub header of ‘Major survey reveals huge indy support’

Headline figures:

75.7% Yes (although Dundee was a Yes voting city, it certainly wasn’t anything like 75%!

Nearly one in five No voters would now vote Yes! (20% swing from no to yes!)

3% rise for independence since Brexit! (saw this switch a lot on Revs twitter feed but 3%, wow! )

Disappointingly Nearly one in ten Yes voters would now vote No! (nowt strange as folk!, although these voters may change their minds when the effects of Brexit are felt in their own lives a bit more)

Only 40% of No voters say they would vote No again and wanted to leave the EU, while 83% of Yes voters say they would vote Yes again and wanted to remain in the EU (This confirms that Brexit is causing people to change how they would vote, more than anything else)

No wonder their is an attempt to deny our democratic and EU human right to self determination!

PS. These figures appear in the paper version of
(Dundee’s) Telegraph dated June 1st 2019, but I’m not sure if it can be found on the ‘on-line’ version.

Petra says:
1 June, 2019 at 10:29 pm

The bottom line is that we REALLY need proof that over 50% of Scots want their country to be Independent before we can reach out to any EU / International Court for help. If and when we get to that place, (the over 50%) and Westminster’s still playing silly bu**ers Nicola Sturgeon will know exactly what legal route to take.

No we don’t.

Robert Peffers says:
1 June, 2019 at 9:44 pm

…In Scotland when we vote for an MEP, MP or MSP we vote to delegate them to exercise our legal sovereignty but until a majority of us give them a mandate to end the union they have no powers to do so. Neither have we mandated them to fight the matter in the courts.

That’s where I think you’re wrong Robert. If a murderer is taken to court for murder, it is a consequence of a crime being committed and the law of the land being enforced. It doesn’t require a popular democratic majority to authorise the law to proceed.

If the terms of the Union Treaty are being abused, or our interests subverted, then disputing the departure from lawful legitimacy can be instigated by one voice, no electoral majority is required.

As you say, we the people are sovereign. Always. There is an argument the Sovereignty “lent” to Westminster is no more permanent than the franchise “lent” or the power we delegate to our MP’s or MSP’s for their period in office. They are elected as our delegated administrators to exercise our sovereignty under temporary licence, not remove power from us but exercise it on our behalf. Wherever that protocol is unlawfully abused, the abuse can be tested by appeal to the law, not an electorate.

Let me ask you a question. We are Sovereign Robert, we have no superior. So if Scotland decided to amend this quasi-fealty to Westminster, and change our commitment to the Union to an annual subscription that required an annual endorsement by democratic majority, what is to say we couldn’t vote to elect and renew a continuance of UK Union Membership exactly the same way we have programmed elections and fixed tenure in office? We could if we wanted choose to renew Scotland’s commitment to the UK annually, or say maybe once every four years.

We are Sovereign. We can make Scotland’s place in the UK as fragile and tenuous as we like, and our exit contingent upon not a vote to leave, but the absence of a vote to remain. At the moment the protocol says we are permanently in the Union and must choose to leave, but supposed we altered our Union fealty to a process of annual subscription?

To be clear, I’m not saying we do that, but Constitutionally, with specific regard to our sovereignty, who could actually stop us? For a parallel, suppose Brexit had never happened yet, but the UK had instead chosen to hold annual referendum on whether to stay in the EU or Brexit, wouldn’t you acknowledge as sovereign, it could easily have done so? Who would have the Constitutional jurisdiction or power to overrule the UK’s decision? Nobody.

If Scotland has the power to hold one referendum, then Scotland has the power to hold any number of referenda and with whatever frequency it chooses. If we wanted to have an annual IndyRef, and treat our commitment to the UK as an annual subscription, it would be our sovereign prerogative to do it.

Where does this principle draw its power Robert, – that Scotland is trapped and emasculated in the Union until it votes to leave, but yet Westminster can ostensibly ride roughshod over Constitutional protocol with impunity? We…. are…. Sovereign. We are just afraid to use it.

@ Breeks.

The Queen of England lends her sovereignty to Parliament, it resides in Parliament, English MP’s exercise that Sovereignty in Parliament, but it does not make them sovereign. The monarch remains Sovereign. The Queen of Scots has no such authority, she cannot lend our Sovereignty to Parliament, Scots Sovereignty is lent to our MPs and they exercise that Sovereignty on our behalf in Parliament. It does not make them sovereign, we remain sovereign, cradle to grave mirroring the sovereignty of the English crown. Scots Constitutional law does not recognise Parliamentary sovereignty, therefore Westminster does not have legal Sovereignty over the whole the UK, it can only govern by consent. I suppose that is where I depart from RP’s position. Consent can be removed at any time by the people of Scotland. The SG and Holyrood are limited by the devolution settlement, but we are not. We don’t need permission to exercise our Sovereignty.

” Why Brexit could quickly bring down Britain’s next prime minister “

link to businessinsider.com

The next Tory PM might not see the end of 2019 in power!

Via the Rev’s twitter page.

The strange death of Labour Britain

link to archive.is

I am reminded that Alex Salmond said that a referendum is only one route to independence (I can’t find a link to it, perhaps others can). And of course there has been other examples across the world where independence was achieved via other means.

I know the current Scottish Government has nailed their colours to a referendum mast, but I seriously think we should look at alternative options.

I really don’t see why a Holyrood election could not be used to begin independence negotiations / dissolution of the Treaty of Union. If the arithmetic results in pro-independence parties winning the election (provided the dissolution is clearly stated in their manifestos) then I believe that is a democratic and justified mechanism to begin the dissolution process. Scotland did not design the electoral methodology so it could not be argued we ‘rigged’ the plebiscite.

If there are constitutional restrictions to a Holyrood plebiscite being enough to enact independence negotiations; then surely a GE election then is enough to begin independence negotiations (again if it’s in the manifesto of the winning party using the FPTP system).

Elections the world over are seen as the ‘will of the people’ so I can’t see why this would not be a democratic method for achieving independence and recognised as such internationally.

Article in the National
[Independent Scotland will be a bridge to Europe for what is left of UK]
By Stephen Gethins
Two things wrong here. First, without Scotland there is no UK or even rUK. Second, why has an independent Scotland to be anything other than an independent EU state. This SUK (save the UK) stuff from some in the SNP is tedious. A new political order is emerging in England whether some in the National party like it or not. Let the Unionist rump get on with looking after itself.
I sometimes wonder whether the likes of Mr Gethins feel guilty about Scottish independence. A betrayal perhaps, hence the attempt to justify it? I expect steelier stuff from nationalist ‘deputies’, not this conciliatory ‘wet’ drool. Remainers are not our allies, they’re just another brand of Unionist.
Some SNPers need to grow a pair.

@Scozzie 10:33.
Is the UK a democratic and egalitarian state? By modern criteria rather eficient.
link to dailymail.co.uk
As to alternatives, depends on how open minded the nationalist element in the Scottish electorate is to seizing opportunities, any opportunities. The cautious, conservative strain in the Scottish temperament can sometimes amount to self-harming.

mike cassidy says:

Via the Rev’s twitter page.
The strange death of Labour Britain
link to archive.is

The analysis is probably accurate.

By ignoring traditional workers, who are culturally conservative, the door is being opened to populists and even fascists.

The reason why Labour have moved to representing more educated liberal voters, rather than their traditional skilled working voters, is because the latter now only represent 20% of the electorate.

IMO The real underlying problem is actually WM’s dreadful FPTP system which encourages large broad church parties which in today’s complex society fail to please enough people. Also, they are inherently unstable with internal conflicts. If WM had a PR system then their would be multiple parties. Among them would be a true left wing party representing traditional workers PLUS a left wing party for the educated liberal urban voters. Similarly, the Tories would split into cultural inward looking conservatives and educated internationalist conservatives. And so on.

a word of caution

when this happens, you will be faced with a new phenominine

angry unionist yessers

when talking to or canvassing them, best avoid mentioning wm or the tories, better to focus their ire against the 1922 commitee, the erg, farage etc.

@Robert J. Sutherland says: 1 June, 2019 at 8:35 pm:

” … A voluminous reply, as is your wont, but one which alas fails to address the burning question. Where’s the action?

As I’ve several times pointed out the situation is not what you, and many others think it is, but Liz g has nailed it so I’m not the only one who gets it right. I’ve said it till I’m getting blue in the face.

The SG cannot act until the majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland give their own government a mandate, not to hold indyref2 but by winning an indyref2 give them the mandate to end the union.

No one but the people of Scotland can end the union and then only if a majority of them mandate their own Scottish government to do so.

A majority of the people vote to end the union and Holyrood instructs the Westminster contingent to announce the Union is over and to then walk out and come home, (I think they practiced that a while age).

I’d hope that they would then become the upper house in a form of bicameral legislature.

@Golfnut says: 1 June, 2019 at 10:18 pm:

” … Try and contain yourself Robert. I’m struggling to see where we differ in our understanding of Scotland’s Constitutional position within the Union …

Yeah! Well put yourself in my shoes for a brief moment, Golfnut.

Ever since I came to comment on Wings I’ve been attempting to explain the real situation and as I already posted, it is a simple concept in fact but hellish hard to explain – then it suddenly hits you and you wonder why you didn’t get it long ago.

I think Liz g just hit the nail on the head, though.

It goes, more or less, like this.

The SG cannot declare the union is over until they get a majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland telling them to end the union.

It simply is not enough just to have a mandate to hold indyref2. They have to win indyref2 before they tell the United Kingdom that the United Kingdom is ended and they cannot move to end it unless they have a majority of the people wanting it.

It really is that simple. Now here is a fact – even without all the history and legal/illegal event over the past 400 years or so – in the modern World the large powers and the international organisations rule that any recognisable group of people have the human right of self determination.

However the history and the Treaty of Union make Scotland’s case even more ironclad – but only if a majority of the people of Scotland want it to be so – but we have not as yet got a majority of those people demanding independence.

No matter what else we do we would look bloody stupid claiming our independence unless we can show that the people want to be independent.

Spot on, Liz G and Robert P. The frustrating part is that virtually all the media and all the “powers” are conspiring to prevent Scottish voters from seeing the truth – that the precious Union is, and always has been, a way of throttling Scotland out of existence.