Wings Over Scotland

It’s the calm before the storm that is surely on its way.

Waiting for GOD NO!!!

Brexshit wont happen

Seeing as how we’re going all kultural like, these go some way to explaining why the New Right were able to mobilise cultural resentment to globalisation, and bring about the full-English Brexit.

Aesthetics of Adaptation
link to brave-new-alps.com

The Present-Day Forms of Discontent in Culture
link to cairn.info

Who’s To Blame?
link to planetamnesia.com

The Art of Healing: Psychoanalysis, Culture and Cure
etheses.dur.ac.uk/3691/1/3691_1252.pdf?DDD11+UkUDh:CyT

Theresa May is looking more and more like she has been politically cast in the role of the ‘dead’ Charlton Heston in the final scene of “El Cid”. (No working link, but the clip is available on YouTube)

Old girl Betty Boothroyd makes a speech at 90 years of age and rips the Brexiters and Boris Johnson a new one for their *falsehoods*

Then says she wouldn’t trust them to run a bath let alone a country

Mmm, the connection is Ireland joining the Francophonie society, with Beckett being a reason. I knows, you know. The Brexiteers were erstaunt!

are we there yet?

🙂

The full-English Brexit is a step in to an ‘exceptional’ unknown full of unintended and unforeseen consequences. It is the abrogation of “good governance”.

Betwixt and between

Emotional transitions

Turner references the significance people attach to the transition from one state to another, where “state” applies to “ecological conditions, or to the physical mental or emotional condition in which a group or individual may be found at a particular time” (94). There’s a clue here to the importance in emotional life and experience not just in how you are feeling at the current moment, but what went before, and what follows after. There’s a crucial transitional element to emotions and moods.

In an informal way, along with some students, Dorothea Kalogianni and I are currently exploring the representation of transitions from one brute emotional condition (bored, frustrated, excited, meditative) to another for someone listening to intermittent sounds in an art space as recorded by an EEG device — about which more later.

link to richardcoyne.com

EU (Withdrawal) Act 2019 currently being “debated” in the House of Commons. The usual suspects doing the usual anti Remain shite desperately trying to make themselves sound knowledgeable about ALL things post Brexit! ?

the establishment would rather kick the can down the road to no Brexit or dodder along to a general election, why? us, Scotland, they judge they can ride the storm, whatever happens, but give the snp the excuse to launch another attack on their gravy train?one that might win?
well that wont do.
in chess you don’t give your opponent room to manoeuvre, or a easy strike to victory
Scotland is the real prize, always has been,everything else a magicians distraction.

Want to understand why England’s Eurosceptic pseudo-religion has brought about a deep cognitive paralysis?

Culture: The Driving Force of Human Cognition

Abstract

It is often, though sometimes only implicitly, assumed that biological/genetic evolution sets neural substrates, that neural substrates fix cognitive abilities, and that cognitive abilities determine the spectrum of cultural practices exhibited by a biological species. We label this view as the “bottom?up?only” view.

In this paper we will show that such a “chain of dependence” is much looser than usually assumed, especially as far as recent periods (the last 800,000 years vs. the last 7 million years or more) are considered. We will provide evidence and arguments supporting the idea that cultural innovation may have direct and ascertainable effects both on the cognitive capabilities of populations of hominins (via what we call “cultural exaptation”) and on the neural substrates of the individuals in those populations (via what we call “cultural neural reuse”).

Together, cultural exaptation and cultural neural reuse may give raise to a plausible general mechanism for cognitive evolution in which culture is the driving force, thus offering a “top?down?also” view of human evolution.

link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Enquire within: cultural evolution and cognitive science
link to royalsocietypublishing.org

Cultural neuroscience of the self: understanding the social grounding of the brain
link to academic.oup.com

The cultural constitution of cognition: taking the anthropological perspective
link to frontiersin.org

geeo
Fair enough. 🙂

I’m just trying to communicate “England has a problem with social polorisation and structural racism”, in an ethical manner. Scotland has a similar problem but to a lesser extent. It is hard to develop a sense of cultural supremacy when your government is subordinate to another parliament in another country. 😉

If we are staying in Europe then we will have an election next month. Surely the SNP will be able to get that elusive 3rd seat. I’ve been waiting five years to see the back of David Cockburn.

I don’t think may will accept a long delay , if she does her party especially the erg will explode , the bbbbc are already showing billy bunter lookalike ( francois ) resembling an overdone gammon
This narcisstic woman is desperate to leave a legacy like the milk snatcher thatcher ( bastard may she ROT in hell ) , as has been evidenced throughout either she is being instructed by the deeeep pocket money men or she is deluded to the point of insanity , this is a person who cannot accept defeat or compromise and in her mind the EU have made a fatal error in not accepting her supremecy

The very fact that she has made as many trips to all the European countries in an effort to split the solidarity and demeaning herself by doing so , and achieving nada , nothing indicates to me that she has a god complex , that aligned with repeatedly refusing to accept the parliamentary rejection of her WA convinces me that she is desperate for a no deal brexshit and will do ANYTHING to achieve it ,including running out of time

She will refuse the long extension and stick to her plan

Nothing about the MSM house journalists / TV political commentators ever astonishes me now but why is Labour getting an easy ride over their sell out of freedom of movement, particularly in Scotland where it is more important, and why is Joanna Cherry’s revocation of Article 50 plan not getting more plaudits as it is the only way to avoid no deal in worst case scenario.

Just imagine Malta has more clout over this than Scotland.

The United Kingdom is a failed state.
England is confused to a great extent because it has a parliament that is unable to meet its commitments.
English people are confused because the political party they voted for is unwilling to do what it promised.
Scotland is abused by them both and has been for decades.
It is the people of England that vote for the parliament in Westminster not the people of Scotland or wales or NI they have no impact there’s not enough of them,the people of England have been broadly quite happy with rhe performance of Westminster up until brexit they are not interested in what happens n Scotland.
The contribution by the people of Scotland in electing MP,s to Westminster is a wasted effort .
Young people across Scotland don’t vote for that very reason.
I am no racist or bigot I have no interest in either I have rallied against both in the many countries I have lived in but until Scotland stops avoiding the issue and deals with the obvious which is that England ,English people, people living n England vote into power the MP,s that damage Scotland and stop kidding themselves that we are all in it together one big jolly family that has disagreements that can and will be ironed out we will be stuck in this never ending preparation for independence that goes on and on and on just like brexit has.
Eventually people in Scotland will have to accept that the bad way Westminster treats Scotland is
done by the people and political party,s voted into power by the people of England ,it’s not all some terrible mistake ,some oversight that the people of England would put right if only they knew , they know and they don’t give a damn because Scotland to them is irrelevant they think we should be grateful that they allow us to call ourselves British and use their English pound whilst we continue to claim Scotland is a different country.
They want us in Scotland to accept that we are British, not Scottish and they want us to be grateful that we are governed by Westminster ,
English people however are allowed to be English when being English spotlights them better than being British.

England’s post-colonial malaise must not be allowed to undermine the viability of Scottish culture and the fabric of Scotland’s civic society. Time folk adopted the post-modern way of viewing the world, in order to escape the illiberal tendencies of liberal society.

Freud’s social theory: Modernist and postmodernist revisions

Abstract

Acknowledging the power of the id-drives, Freud held on to the authority of reason as the ego’s best tool to control instinctual desire. He thereby placed analytic reason at the foundation of his own ambivalent social theory, which, on the one hand, held utopian promise based upon psychoanalytic insight, and, on the other hand, despaired of reason’s capacity to control the self-destructive elements of the psyche.

Moving beyond the recourse of sublimation, post-Freudians attacked reason’s hegemony in quelling disruptive psycho-dynamics and, focusing upon the social domain, they sought strategies to counter the oppressive (repressive) social restrictions and conformist impositions impeding individual freedom that result from thwarted desire. Postmodern celebration of desire at the expense of reason and sublimation leaves the Enlightenment prospects altogether and moves psychoanalysis into a new terrain, where the very notion of rationality and an autonomous ego upon which much of Freudianism rests has been deconstructed.

Thus the debate that begins with Freud’s social theories reflects the deeper divisions, which arose with postmodern ethics and discarded Cartesian–Kantian notions of personal identity. Here we consider the moral framework in which Freudian social theory sits and a contrasting understanding of agency that confronts his modernist conception. In that debate, we discern the larger humanist confrontation with postmodernity. Yet, all who engaged Freud shared some version of his utopian ethos, albeit radically restructuring the theory upon which social reform might occur.

Keywords Sigmund Freud, humanism, modernism, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, social theory, utopianism

link to journals.sagepub.com

Nietzsche’s Übermensch as a Metaphor for Education
link to journals.sfu.ca

Social psychology and modernity
link to mheducation.co.uk

From Social Psychology to Cultural Psychology: The Redemption of Personality
link to scirp.org

Callachan @5.33pm said: “I am no racist or bigot”

……….

I think you made a fool of that statement some time ago.

This ain’t Britnat-land, we actually remember stuff folk like you posted previously.

geeo
Perhaps I simply have a deep fear of Brexit and I’m doing all I can to save my skin? I’m shitting bricks.

How Brexit ruined my life

link to youtube.com

@schrödingers cat
@Craig P

EU election. Six seats in the Scottish constituency.

Last time Labour got two. They won’t get that again.

So yes, it depends on who stands to soak up the pro Brexit vote. And, how much coverage the broadcasters give the far right. (That is UKIP got one last time)

Last time Greens got more than the LibDems, neither getting a seat.

Two thirds of Scots simply don’t want Brexit. It’s reasonable to assume that Brexit will feature prominently in both party campaigns and media reporting.

So I have the feeling that anti Brexit parties will do better because of that.

What of Indy in an EU election? Mixed blessings perhaps if prominent in campaigning. On the negative side the Tories will run another no-IndyRef2 campaign, but on the positive side it may motivate YES supporters to turn out and boost SNP and Greens.

My guess?
2 SNP, 1 Tory, 1 Lab then other two out of Green, Tory, Libdem.

Forced to choose …
2 SNP, 1 Tory, 1 Lab, 1 Green, 1 Libdem

STV news no mention of the dire state of drug users, HIV on the up . We did hear about feeble people who had to have a holiday and had large debts because of it, a lot of football , a wee bit of tennis and there ends the stories from across Scotland.

ITV giving it big licks , lovely shots of hypodermic syringes in the grass . Terrible SNP had not backed the needle exchange in Glasgow , paper to be released tomorrow from Caledonian Uni.

Hang your heads in shame Scotland!

licks

@Craig P says:9 April, 2019 at 5:14 pm:

” … I’ve been waiting five years to see the back of David Cockburn.”

A wee bit of friendly advice, Craig P. Having seen the back of him I advise not bothering waiting to see the back of him, it’s even worse than the front of him.
;-))

Would anybody ever fancy this guys job?

Weekly schedule of President Donald Tusk

link to consilium.europa.eu

@Hamish100 says: 9 April, 2019 at 5:38 pm:

” … We need an Independence referendum before next years Scottish election. Must be Independence v Brexit election.”

If you don’t mind I’d rather leave that decision to the SNP and their leader to decide. It is my belief they just may be a wee bit better placed to be able to judge the best course of action than a lone commenter on Wings who thinks he knows best.

A Better Together Brexit to save the Union…Labour saves the Tories.

Brexit will result in such radical transformation to the social environment, that it will result in profound biopsychosocial transformation at the individual level. Is that what those living in Scotland want forced on them?

Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective

Abstract

This article presents the basic tenets of social cognitive theory. It is founded on a causal model of triadic reciprocal causation in which personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective and biological events, behavioral patterns, and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants that influence one another bidirectionally.

Within this theory, human agency is embedded in a self theory encompassing self?organizing, proactive, self?reflective and self?regulative mechanisms. Human agency can be exercised through direct personal agency; through proxy agency relying on the efforts of intermediaries; and by collective agency operating through shared beliefs of efficacy, pooled understandings, group aspirations and incentive systems, and collective action.

Personal agency operates within a broad network of sociostructural influences. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems. Growing transnational imbeddedness and interdependence of societies are creating new social realities in which global forces increasingly interact with national ones to shape the nature of cultural life.

link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com

ronnie anderson
If it gets us there, I’ll do it. 😉

In case you haven’t seen the leave-voting farmer who can’t find a workforce!

link to twitter.com

Or as someone has put it wonderfully.

“This man grows fruit with a higher IQ than himself.”

link to twitter.com

If I could ask Mr Tusk a question, it would be to explain the difference between his “flextension “ idea, where the UK might pick and choose the timing of it’s departure when ready, and a rolling program of emergency summits jumping from crisis to crisis.

I believe if he answered that question, the flextension option will reveal itself as a virtual straightjacket for the UK to constrain it from doing anything in Europe, anything that is except leave. It will be Brexit in everything but name, with an open ended wildcard option of a possible Withdrawal Agreement. – Although such a Withdrawal Agreement looks a forlorn aspiration.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, what momentum there is, is for a Peoples’ Vote and / or Revocation of Article 50, which seems to be a fork in the road for Scotland, with the route to Independence seemingly being the less favoured route. Dare I say the words, now is not the time.

How thoroughly fkg bleak and depressing. Trainspotting depressing. “They’re just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. We can’t even find a decent culture to be colonized by.”
Aye. And we’re too fkg wet and insipid to turn our gross and unambiguous colonial subjugation into any meaningful anti-colonial momentum, let alone nurture a progressive initiative for Independence.

Maybe some Eurorebel will do us a favour and veto Theresa’s extension, then at least we can try to hold Ian Blackford to his word. Brexit is over. From here on out, the EU and Westminster are just playing pat-a-cake pat-a-cake over who actually pulls the plug.

No Independence, no end to Brexit, futile Euro Elections to passenger seats, and the BBC trying hard to get the slug Coburn to keep the seat they won for him, and you just know somebody is about to pipe up “hurrah, there’s time for an IndyRef2!”

Shoot me now. I’m ready.

Dr Jim says:
9 April, 2019 at 4:14 pm
Old girl Betty Boothroyd makes a speech at 90 years of age and rips the Brexiters and Boris Johnson a new one for their *falsehoods*
Then says she wouldn’t trust them to run a bath let alone a country.

Dr Jim, is there a link to Betty’s speech? I’d love to see it!

@Breeks

What’s wrong? You sound a bit despondent due to the certainty of another Article 50 extension. Things not quite working out how you had hoped they would for one of your grand plans?

Where do the Scottish No voters fit in with your scheme of things? When do they have a say on whether or not they want to see Scotland leave the UK and remain within the UK?

Have you took account of what 55% of voters said in the first referendum?

To my way of thinking, it’s simple.

We MUST have indyref2 before the end of this Scottish parliament. That’s what a lot of us voted for in 2016.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be indyref2 – it could be a manifesto commitment for indy via a snap Westminster GE.

BUT, if we in the Yes campaign are left in limbo at the time of the next Holyrood election, I dread what will happen to SNP support.

Waiting for Brexit…courtesy of T.M. May but best summed up by T.S Eliot ~

“THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD ENDS, THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD ENDS, THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD ENDS, NOT WITH A BANG BUT A WHIMPER.”

It appears that a lot of people on here think that T May wants Brexit more than anything else. Is that really the case. Could she not be in league with Labour and want a peoples vote to reverse the EU referendum result.
Then again in Scotland the SNP are advocating a long extension to Brexit and a peoples vote.
What about IndyRef2 ??.

The DUP have more say, the ERG have more say, the EU have more say, the Republic of Ireland has more say, the Downing street effing cat has more say, some dumb joker in London selling whelks has more say

The only people to have no say are ?????????? Not hard to answer is it
Have you got enough control yet Scottish Unionists
Is this it, is this why you all voted no in 2014 or to Leave the EU
You must all feel great and powerful eh

England F….d, Wales F….d, Scotland F…..d

Good job, top voting, takes a lot of thought to F..k yourself up this successfully

@CameronB Brodie says: 9 April, 2019 at 8:08 pm:
” … Robert Peffers
You’re one to talk. Sort yourself out and start acting your age.”

Now get this you flaming numptie.

You attacked me before and I retaliated. Since then I’ve done my level best to ignore you. I have not read or replied to your comments but I search for my name to see if anyone has asked me anything. Yet here you are again attacking me – I’ll tell you once more – leave me alone or take what you get in reply.

I think if we do get to the EU elections still in the EU that will be good news for those wanting to stay in the EU.

The highest ever turnout for a EU election in Scotland was 33.5% (at the last EU election in 2014).

I think if we get a chance to vote it will be much, much higher.

It will be another chance to deliver a verdict on the Tories’ Brexit.

And another chance to deliver the Remain vote in Scotland.

(It will also be another chance for England to possibly vote for Remain parties; but this is much less clear. Not only are the Greens and Liberal Dems at a low ebb but who knows what the Labour Party position on Brexit is!

And if England vote for Leave / Conservative / Brexit Party / UKIP and Scotland doesn’t AGAIN then it will make crystal clear the political divergence between the two nations.)

Every general election from now on should be seen in Scotland as between Pro-Independence and Pro-Dependence parties.

The EU election is no exception , and IF we get another, I expect turnout to be high.

Surely if Brexit is cancelled, the SNP could use the prospect of another Brexit referendum a few years hence, with England removing Scotland from the EU against her will, (again), as leverage to push for IndyRef2?

So whether it happens this time around, or possibly at some future date, the push for IndyRef2 remains the same – even if the opportunity to call it will not last forever…

Yesindyref2 @ 9.21
Not exactly,Robert did respond to Cameron abrubty, but Cameron went personal first.
So both are at fault as far as I can see.
Unless they both claim hormones…. in which case,it is of course perfectly understandable and you should offer them a loan of that mirror of yours,to calm things doon..
Although as to who gets first dibs… I couldn’t possibly say 🙂

Far from thinking I know it all, I’m somewhat daunted at how much I have forgotten. I’m trying to impart the benefit of a professional training as an urban and regional planner, from almost thirty years ago. If folk think me egotistical for doing that, then they have completely misread who I am. If folk don’t appreciate the relevance, they haven’t been doing the suggested reading.

The Social Psychology of Self-Efficacy

Abstract

The topic of self-efficacy is part of a broad literature which has developed around the issues of human agency, mastery, and control. Its more delimited focus is on perceptions and assessments of self with regard to competence, effectiveness, and causal agency.

Self-efficacy has become an important variable within social psychological research because of its association with various favorable consequences, especially in the areas of physical and mental health. It is also quite congruent with the Western emphasis on such values as mastery, self-reliance, and achievement.

This review examines the nature of self-efficacy and related terms, reviews the research literature on the development of self-efficacy and how social structure and group processes affect this development, considers changes of self-efficacy over the life course, and reviews the consequences of self-efficacy for individual functioning and for social change. The focus of the review is on the social psychological literature within sociology, psychology, and to some extent political science.

link to annualreviews.org

@Liz g
What happened was that CBB made a post about the “British Constitution, with abstracts and links. RP went into one of his long diatribes and accused CBB of being indoctrinated, not very pleasantly as is his wont.

The whole point of CBB’s post as far as I could see, actually checking out a couple of the links, was that indeed the “British Constititution” was confused with a “UK Constititution” and indeed with an “English Constititution”. By the people in England.

Basically RP just said the same thing, but with abuse as per normal. And complained about CBB posting British propaganda, why would he do such a thinh (insinuation, insinuation). Clearly he hadn’t bothered reading CBB’s posting properly, the abstracts – nor clicked on any link.

The problem we face isn’t just or even “propaganda”, it’s sheer wilful ignorance of the fabric of the UK and Britain, by nearly every English politician and sadly many of the English themselves, including academcis who really really should know better. That was part of CBB’s point (I think I’m right).

People can’t get the understanding of propaganda unless they realise that it’s not just the intended victim suffers from the results, it’s the perpetrator who is, though appalling ignorance, just as guilty, and perhaps also, a victim as well.

It’s all there though I can’t be bothered doing the search for the bit of the appropriate thread.

Marcia
Scottish elections 2021. Cheers. I was only a year out! Must be all the excitement. I’ll still stick with an Independence v brexit election is necessary- whenever the die is cast.

yesindyref2
Almost, I’m developing an intolerance for the attitude of some and the wilful delusion of others.

Yesindyref2 @ 9.43
Yes, and then Cameron called him a fanny… and on it went.
So… Like I said they both kicked off

@CBB
We all need to chill out a bit, Indy Ref 2 might be real soon now. Or not.

@Liz g
Some of us Independence supporters can get really pissed off when someone tries to insinuate we’re fake. And RP has done that to many WOS posters. Generally those who don’t agree with him about everything, but even including some that do.

Personally I find it way easier posting in unionist forums, as most people are on the other side, so insults are water off a duck’s back. Friendly fire is more dangerous than hostile, as you don’t see it coming – it’s a stab in the back when you don’t expect it.

Breeks

Why wait for Indy ref 2? If we’ve to have European elections, why not make sure Scotlands voice really is heard and vote for pro Indy candidates?

Not only would it show Scotland is really in a different place politically, the fact ‘most’ do want to be part of Europe,it won’t do our future any harm if we ever want to join and it would raise more constitutional questions.

If there was an emphatic turnout ,it would be hard to argue with and better doing something constructive rather than this waiting

My experience says you are right @CameronB Brodie says at 10:06 pm

“I’d recommend treating No voters as victims of a dysfunctional political system”

I personally know a lot of previous 2014 NO voters (believed the Better Together Propaganda, were sufferers of Jockholm Syndrome or were looking at things from a personal financial position and didn’t like the odds of Independence uncertainty vs Status Quo) who are now 100% YES.

Most are desperate for IndyRef2.

You’re correct they are “good people”

They also seriously don’t like the way Scotland and her Politicians have been treated since June 2016.

Robert Peffers says:
9 April, 2019 at 7:30 pm
@Hamish100 says: 9 April, 2019 at 5:38 pm:
” … We need an Independence referendum before next years Scottish election. Must be Independence v Brexit election.”
If you don’t mind I’d rather leave that decision to the SNP and their leader to decide. It is my belief they just may be a wee bit better placed to be able to judge the best course of action than a lone commenter on Wings who thinks he knows best.

Rather rude Robert. I give my view for what it is worth. If Nicola Sturgeons takes my advice well and good. If she ignores it (more than likely) I am still entitled to my own wee opinion.

I don’t need the First Minister or Robert Peffers to decide for me.

Cameron & Yesindyref2
The hardest part is remembering we’re all on the same side right now, because this waiting is getting on our last nerve.
This I know to my cost as I’m sure you two have both seen.
We all do now and again….
You needn’t pay any attention Cameron,of course you needn’t but I’m commenting about it to smooth things over and I hope that’s how you are reading it…
I’d hope if I’m getting out of line another Winger would say something too,because we are all very passionate about Indy and sometimes it hard to see when Not to respond….
Anyhoo …. We all discussed it to much on this tread already,let’s get back to the real stuff,before we get in any trouble from the real boss…. Apparently he has hammers!!

@Liz g

One of them is a bully who is always kicking off at anyone with whom he disagrees.

One of them constantly implies posters who question anything are Britnats and anti-SNP and anti-Indy.

One of them has his henchmen backing him up if any one says anything out of turn.

One them has advocated using VPNs and proxies to protect them self online.

One of them constantly posts the same repetitive simplistic post advocating waiting for the SNP to decide what is best. He suggests contacting the SNP and when posters say they have he rages that the SNP don’t have to answer to anyone.

One of them uses the the moniker ‘Auld Bob’when writing the same green ink post BTL in other publications.

If it all goes tits up and the SNP cannot deliver who will get the blame? The SNP at the next election. By constantly telling others not to take Indy into their own hands and mobilise but rely on the SNP, who is doing the most damage to the cause of Independence?

I have run the posts in question past a number of SNP acquaintances and Lawyers working in GLSS who are aghast that they are taken seriously.

Hint, it is not CBB.

The pressure is terrible I am buying my online wine a month in advance now and twice as much. May have to settle for English wine but wonder how that will go down. The home brew could be the last resort.

Hamish 100
I’m staying in topic now
How about you?

A few good things came out of Eton. The Officer Corps who fought the Kaiser and Hitler. However Cameron gave us a vote and that was a moment in history and probably the first time the working classes really caused a shock to the EU cheese and wine drinking club. If only Cameron had said naw to the silly people, we educated people know better.

Liz g
We’re simply having an inter-generation dispute over the nature of reality, a microcosm of British politics. 🙂

Cameron @ 11.10
Well us kid’s hate it when Paw and Grandpaw fight.. 🙂

Effigy @ 11.15
I didn’t know that the Shelters don’t take pets..
There’s clearly a gap there needing filled especially since most landlords won’t take them either!!

Liz g

Staying in? I’m never allowed out!

@Dr Jim

I prefer to look at it as waiting until the time is right and it is us that will choose that time and the place. They are busy destroying each other, fear not we will step in and fill the void.

Both the Labour party and the Tories have never had such low support and they are still falling. We don’t need to wait on London doing anything it’s the opposite, just a question of us choosing the best time to end this Union for good.

Hamish 100 @ 11.28
Ha Ha
I ment ON topic,I was rushing to post before you got pulled in to that clowns rubbish….LOL

Scotland does not belong to England !

Scotland does not belong to the EU or England!

RJS @1.17am

We may not see eye to eye often, but that was a very good post, well put.

See, I can be nice.

Wisen up people.

If certain posters tell you you are brainwashed and then keep telling you what to think…

If they tell you to meekly accept what they say and then get angry if you question them, are they encouraging thinking for yourself?

If they accuse others of multiple identities but profess to mask their own identities, are they for real?

If they produce reams of ‘truth’ with no reference material, why should you accept it?

If ‘Peffers’ didn’t already exist, the 77th Brigade would be inventing them right now – a poster who derails every thread with their own agenda, accuses every new poster of being ‘one of them’. Sets longstanding posters against each other and brings discord to every thread.

You are being buttered up to passively await Independence to be given to you and then blame the SNP if it doesn’t happen.

It is right to question everything.No party or movement should be afraid of questions.

There’s no British empire,only Norman Bates mummy in the
loft!

I’m bored, here’s some in depth analytical reading material. Fill yer boots…I’m posting more of it so more people can take a view and form their own nuanced interpretations….why not we’ve nothing better to do than sit around staring at our collective navels’.

(1) The historical status of Scotland and the UK

26. From 1603, when the Stuart King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne, Scotland and England (and its colony Ireland) shared the same monarch.

27. There is little reason to doubt that between that date and 1707, England and Scotland remained separate states. They had separate constitutional systems, despite sharing a monarch. For instance, Scotland af rmed its different rules of succession in the Succession Act 1682 (Scotland). It also had international relations with England, even after 1603, and the English Parliament levied customs dues on Scottish exports.

28. Devine suggests that ‘Scotland was far from being an independent state’ in that ‘Scottish foreign policy had moved with James [IV] to London in 1603 and there was a great grievance that thereafter foreign policy for both kingdoms was exclusively designed to suit English needs’. But the Darien Project in Panama – the failed Scottish investment launched in 1695 that partly precipitated the union – does evidence a separate Scottish foreign policy, at least to some extent. And Queen Anne’s ministry in London was also ‘forced to accept’ the Act anent Peace and War 1704 (Scotland), despite, Devine notes, ‘the fact that its whole emphasis suggested a separate and autonomous foreign policy’. It provided that ‘after Her Majesty’s Decease, and failing Heirs of her Body, no person being King or Queen of Scotland and England shall have the sole power of making War with any Prince, Potentate or State whatsoever without consent of [the Scottish] Parliament’.

29. It is also true that James VI proclaimed himself king of ‘Great Britain’ in 1604, but that was probably unconstitutional and was not followed by his Stuart successors. The English Parliament refused to alter the name of the kingdom on the ground, among others, that ‘the alteration of the name of the Kingdom doth inevitably and infallibly draw on the erection of a new kingdom or state, and a dissolution or extinguishment of the old’.10 English judges advised that the change of name, since it had substantive consequences, required parliamentary approval.

30. Later attempts to unite England and Scotland by both the Stuarts and Oliver Cromwell foundered. Only in 1707 was a lasting union between them effected.

31. On 22 July 1706, commissioners appointed by the English and Scottish parliaments agreed on 25 articles comprising the Treaty of Union. On 16 January 1707, the Scottish Parliament approved the articles, along with certain amendments made in the course of debate, in the Union with England Act 1707 (Scotland). On 28 January 1707, having been presented with the Treaty of Union and the Scottish Act, the English Parliament passed the Union with Scotland Act 1706 (England). It approved the terms of the Scottish Act without amendment (the two Acts together being the Acts of Union).12 The Kingdom of Great Britain was constituted on 1 May 1707.

32. The signi cance of the union is debated. There are two questions relevant to this advice: whether it created a new state and whether the Treaty of Union, considered with or without the Acts of Union, still constitutes a treaty in international law.
(a) Whether the union of 1707 created a new state

33. There are two possible answers to this question. It is a question not of the position
of Scotland within domestic law – under which Scotland clearly retained a distinct constitutional status, in particular a separate legal system – but of how the union of 1707 should be treated as a matter of international law.

34. One view is that the union created a new state, Great Britain, into which the international identities of Scotland and England merged and which was distinct from both. Lord McNair writes: ‘England and Scotland ceased to exist as international persons and become the unitary State of Great Britain.’13 This view has been relied on in UK courts: MacCormick v Lord Advocate.

35. An alternative view is that as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland. In support of this view, among other things:

35.1 Scottish members joined Parliament at Westminster, but there was no new election of its English members. This was in accordance with the Acts of Union Article XXII.

35.2 Treaties concluded by England appear to have survived to bind Great Britain.
Parry and Hopkins cite the Treaty of Alliance with Portugal15 as the oldest ‘British’ treaty, and it is generally accepted as being such, even though it was concluded by

35.3 England’s diplomatic representation in the rest of Europe continued uninterrupted. The Acts of Union Article XXIV appears to acknowledge this in retaining the Great Seal of England for transitional purposes.

36. We note that the incorporation of Wales under laws culminating in the Laws in Wales Act 1536 (England) and of Ireland, previously a colony, under the Union with Ireland Act 1801 (GB) and the Act of Union 1800 (Ireland) did not affect state continuity. Despite its similarity to the union of 1707, Scottish and English writers unite in seeing the incorporation of Ireland not as the creation of a new state but as an accretion without any consequences in international law.

37. For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.

38. It is therefore misleading to speak of Scotland (or similarly of England, Wales, Northern Ireland or the isle of Great Britain) as if it were an entity already possessing international personality in its own right or some other relevant international status, regardless of what status it may have as a matter of UK domestic law.

39. It may also be misleading to speak of dissolving the ‘union’ effected by the incorporation of those territories: whatever the position historically or politically or in domestic law, in international law the position of the UK does not necessarily differ from that of a state formed in some way other than by a ‘union’. (This point is pursued below in discussing whether Scotland could revert to the pre-1707 Scottish state.)
(b) Whether the Treaty of Union sounds in international law

40. Despite its name, it is not obvious that the Treaty of Union did and does sound as a treaty in international law. Certainly there was a negotiation between England and Scotland, an it was subsequently referred to as a ‘treaty’ in both Acts of Union. But the Scottish Parliament, in enacting the Scottish Act of Union, then unilaterally amended its provisions. It is therefore unlikely that it constituted a treaty in itself.

41. Smith has argued that although the Treaty of Union itself is just a ‘record of negotiations’ between the commissioners that the Scottish Parliament later debated and amended the subsequent ‘complex of exchanged Acts of the two Parliaments’ does constitute a treaty, albeit one concluded in an unorthodox way. On this view, the Scottish Act of Union, in providing that none of its articles would be binding until approved by Queen Anne with the English Parliament’s authority, was in effect ‘the offer of Treaty terms by the Scottish Queen in Parliament to the English Queen in Parliament’, and the registration of Queen Anne’s command of the English Exempli cation under the Great Seal of England without objection in the books of the Scottish Parliament then brought the treaty into force.

42. But there is no need to express a concluded view on whether the Treaty or Acts of Union ever constituted a treaty in the international law sense. Smith’s view was that ‘[t]wo international persons disappeared in 1707 – the obligants under the treaty – and a new international person took their place’ which, though perhaps ‘bound in constitutional law by the conditions of its own creation, could not in public international law be bound by a treaty to which it was not a party’. Wicks agrees:

‘The requirement that a treaty be ‘governed by international law’ is a little difficult to apply to the 1707 agreement, because the parties to it ceased to exist on May 1. There was never the opportunity for the agreement to be governed by international law. This cannot realistically be regarded as representing an obstacle to the agreement amounting to a ‘treaty’, however. The entire purpose of the complex negotiations of 1707 was to enact a legal agreement between the two independent states of England and Scotland. As such it was a validly concluded international treaty, albeit for a very brief time. As the parties ceased to exist in May 1707, the treaty has been of no legal signi cance since that date. Its main signi cance today is as a possible source of title for the new state created in 1707.’

43. The same result follows from the alternative possibility, discussed above, that Great Britain was the continuator of England rather than a new state. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 2 (though anachronous here) de nes ‘treaty’ as an agreement ‘concluded between States’. If one of the two parties to the treaty ceased to exist as a state in May 1707, it can no longer sound in international law. The situation is perhaps comparable to the Treaty of Waitangi between the UK and certain Ma? ori chiefs, which on one view (by no means uncontested but still useful by way of analogy) was an international treaty under which an independent state ceded its sovereignty. This view relies on the assumption that there could have been a treaty and yet the resulting constitutional system could still be identi ed with only one of the two parties, England, at the expense of the other – which is certainly possible.

44. Consistently with the view that the Treaty and Acts of Union no longer sound as a treaty, even if they ever were one, Parliament soon afterwards enacted legislation amending it: the Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707 (GB), which abolished the separate English and Scottish privy councils and created a new Privy Council of Great Britain. The Acts of Union Article IX had provided that the Queen ‘may Continue a Privy Council in Scotland … until the Parliament of Great Britain shall think to to alter it’.

45. The UK Parliament has since amended or repealed multiple other provisions of the Acts of Union, such as those providing for Scottish representation in Parliament or concerning religion.

46. Indeed, in 1999 the UK Government suggested to the Committee for Privileges that the UK Parliament had ‘complete sovereignty’ to amend even those articles of the Acts of Union that ‘are expressed to be entrenched for all time (such as the creation of the United Kingdom, the succession of the Monarchy, the Scottish Courts and the Church of Scotland)’. The existence of such ‘entrenched’ provisions is a matter for domestic constitutional law and need not be dealt with here. The fact that at least some provisions are open to amendment by the UK Parliament is enough to reinforce the conclusion that neither the Treaty nor the Acts of Union currently operate as a treaty in international law.

Robert Knight @ 8.46 pm

You beat me to it and quoted Elliot correctly 🙂

I last read that poem some 40 odd years ago!

So, ‘This is the way the British empire ends, not with a bang but a whimper.’

jockmcx @ 2.20 am =)

Cameron B, been reading the extracts – jings! Great food for thought =)

K1 That’s going to keep me busy! Phew and thankyou =)

As always, alot of good discussion tonight!

What will tomorrow bring? Probably not a lot that will take us by surprise…or I could be very wrong. No wonder I’m not sleeping well!

(ii) Applicability to Scotland and the remainder of the UK

65. There is one further example of state practice of direct relevance to the UK: the separation of 26 Irish counties in 1922 to form the Irish Free State, which was treated just as a change in territory rather than a break in the UK’s continuity. There is no indication in the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland of 6 December 1921 that either party questioned the UK’s continuity; on the contrary, it appears to have been premised on the personality of the UK continuing uninterrupted.

66. In that case the state eventually changed its name – from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – though not until five years later, under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 (UK).

67. There are countless other examples to suggest that no weight can be put on such changes of name. Of the above cases, Russia and Serbia were treated as continuator states despite their different names, each having been the largest unit in a federal arrangement. The example of 1922 suggests that no consequences for state continuity would likewise follow from Scottish independence whether or not the rUK chose to retain the words ‘Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ in its name rather than changing them to, say, ‘England, Wales and Northern Ireland’.

68. The state practice just recounted also indicates that Scotland’s independence would have the same outcome for the UK as the Irish Free State’s did in 1922. We can draw several conclusions from it about which factors in uence state continuity:

68.1 In almost all the above cases, the continuator state was the unit retaining the majority of the predecessor state’s population and territory. This is true of the Dominion of India, Malaysia, Russia, Ethiopia, Serbia and Sudan. The exception is the former West Pakistan, whose territory was larger but whose population was smaller than that of Bangladesh at the date of secession. But the difference in population size was relatively minor, and the central government was based in and dominated by West Pakistan.

68.2 In all the above cases, the continuator state retained substantially the same governmental institutions as the predecessor state. Arguably, Russia and Serbia are again partial exceptions in that the constitutions of the USSR and Serbia- Montenegro did not continue. But it is not suggested that all the institutions of government must continue – on the contrary, even the revolutionary overthrow of a governmental system does not affect state continuity. The continuity of governmental institutions is merely one indicator. But it gives rise to a particularly strong presumption of state continuity. Indeed, it probably explains the continuity the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) after German unification 1990: the FRG and the German Democratic Republic (GDR) did not merge into a single new state but instead the Länder that previously constituted the GDR (plus Berlin) became part of the FRG under its existing constitution. The same view is usually taken of the enlargement of Sardinia-Piedmont by absorbing other Italian states into what became the Kingdom of Italy during the Risorgimento of 1848–70: the Sardinian constitution remained in force throughout that period.

68.3 In cases of peacefully negotiated independence (Singapore’s from Malaysia and Montenegro’s from Serbia-Montenegro), the parties negotiated terms of state succession that expressly or impliedly identi ed a continuator state.

68.4 In the other cases, the positions of Pakistan, Russia, Ethiopia and Sudan in continuing the identity of their predecessor states were not questioned by the seceding states, by other states or by organs of the UN. Even in the case of the Dominion of India, although Pakistan initially claimed that it could automatically continue British India’s UN membership, it did not pursue that claim and applied for membership in its own right.

68.5 In all the above cases, the continuator state was able to continue the UN membership of the predecessor state, whereas the new state submitted a new application for UN membership.

69. All of these factors count in favour of the rUK being the continuator state of the UK: if Scotland became independent, the rUK would retain about 92% of the UK’s population, more than two-thirds of its territory, and its principal governmental institutions, since the UK Parliament, the UK Supreme Court and its government departments are located in London. The precedent of the separation of most of Ireland also indicates that the UK would survive another, comparable loss of territory, regardless of whether it changed its name (or flag) to acknowledge the loss of Scotland.

70. In our view, it can be expected that the weight of international opinion would favour recognising the rUK as the continuator. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has already written in its memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the ‘overwhelming weight of international precedent suggests that [the rUK] would continue to exercise the existing UK’s international rights and obligations, and that an independent Scotland would be a new state’ and that the UK Government ‘judges that this situation would be recognised by the international community’. We agree with that judgement.

(b) Two new states

If your appetite has been wetted…this continues in depth. This was written before our last indyref but much of the content is and will be relevant to our next one. May as well get informed especially on the historical and legal take:

Annex A
Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland – International Law Aspects

Professor James Crawford SC
Professor Alan Boyle

link to worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com

Liz g
I’ve never tried to deny the significance of the Treaty, far from it. But getting the Treaty acknowledge by English Law will be a struggle. The moral authority of the British constitution will be annihilated if Brexit happens. Which path offer the least resistance?

Cameron @ 3.29
I’m sure you don’t Cameron,but like the Stuff above from K1, there’s a tonne been written by those who do!
They twist it and muddy the water’s and almost always slant it towards the Treaty Westminster would like to have rather than the one they actually do!
Anyhoo
Like you if it doesn’t come into play when getting our independence if it’s a straight anti Brexit backlash we use..
I pretty much don’t care either 🙂

But the danger in not knowing the true position is during the negotiations…. We need the People of Scotland to know their rights and not accept the position that Westminster dictates we attain while achieving our independence.

I’m sure you wouldn’t want us accepting that continuing state nonsense without a quid pro quo over it.Anymore than I would.
Just like the Wee Ginger Dug tries to name “British Nationalists” for what they are,we should, I think, have a care for the way we speak about ourselves and the position between Scotland and England.. That’s all,but its a hard habit to break….

Re Scottish Law
Scottish Law most definitely did have an international personality for the Lockerbie Trial.
Also
And although I couldn’t argue it,and don’t remember where I got it from… I have always understood the the rights to N.Sea oil & gas have to written according to Scotland’s Laws.
I don’t mean the international laws of the seas I mean the mineral rights!
Maybe some Winger knows the truth of it??

By ignoring the Moral Law in order to activate A50, i.e. English Law, the Prime-minister has robbed the British constitution of its’ moral legal authority. As far as the British constitution is concerned, governing the yoonyawn without moral legal authority is totalitarian government. Here’s some Public Administrative Law to highlight why that might prove a tad problematic.

Administrative Law Values II: the Four Values
link to administrativelawmatters.com

Sunstein and Vermeule — The Morality of Administrative Law
link to administrativelawmatters.com

THE MORALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
link to harvardlawreview.org

Challenges of Modern Public Administration and Ethical Decision-Making
link to ejournals.eu

“The thing is this – that’s external to both countries or states, as it’s between them. In this case it forms the new or enlarged state or country. But it’s not OF law or courts and judges, nor conventions, so it is NOT part of the Constitution, and certainly not all of it.”

The Reflexive Relationship between Internal and External Sovereignty

Abstract

Sovereignty is deeply contested but omnipresent. The aim of this paper is not to offer a definitive conception of this multifaceted notion. It will rather identify three different dimensions that play a role in our understanding of sovereignty and use these as a basis to explain one particular aspect that has been underexplored in the academic debate: the link between internal and external sovereignty.

Firstly, sovereignty describes a legal and political status; secondly, it refers to a factual condition; and thirdly, sovereignty entails a fiction that exists independently from factual or legal changes but that pervades our understanding. These three dimensions interlink and reinforce each other both internally (within the sovereign entity) and externally (in the international context).

The legal status and the factual condition usually, but not necessarily, come together. While territory, people and authority are usually considered the factual basis for legal sovereignty, there are no necessary and sufficient factual conditions that will automatically result in the legal status of being sovereign. As a fiction, sovereignty goes beyond power or legal entitlement. It grasps the deeper emotional and cultural dimension, the fear of losing control and ultimately relevance. Since popular sovereignty has replaced royal sovereignty, the internal political status is rooted in the consent of citizens. This creates a particular link of responsibility in that it aims to ensure that for any action of a sovereign entity there is ultimately an individual or a group of individuals that can be held responsible.

This paper will explore to what extent this more recent understanding of internal sovereignty is and also should be relevant for our understanding of sovereignty more broadly, including external sovereignty as a condition and a fiction, but ultimately also as a legal status. Indeed, the paper argues there are pragmatic and normative arguments in favour of understanding internal and external sovereignty as a continuum. This confronts the traditional view of international law that denies this connection between the internal and external dimension of sovereignty entirely.

Keywords: Sovereignty, legal and political status, territory, international law

link to papers.ssrn.com

Internal/external: The state of sovereignty
link to tandfonline.com

Banishing the Sovereign? Internal and External Sovereignty in Arendt
link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Sovereignty: Meaning and Characteristics of Sovereignty
link to politicalsciencenotes.com

While I’m on a roll, the good professors Crawford & Boyle, acting on a specific remit from the UK Gov to consider the case where the UK was the continuator state, and therefore continue on that basis, they went to great trouble to try to show the Treaty of Union was extinguished internationally, it did not sound. Which shows how vital that was to their argument, they revealed their weakness, and the importance of the cUK to the rUK.

The problem for them is that the Scotland Act reaffirmed the existence of the Treaty of Union in 1998, then again in 2012, and again in 2016. It is still extant, it flies like a bird in the sky.

Maggie knows, she’s nimble on her feet 😎

Re Continuator State

The posts above are very useful and we should be at least aware of them. I however take a slightly different line. I agree the Treaty if Union is a live document and WM fiddles with it at their peril. Should Scotland either through indyref or other means dissolve the Treaty then I agree with Rob Peffers that the UK would revert to its previous legal position of two Kingdoms (KoE and KoS). I think some of the documents above, in other posts, were compiled to represent the KoE as the Continuator and they do not have any legal standing until they are tested in an appropriate court. In regard to the Continuator situation I think this could come down to a negotiation rather than a strict legal situation. For example the EU could decide to recognise KoS as the continuator, whilst other organisations may prefer to recognise the KoE as Continuator ie. It could just come down to politics and negotiation, rather than a legal position.

Question: Which International Bodies would it be beneficial for the KoS to be the continuator? NATO, UN, EU. UNSecurity Council. What ramifications are there? Do we take on the debt mountain?
I am sure the Scottish Government and/or the SNP have already thought about this as will the KoE.

Sinn Fein visit opposition parties in London for talks about safeguarding peace in Ireland.
Jaguar land Rover stop production for a week, due to Brexit and slowdown in market.
link to facebook.com

Well imagine that then, whatever happened to “there’s but a teaspoonful left”
link to oilandgaspeople.com

link to theglobeandmail.com

link to thoughtcontrolscotland.com

I’m ardently pro European, and I firmly believe the EU’s democratic conventions bear scrutiny, contrary to the cynical critisms of antiEuropean detractors, but Donald Tusk’s letter ostensibly telling the 27 other EU Nations what to think and how to vote is not a good look and panders to the critics.

The 27 Nations have a Sovereign veto, and a right to abstain, It isn’t in Donald Tusk’s capacity to overrule them.

Donald Tusk must be acutely aware of this, so I find myself curious about the process whereby this letter was made public. If I was the cynical type, I might suspect it is evidence of a cat and mouse game with Theresa May to play pass the parcel with the actual, final, decision between leaving by the UK or technical eviction by the EU.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Donald Tusk is a very decent fella and has a good heart, and is unapologetic that he wants the UK to back away from Brexit, but I suspect he is also absolutely determined that the final coup de grace for UK membership, if and when it does come, will be by Westminster’s own hand. Brexit will be an act of “self” harm committed by the UK.

The EU is making sure that Theresa the Indecisisive will have to make the decision. You have to be impressed by EU’s total command of these events, and Westminster’s floundering incompetence.

link to independent.co.uk

“Brexit is the will of the people who were lied too.” WATCH: @mrjamesob brilliant speech at the #PeoplesVote rally today
link to twitter.com

link to nytimes.com

link to bylinetimes.com

link to politico.eu

BETTY BOOTHROYD: What nation ducks democratic choices out of fear of fascists?
link to archive.fo

link to vip.politicsmeanspolitics.com

link to politico.eu

Brexit: the responsibility of the UK
link to eureferendum.com