FREEDOM!!!! [4]

{{ When it comes to Brexit I think a lot of groups heard what they wanted to and then stopped thinking for themselves at that point.
Fisherman are the best exmaple- one of the most high profile pro-Brexit groups.
Yet to a layman like me it was blatantly obvious that if we told the EU we were cutting off overnight all acces to our waters and that all fish would be ours theyd just repsond with 'fine, good luck selling them somewhere else then.'
Which is exactly whats happened.

If you have fresh fish or shellfish then you catch it in the morning and it needs to be on restraunt tables in your market by evening, or at most the next day, especially shellfish- after that its worth half, a day longer nothing at all, its going in the bin.
That the response to the Uk position on fishing would be just this was blatantly obvious.

Yet it was only once Brexit was done and dusted and the markets in the EU closed up, or the delays caused by all the added beurocracy made the haul worthless by the time it arrived that fisherman suddenly went, hold on this isnt what we were promised.
But what they were promised was never viable in the first place, blatantly so.
No good having 100% of the fish if you cant sell any- catching fish doesnt make you money, selling them does.
And fisherman who have been selling to the EU all this time should have been those most aware of this. And yet they backed Brexit to the hilt and destroyed their own livlihoods in the process.
And the only explanation I have is that they bought Boris jingoism, even though it was contary to all good sense, all their knowledge of their own industry and reality.



And this impacts Scottish independence too, as we have over 60% of the UK fishing waters and we didnt want to leave the EU and were forced out and now we dont have a market for one of our export industries and business and livlihoods are going to the wall. }}

OK... I am done with this. And people wonder why we are in such a shitty mess in so many places....

Lance, I apologise to you personally, you may think that I am insulting people but you have to understand that I take this very personally, Brexit makes me very angry, it effects me directly, it makes my life harder, it makes my life unnecessarily complicated and worrying, for something that was patent rubbish from the get go.
You try being an immigrant in Europe, I don't call myself an ex-pat because that's what the dumbasses in Benidorm call themselves after they have just voted to get themselves thrown out of the country for not having the correct paperwork. So I am an immigrant, wondering if I am still allowed health treatment, will I get my UK pension, all manner of things. Luckily I am a legal resident and married to an Italian, but still, small things like roaming charges and ordering stuff online, longer queues at airports, is now a major pain in the arse, for nothing.
I object to the people who swallowed the lies, did zero research about the EU, had no clue what they were voting for but followed Farage and UKIP without question, they disliked European immigrants, wanted a fucking useless sovereignty which we had already, and shot themselves and their descendants in the foot. It is madness and I will not apologise for calling them thick, they were thick. Listen to the idiot vox-pops on the telly when they interviewed the 'people' I sometimes wanted to throw the telly through the window they were so ignorant, jingoistic, and stubborn with it. It was all "we won get over it". Obviously not all were thick, some had the best intentions, were hoodwinked, thought sincerely it was for the best, but the tiniest bit of research would have told them different, the benefits of being a member were vast and simple to understand. I will never ever understand it or accept it. Just thinking about all the disrupted lives and businesses, the billions of pounds lost, it beggars belief.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-ship-song/

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I agree entirely with her that it has to be legal, it has to approved and it has to be internationally recognised, otherwise we are just putting ourselves in the Catalonian position.

That is the thing though, you wouldn't. What happened in Catalonia is what happens when you go into a clash of sovereignty with no intention to uphold your own. The Catalans always aimed to use the referendum to achieve negotiations. When the Spanish police violence opened the door to independence they panicked, like deers in the headlight, and surrendered, accepting Spanish sovereignty. The Spanish called their bluff, since the Catalans were never prepared to act unilaterally in a way Spain feared they saw no reason to compromise. What Catalonia tells you is that you go to a clash of sovereignty in earnest, not to gain a negotiation position for milder reforms.

{{ If its not legal, not recognised whats the point? Plus the results of the election show the country is still pretty split down themiddle, damn near 50/50- holding a referendum in which half the population boycott voting would be utterly meaningless. Not to mention Westminster would simply declare it an illegal vote and therefore not have any reason to accept the result.
Far better to my mind to go Sturgeon's route of legislate for it, put it through the Parliament and wait for Boris to challenge it in the courts. Thats an SNP win/win- either the court find it would be legal and Westminster has no power to decide if there is one, or the court side with Westminister blocking any democratic means of deciding ourselves, galvinising further support for doing so and resentment to Westminster for refusing it, piling more presure on and increasing the pro-indie majority to a more realistic level to actually gain independence (in my view a minumum of 60% consitently polling for indie. Anythingless its too narrow a margin, and if Scotland votes to remain again thats it for the foreseeabe future.)}}

{{ So proud of my fellow Scots today.
The Home Office came to Glasgow today to take away two Indian men and kick them out the country. Immigration policy isnot devoloved so scottish Parliament has no say on this and Boris's govt, under hard line Pritti Patels' Home Office are coming after folk.

'Early on Thursday people surrounded the Home Office vehicle believed to contain two Indian immigrants who had been removed from a flat.
Hundreds gathered in the area, with one man crawling under the van to prevent it from moving.
The Home Office said the men had been detained over "suspected immigration offences".
Some of the protesters were heard shouting "let our neighbours go".

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who is also the MSP for the area, said she disagreed fundamentally with Home Office immigration policy.
She said: "This action was unacceptable. To act in this way, in the heart of a Muslim community as they celebrated Eid, and in an area experiencing a Covid outbreak was a health and safety risk."
She said she would be "demanding assurances" from the UK government that they would not create such a dangerous situation again.
She added: "No assurances were given - and frankly no empathy shown - when I managed to speak to a junior minister earlier."

Humza Yousaf, the Scottish government's justice secretary, said: "the action they [the Home Office] have today is at best completely reckless, and at worst intended to provoke, on a day the UK government would have known the Scottish government and MSPs would be distracted by parliamentary process."
He added that the situation "should never have occurred", and that "the UK government's hostile environment is not welcome here."

In a statement, the Home Office said: "The UK Government is tackling illegal immigration and the harm it causes, often to the most vulnerable people by removing those with no right to be in the UK.
"The operation in Glasgow was conducted in relation to suspected immigration offences and the two Indian nationals complied with officers at all times.
"The UK Government continues to tackle illegal migration in all its forms and our New Plan for Immigration will speed up the removal of those who have entered the UK illegally."
The Sikhs in Scotland group said in a statement that it was "deeply concerned", and urged the Home Office to "abandon forced removals and to adopt an immigration policy based on human rights, compassion and dignity".
Mohammad Asif, of the Afghan Human Rights Foundation, said hundreds of people were protesting.
The 54-year-old added: "We're here against the hostile environment created by the Tories and the British state."

The two men were eventually released.


Well done to all those in the neighbourhood who refused to sit by and watch it happen and let the Uk government know we dont do this to people in Scotland. Whatever the Home Office says.}}

there must have been some warning to get such a large crowd so quickly. I doubt they were flashing lights and blowing the siren.

{{ No, noone knew. The Home Office dont announce such raids.
The van turned up and some of the Indian guys neighbours came out to try to stop them being taken, then one of them went under the van so they couldnt move it. Then more of the neighbourhood started coming out to stop it, then more and more from neighbouring streets. }}

the Guardian was reporting today that EU citizens are being detained and expelled. There have been Spanish and Bulgarian people coming to the UK for job interviews, they were detained for days in detention camps then expelled. This is against the rules, and disgusting. All part of the 'hostile environment' for EU citizens. England is rapidly turning into a proto-fascist state.

{{ As this ws happening today the Scottish Parliament was having its swearing in of all members and giving their oath to serve. The Home Office knew all the politicians were busy elsewhere, which is shameless in itself.
But not only did the locals stand up to this and prevent it,that swearing in was for the most diverse Parliament yet elected, and included 58 female members out of 129, the first fully handicapped wheelchair user and the oaths were given by varous members in English, Gaelic, Doric, Orkadian, Scots, Urdu, German, Zimbabwian, Punjabi and sign language as eachmemebr wished to give it.
It couldnt be more opposite to thinking at Westminister, or its sea of white Cambridge and Oxford bred politicians and multi-millionares. And its actually representive of modenr Scotlands population and people. Another moment to be proud to be Scottish today. }}}

{{ Sadly Ive noticed a trend in some right wing media to try to dismiss yesterdays events and paint those who stopped the immigration van yesterday as being mainly made up of immigrants. And using that as if its an argument against what happened. Apart from the fact regardless of where the protesters were originally from they live here, work here, pay their taxes here, raise their families here and they have as much right to protest as any, its also simply untrue.
Whilst there were people there from various communities (a good thing in itself to see Seik, Muslim, Hindu, Christian and those of no faith standing together in peaceful protest) the vast bulk of those who protested were white Scots. }}

Looks like Scotland is going to become a bastion of freedom. Bit like Canada in The Handmaids Tale, with England being Gilead.

{{ i think we are a tleast trying for better Figg. There's plenty still to do, and cant let things like this, good as they are, paper over the cracks of where there is so much more to do, and you always have to be on guard against a slide backwards in attitudes and views. But right now we are at least heading in the right direction for a better future and the majorityof Scots are who are driving that push, especially our young folk. }}

{{ I dont normally frequent Twitter but I cant find this for some reason on youtube.
This is the response to the deportation atttempt from Scotlands Justice Secratary Humza Yousaf, from his twitter - }}

https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1392880965228314625?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

{{ According to the Daily Mail and Tory William Hague there are four questions those propsing Scottish independnce must answer which he claim have no answer. So I thought I'd help out by answering them.

'First – currency. Would an independent Scotland keep the pound – and be subject to decisions from the Bank of England – or would Scotland invent its own currency and prepare to join the euro?'

Scotland would keep the pound and use the English Central Bank during a transition period of about 5 years, during which time our own currency and Scottish Central bank will be set up. Wether or not we join the Euro would be entirely dependent upon the feelings and votes of the people of an independent Scotland.


'Second, as Lord Hague put it, ‘since tax revenues per head are about £300 lower in Scotland than UK-wide and government expenditure about £1,600 higher’, would the Scots have to pay higher taxes and an independent Edinburgh government have to borrow more?'

Taxes may be a little higher, in pollingmost Scots are willing to pay a little more for better services, but most of the savings would come from not contributing to UK projects we dont want or have anything to do with. The largest and most obvious of these is the renewal of Trident (£20 billion). As Scotland doesnt want them we would not be paying for them. However if England want to keep them, and as they dont have any facilities for keeping them, we will hang onto them for the five year transition period while England decide where they want to put them down south and in the meantime we lease where they are now to the RUK government, which would be a nice revenue earner. We also have most of the Uk coastline and fishing waters, not to mention oil, gas and hydro electirc that currently goes on the UK grid, which post independnce we would be selling to RUK. All this added revenue should more than make up for the per head difference.


'Third, what kind of border would there be between an independent Scotland and England, especially if Scotland were allowed to join the EU?'

That's only partly in Scotlands hands as obvioulsy England would have to come to the table on the border. For the period where we defintly wont be in the EU- probably at least that first five years there is no reason the border cannot be fairly light, similar to state borders in the US or borders between countries within the EU or between Scandinavian countries.
If we elect to rejoin the EU then it becomes the EU external border and will require the same checks and balances currently in place to Ireland. And much like Ireland, which prior to its indpeencne did 3/4 of it trade with UK and little directly to the EU, and now does little to the UK and the bulk to the EU, so would Scotland transition from a UK marketplace to a EU marketplace which is many times bigger.


'And fourth, what would happen with regard Scotland’s security, since Nato sets a target of two per cent of GDP spent on defence and the SNP has serious reservations about spending huge sums during current times of hardship?''

Many members of NATO in fact dont spend 2% of their GDP on defence. I suspect Scotland will spend between 1-1.5% and I also expect NATO would be happy with that as Scotland has, does and will still offer massive stragetic advantage to any north Atlantic alliance given our location, exisiting training facilities and the fact most of NATO's north Atlantic radar and tracking facilities and other installations are on our northern islands. Wether or not an independent Scotland would wish to remain a member of NATO would of course be up to the people as expressed through votes. But its highly unlikely NATO would refuse scotland membrship as it would be cuttin goff a vital andimportant strategic advantage.

'These vital questions need clear answers. Also, there’s the very tricky question about whether Scots living in England should get a vote on independence.'

Clear answers given! As to tricky question, no its not tricky. The answer is no. Only residents whether they are Scots or not can vote, that was how it was done last time and would be again. If you dont reside here, pay taxes here, work here, or raise your family here its not your future. Its for the people of the country to decide. }}

Rebuild and use Hadrian's wall as the border. Put the damn thing to some use.

Trouble is Hadrians Wall is in England, the Geordies might have something to say about it.

{{ If Scotland makes a success of independence the Geordies might want the old borders back so they can join! }}

sounds legit

It's close enough to the border. And who would even realize Newcastle is gone?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ If its not legal, not recognised whats the point? Plus the results of the election show the country is still pretty split down themiddle, damn near 50/50- holding a referendum in which half the population boycott voting would be utterly meaningless.  Not to mention Westminster would simply declare it an illegal vote and therefore not have any reason to accept the result.
Far better to my mind to go Sturgeon's route of legislate for it, put it through the Parliament and wait for Boris to challenge it in the courts. Thats an SNP win/win- either the court find it would be legal and Westminster has no power to decide if there is one, or the court side with Westminister blocking any democratic means of deciding ourselves, galvinising further support for doing so and resentment to Westminster for refusing it, piling more presure on and increasing the pro-indie majority to a more realistic level to actually gain independence (in my view a minumum of 60% consitently polling for indie. Anythingless its too narrow a margin, and if Scotland votes to remain again thats it for the foreseeabe future.)}}

The point lies in your first sentence. As I outlined in a previous post legal in internal national law does not effect legality in the sense of international law. There is further no prohibition on unilateral declarations of independence in international law, as the ICJ made clear in its statement on the UDI of Kosovo. Now, what does that mean? That the legitimacy of an UDI is wholly a matter of international law, which ultimately boils down to the recognition of other states. In short, legality under UK law is irrelevant to legality under international law. Here you might however be right in your statements in the realpolitik sense. The way Scotland goes about independence will affect how other states see its independence. And sadly, while the EU seems strongly in favour of Scottish independence per se, you cannot expect it to accept that it is done unilaterally while Member States like Spain has an influential voice. However, what happens if the unilateral path is all you have left? Should you let the UK veto any chance of Scottish independence when it is irrelevant under international law? As long is independence happens democratically and peacefully from the Scottish side, I would say they do the world a favour by not accepting anti-democratic vetoes, and going about independence to set an example for other self-determination to follow. To finally sink the imposition of unity by force and internal law against a national minority as acceptable in western democracies. But, this is also a realpolitik question, and while the world adapts to reality (the EU went out against both the independence of Slovenia and Croatia and the Baltics, all now Member States) it might take time and patience. The realpolitik question I grant is wholly up for debate. But I do believe against the unilateral veto of the UK, Scotland is perfectly legitimised to act (peacefully and democratically) equally unilaterally as the UK. And if there is any talk of the use of force by the UK side, I think that settles the argument in Scotland's favour immediately. I grant that it is a difficult balancing act, and that there is no simple answer.

{{ Sadly I think realpolitik triumphs. A referendum in which a large chunk of the population boycotts it would not provide a reliable result and leave it open to accusations of being such. And as you note is highly unlikely the EU, or especially certain member states with regions wishing to gain independence of their own, would look favourably upon such a referendum. Further I feel it would lead to a lot of social unrest as the population is split pretty down the middle on the issue of independence. If we are to be independent this needs to be the clear settled will of a majority in a referendum all sides consider legal and fair. And lastly if such a rogue referendum were held and the result was for independence I think Westminister would simply ignore the result, using its illegailty under the UK constituiton which reserves the right to call the referendum to Westminster to deny the result- with the inevitable result again being social unrest.

The question of if there comes a point when the Westminister position is so intractable that social unrest may be seen as desirable or even necesary to effect change can only come if a vastly large percentage of the population favours it, something closer to 70-80% not the current 50% }}

{{ So much for royalty not getting involved in politics! }}

'The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have held a private meeting with Gordon Brown - who recently launched a renewed campaign to keep Scotland in the UK.
William and Kate had talks with the former prime minister at the Queen's official Edinburgh residence on Thursday.
William later gave a speech describing how Scotland had shaped him, and praised its people and values.'- BBC

But they didn't say which way they leaned, so no obvious advocacy there.