Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Scottish independence

17375777879

Comments



  • pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'd classify the joining of kingdoms for monarchic convenience as a voluntary move by "Scots". Or indeed anyone else on the island. Besides, and here the historical experts can correct me, James I was King of Scotland first and foremost so really Edinburgh should be centre of the Union, not London ;) - if we're taking centuries old precedence as the driver here.

    Arguably, yes.

    It wasn’t really monarchical convenience, the monarch was shared for a long time prior to the act of Union. Scotland had been through a very hard time, famine and severe winters had decimated large parts of the population and disruptions to trade with the Dutch and the French meant Scotland was on it knees. Then the ill fated Darien scheme blew every last bit of capital the country had, so they basically went (for the third time of asking) to Westminster seeking a Union. Westminster had rejected the first two approaches, but as the Scots were basically using their armies as mercenaries to fight alongside whoever was at war with England, the English parliament decided a Union could solve the headache of going to war against bagpipe playing hordes and have them in their side for a change.




  • Significant event in Glasgow today as protestors managed to get a UK immigration van to release two men that had earlier been detained.

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1392887669684949000

    https://twitter.com/ReidEileen1/status/1392883317188481026

    Watching images like this adds to the sense that these are countries with very different outlooks moving in very different directions.

    This was the Scottish government's take, as reported by the BBC:

    Lovely bit of popularism there from the first minister.




  • I was referring to the fabled stability of the UK and how some like First Up keep harping on about how Scotland leaving is a destabilising event and as such they should stay put. I was pointing out that it's codswallop.

    You misunderstand me. I have great sympathy for Scotland's situation and I will be neither surprised or displeased if Scotland becomes a sovereign state.

    That doesn't mean I don't see the risks and threats it will face and needs to prepare for. Don't underestimate them.




  • 1918

    Partly true.

    1918 - Votes given to men over 21 years and women over 30 years. It was not until 1930 when women over 21 were given the vote on the same basis as men.

    All citizens (they were subjects at the time they got the vote) could vote in all elections with the exception on 1. The Monarch 2. Lords of the realm and 3. Prisoners.

    Lords had a vote in the House of Lords, although not all of that at the current time.




  • Significant event in Glasgow today as protestors managed to get a UK immigration van to release two men that had earlier been detained.

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1392887669684949000

    https://twitter.com/ReidEileen1/status/1392883317188481026

    Watching images like this adds to the sense that these are countries with very different outlooks moving in very different directions.

    This was the Scottish government's take, as reported by the BBC:

    I used to live around the corner from there many years ago (Nithsdale Road)

    Here is the tweet which galvanised the people of Glasgow to take action

    https://twitter.com/YesWithDex/status/1392759335428792323


  • Advertisement


  • It must be reassuring for the men and women of the immigration service in Scotland to know they do not have the support of the first minister, or are at best just cannon fodder for her to use when scoring points against Westminster.

    If/when she leads an independent Scotland, this kind of popularism won’t be possible. I wonder who she will blame then.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    It must be reassuring for the men and women of the immigration service in Scotland to know they do not have the support of the first minister, or are at best just cannon fodder for her to use when scoring points against Westminster.

    If/when she leads an independent Scotland, this kind of popularism won’t be possible. I wonder who she will blame then.

    Ohh look a straw man, if you read her statement again without your tory blinkers on you can see she said nothing about blaming or criticized in any way the front line workers involved, her comments were very specifically criticizing the policy and those in charge at the home office.




  • VinLieger wrote: »
    Ohh look a straw man, if you read her statement again without your tory blinkers on you can see she said nothing about blaming or criticized in any way the front line workers involved, her comments were very specifically criticizing the policy and those in charge at the home office.

    It was blatant popularism.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    It was blatant popularism.

    I disagree but even if it was so what? She's a politician.




  • VinLieger wrote: »
    I disagree but even if it was so what? She's a politician.

    She should be supporting those that are upholding the law, not undermining them.

    The SNP may end up being responsible for border enforcement, what message does this give?


  • Advertisement


  • Aegir wrote: »
    It must be reassuring for the men and women of the immigration service in Scotland to know they do not have the support of the first minister, or are at best just cannon fodder for her to use when scoring points against Westminster.

    If/when she leads an independent Scotland, this kind of popularism won’t be possible. I wonder who she will blame then.

    The UK govt home office have botched plenty of things with their gung ho hostile approach. The community in southside Glasgow have had enough and decided to take action




  • Aegir wrote: »

    The SNP may end up being responsible for border enforcement, what message does this give?

    They may well be but they will be then in charge of policy, strategy and direction. With that comes responsibility. At the moment the Scottish govt have no input into the policy, the strategy or the direction




  • Aegir wrote: »
    It must be reassuring for the men and women of the immigration service in Scotland to know they do not have the support of the first ministe . . .
    It should be much more worrying to them that they clearly do not have the support of the people.

    The takeaway from this is that the Home Office is imposing on Scotland immigration policies and practices which are repugnant both to the people at large and to the elected Scottish government. A true unionist would see this as a problem, and would urge Westminster to revisit the issue and reframe immigration policy and practices in a way that takes account of the wishes and interests of the Scots as much as well as the much more right-wing English. Westminister, as this week's Queen's speech vividly illustrates, is leaning more and more authoritarian and, leaving other values aside, that will clearly tend to undermine the union. If Westminster won't adopt policies calculated to strengthen the union, it's not the Scottish reaction you should be worried about.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    She should be supporting those that are upholding the law, not undermining them.

    The SNP may end up being responsible for border enforcement, what message does this give?

    Again actually read her statement instead of pretending she said something that fits with your view of her. She didn't undermine anyone on the front line she criticized the policy and those in charge at the home office.




  • Peregrinus wrote: »
    It should be much more worrying to them that they clearly do not have the support of the people.

    The takeaway from this is that the Home Office is imposing on Scotland immigration policies and practices which are repugnant both to the people at large and to the elected Scottish government. A true unionist would see this as a problem, and would urge Westminster to revisit the issue and reframe immigration policy and practices in a way that takes account of the wishes and interests of the Scots as much as well as the much more right-wing English. Westminister, as this week's Queen's speech vividly illustrates, is leaning more and more authoritarian and, leaving other values aside, that will clearly tend to undermine the union. If Westminster won't adopt policies calculated to strengthen the union, it's not the Scottish reaction you should be worried about.

    What it clearly tells us is that in an independent Scotland, a mob dictates what is the will of the people.

    Gemma O’Doherty must be delighted.




  • VinLieger wrote: »
    Again actually read her statement instead of pretending she said something that fits with your view of her. She didn't undermine anyone on the front line she criticized the policy and those in charge at the home office.

    Immigration officials turn up to enforce a deportation notice, rent a mob turn up to throw things at the thugs in uniform, First Minister sides with the mob.

    Did I miss anything?




  • Aegir wrote: »
    Immigration officials turn up to enforce a deportation notice, rent a mob turn up to throw things at the thugs in uniform, First Minister sides with the mob.

    Did I miss anything?

    Quite a bit. The police and the state are supposed to serve the community, not inflict their will on it from on high. It's troubling that Unionists and conservatives seem to have embraced the opposing train of thought there.

    It is the job of Ms. Sturgeon to represent the people of Scotland. Their turning out to oppose the forced deportation of two refugees like this sends a pretty clear signal about how they feel. The Tory party is solely concerned with appeasing the base prejudices of English nationalists at the moment and it's prioritising this above the union they purport to care for.

    The people of England are free to vote for whatever culture war ideology they want but they can't be surprised when the other constituent members of the United Kingdom start to wonder what the point of it is beyond subsidies as a result. There's no attempt to open dialogue or to engage, just to use as much force as possible.

    I thought it was wonderful to see so many turn out to demonstrate and fight for their values instead of just lazily typing nonsense on Twitter. There are more important priorities for the HM government than angry nationalists.




  • Quite a bit. The police and the state are supposed to serve the community, not inflict their will on it from on high. It's troubling that Unionists and conservatives seem to have embraced the opposing train of thought there.

    It is the job of Ms. Sturgeon to represent the people of Scotland. Their turning out to oppose the forced deportation of two refugees like this sends a pretty clear signal about how they feel. The Tory party is solely concerned with appeasing the base prejudices of English nationalists at the moment and it's prioritising this above the union they purport to care for.

    The people of England are free to vote for whatever culture war ideology they want but they can't be surprised when the other constituent members of the United Kingdom start to wonder what the point of it is beyond subsidies as a result. There's no attempt to open dialogue or to engage, just to use as much force as possible.

    I thought it was wonderful to see so many turn out to demonstrate and fight for their values instead of just lazily typing nonsense on Twitter. There are more important priorities for the HM government than angry nationalists.

    In all of this, however, were they illegal? If so, why should they not be arrested and/or deported? If they were illegal, by the logic of yesterday's events, all illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in Scotland. Or am I missing something?




  • Aegir wrote: »
    What it clearly tells us is that in an independent Scotland, a mob dictates what is the will of the people.

    Gemma O’Doherty must be delighted.

    No, what it tells us is that the Westminster Gov does not take any notice of the Scottish Parliament when it comes to the application of the 'Hostile Environment' introduced by the then Home Secretary T. May, and reintroduced/continued by the current incumbent of that office, P. Patel, who as a minister was forced to resign over secret, unauthorised contact with Israeli Gov personnel.

    I would not trust anything from the Home Office under this Minister. She is so far to the right that Atilla the Hun would look like a choir boy.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    Immigration officials turn up to enforce a deportation notice, rent a mob turn up to throw things at the thugs in uniform, First Minister sides with the mob.

    Did I miss anything?
    Let's start with what you've added in. Not even the Daily Mail report of this incident includes allegations that the protesters threw things. Where are you getting this? The only media reports I have seen that refer to violence or the use of force point to the police as the initiators. The departure of the van was prevented not by stone-throwing, according to the reports I've seen, but by people lying under and in front of the van - a classic technique of non-violence.

    And the "rent a mob" language; you're suggesting these people were paid? Protesters gathered after they heard about the arrival of the vans. Therefore, they came from very nearby; otherwise the van would have been gone before they got there. Therefore, they were the locals. And this is backed up by the widely reported chant they used; "These are our neighbours; let them go".

    And you say that the immigration officials were there "to enforce a deportation notice". I don't think we know this. The Guardian says that their immigration status is "unclear", and the Daily Mail reports the Home Office as saying that they were arrested "in relation to suspected immigration offences" (which would suggest that they were to be charged and tried, rather than deported). The Mail also quotes "a source close to Priti Patel" referring to them as "people living in our country illegally", but I don't think we place too much credence in sources close to Priti Patel, do we?

    As for what you left out; there was the rather provocative decision to execute this raid on the last day of Eid, pretty much guaranteed to alienate many in the neighbourhood. Was this ignorance or malice? Hard to know, with the Home Office.


  • Advertisement


  • In all of this, however, were they illegal? If so, why should they not be arrested and/or deported? If they were illegal, by the logic of yesterday's events, all illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in Scotland. Or am I missing something?

    I don't know if they were illegal or not. If they are, I'd be for letting Scotland decide whether or not they should stay rather than the home office.




  • In all of this, however, were they illegal? If so, why should they not be arrested and/or deported? If they were illegal, by the logic of yesterday's events, all illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in Scotland. Or am I missing something?
    Lots of things. In the first place, we don't know that they "were illegal" (by which I assume you mean, were in the country illegally). The statements from Police Scotland and from the Home Office make no such claim. The only reported claim to this effect has been made by "a source close to Priti Patel"; it might be telling that she can't even get her own Department to back her on this.

    In the second place, the fact that there was community resistance to the arrest of these people does not mean that the only alternative is that all illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain. This is a false dichotomy; other options are possible, and I dare say you could probably think of them yourself. The obvious one; perhaps these people are not illegal immigrants? Or, perhaps the protesters feel that there needs to be a better way of for dealing with cases of putative illegality, with more due process, fewer dawn raids and less of the knee-jerk assumption that everybody who comes to the attention of the Home Office is an illegal immigrant?




  • Quite a bit. The police and the state are supposed to serve the community, not inflict their will on it from on high. It's troubling that Unionists and conservatives seem to have embraced the opposing train of thought there.

    It is the job of Ms. Sturgeon to represent the people of Scotland. Their turning out to oppose the forced deportation of two refugees like this sends a pretty clear signal about how they feel. The Tory party is solely concerned with appeasing the base prejudices of English nationalists at the moment and it's prioritising this above the union they purport to care for.

    The people of England are free to vote for whatever culture war ideology they want but they can't be surprised when the other constituent members of the United Kingdom start to wonder what the point of it is beyond subsidies as a result. There's no attempt to open dialogue or to engage, just to use as much force as possible.

    I thought it was wonderful to see so many turn out to demonstrate and fight for their values instead of just lazily typing nonsense on Twitter. There are more important priorities for the HM government than angry nationalists.

    so let me get this straight, just so we are very clear on this.

    You have no problem with people breaking immigration laws and fully support anyone who is under threat from deportation?

    If so, then great, but don't pretend this is something the big bad Tories are imposing on the Scots. Immigration law is there for a reason and if a law is in place, it needs to be enforced.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    so let me get this straight, just so we are very clear on this.

    You have no problem with people breaking immigration laws and fully support anyone who is under threat from deportation?

    If so, then great, but don't pretend this is something the big bad Tories are imposing on the Scots. Immigration law is there for a reason and if a law is in place, it needs to be enforced.

    It's odd that you allege to want to be clear and then attack a point I never made.




  • Peregrinus wrote: »
    Lots of things. In the first place, we don't know that they "were illegal" (by which I assume you mean, were in the country illegally). The statements from Police Scotland and from the Home Office make no such claim. The only reported claim to this effect has been made by "a source close to Priti Patel"; it might be telling that she can't even get her own Department to back her on this.

    In the second place, the fact that there was community resistance to the arrest of these people does not mean that the only alternative is that all illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain. This is a false dichotomy; other options are possible, and I dare say you could probably think of them yourself. The obvious one; perhaps these people are not illegal immigrants? Or, perhaps the protesters feel that there needs to be a better way of for dealing with cases of putative illegality, with more due process, fewer dawn raids and less of the knee-jerk assumption that everybody who comes to the attention of the Home Office is an illegal immigrant?

    I would disagree. You make a lot of assumptions there. It would be good practice by government departments not to discuss particular cases. Not least to protect all of those those involved. I remain unconvinced that these people were wrongly targeted by immigration officers.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    so let me get this straight, just so we are very clear on this.

    You have no problem with people breaking immigration laws and fully support anyone who is under threat from deportation?

    If so, then great, but don't pretend this is something the big bad Tories are imposing on the Scots. Immigration law is there for a reason and if a law is in place, it needs to be enforced.

    This attitude is being espoused the same week that a Coroners Court led by a High Court Judge in NI has found that 10 citizens, shot dead by the Parachute Regiment 25 years ago were 'Entirely Innocent' of any wrong doing, and those deaths were not investigated at the time. These 10 people were shot dead in an effort by the British Gov to suppress the IRA following the imposition of internment without trial in NI where 'suspects' were rounded up and imprisoned without any judicial process. Subsequently, these people were subjected to torture.

    I wonder if there is any connection other than it was a Tory Gov then (25 years ago), and it is a Tory Gov now.




  • I don't know if they were illegal or not. If they are, I'd be for letting Scotland decide whether or not they should stay rather than the home office.

    I would be quite certain that they are illegal. I too would like to see Scotland administer its own immigration laws but, until Scotland leaves the UK, they are subject to UK laws.




  • I would be quite certain that they are illegal.
    What is the basis for your certainty? Are you just assuming that, if they weren't illegal immigrants, the Home Office wouldn't be trying to detain them?

    (In the trade we call this the "Birmingham Six principle".)




  • I would be quite certain that they are illegal. I too would like to see Scotland administer its own immigration laws but, until Scotland leaves the UK, they are subject to UK laws.

    "Quite certain" might be good enough for Priti Patel's home office but not for me.


  • Advertisement


  • "Quite certain" might be good enough for Priti Patel's home office but not for me.
    It's probably worth pointing out that not even the Home Office are alleging that this pair were illegal immigrants. So far, it's just Prof. Moriarty and "a source close to Priti Patel".

    (There's a thought! Have you ever seen Prof. Moriarty and Priti Patel in the same room? No, me neither! Perhaps we're onto something here! :))


Advertisement