Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Scottish independence

17476787980

Comments



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

    but that is exactly what you are saying.

    If a country has an immigration policy, then it has to be enforced. if an illegal immigrant refuses to leave, then the last resort is enforced deportation.




  • 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.

    It was 50 years ago.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    but that is exactly what you are saying.

    If a country has an immigration policy, then it has to be enforced. if an illegal immigrant refuses to leave, then the last resort is enforced deportation.

    As Peregrinus has pointed out, there are no solid indications these folk WERE illegal immigrants, let alone the type who refuse to leave. And in any case, my own personal thoughts on illegal immigration is that if they were contributing to society and their neighbourhood - either economically or socially - then this is exactly the kind of grey area that should show leniency and compassion within the arms of the state. Certainly what transpired was enough to mobilise the local community (though you've made your cynical perspective on that point clear), so it'd be surprising if they were total nobodies.

    It's Priti Patel's bailiwick so I doubt either concept is something she strongly considered, but I don't subscribe to the arbitrary "lock 'em up and throw 'em out" policy when it comes to immigration either - illegal or otherwise.




  • Peregrinus wrote: »
    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".)

    Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's not a case of "If the Tories are involved then it must be wrong" as is your premise. Your logic assumes that the whole structure of the immigration department in the UK is systemically corrupted to the point that immigration officers will knowingly detain people who are not illegal immigrants. I don't subscribe to that logic.




  • pixelburp wrote: »
    As Peregrinus has pointed out, there are no solid indications these folk WERE illegal immigrants, let alone the type who refuse to leave. And in any case, my own personal thoughts on illegal immigration is that if they were contributing to society and their neighbourhood - either economically or socially - then this is exactly the kind of grey area that should show leniency and compassion within the arms of the state.

    It's Priti Patel's bailiwick so I doubt either concept is something she strongly considered, but I don't subscribe to the arbitrary "lock 'em up and throw 'em out" policy when it comes to immigration - illegal or otherwise.

    they had been in the country ten years, so it is highly unlikely this was their first interaction with the home office. A van with enforcement officers in is the last step in a very long process, not a knee jerk reaction to a couple of brown fellas who can't speak any English. If they are valued contributing members of the community, then why did they not get leave to remain?

    There was plenty of jubilant discussion about Brits getting deported from Spain because they hadn't gone through the necessary process in order to remain, how is this any different?


  • Advertisement


  • Peregrinus wrote: »
    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! :))

    Je suis Priti.




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

    Well, who would have more access to the facts of the case. The immigration officers or you and I?




  • 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.

    fifty years ago the army shot ten people in Ballymurphy, therefore this operation to remove two illegal immigrants must be wrong?

    that is some strawman right there.




  • It was 50 years ago.
    Aegir wrote: »
    fifty years ago the army shot ten people in Ballymurphy, therefore this operation to remove two illegal immigrants must be wrong?

    that is some strawman right there.

    In fifty years time, this will be fifty years ago.
    - Niemoller
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Yes, there were a few locals there to speak out.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    they had been in the country ten years, so it is highly unlikely this was their first interaction with the home office. A van with enforcement officers in is the last step in a very long process, not a knee jerk reaction to a couple of brown fellas who can't speak any English. If they are valued contributing members of the community, then why did they not get leave to remain?

    There was plenty of jubilant discussion about Brits getting deported from Spain because they hadn't gone through the necessary process in order to remain, how is this any different?

    Sigh. Of course you pivot into accusations of Brit Bashing. Jubilance too it seems :) I'm not getting sucked into comparisons because we both know each situation is completely different; not least because the UK residents in Spain had a much clearer, easier path to residency than these Glaswegian folk would (likely) have had. Illegal immigration is scarcely known for having transparent, easy bureaucratic means towards residency. In some countries, the opposite is true.

    Let's not suddenly pretend that the path to residency for illegals from non-EU countries is equivalent to the blue-rinse bridage retiring to Benidorm to eat chips in the sun. The rights and wrongs can be debated in that respect, but there's no moral or legal equivalence you can draw with the those in Spain finding themselves turfed out through their own inertia. Except for some moral absolutism brownie points because I think everyone's stance on the main topic here is well illustrated by now; be it mine, others like Bonnie - or you :)

    Here's the thing though either way: we know full well that the Home Office has a patchy record when it comes to enacting fair and proper application of its own ruleset. The Windrush scandal should be an indication enough of that, giving pause to consider when the continuing application of deportation is always either fair - or just.

    All I'd ultimately argue is that these cases be taken contextually, locally and consider the human impact or element. However, in an era of politically motivated quotas, it's also equally possible these Glaswegians were easy targets to chuck in a van and make Patel's reports look good.


  • Advertisement


  • Well, who would have more access to the facts of the case. The immigration officers or you and I?

    Do you believe that the home office and the current home secretary are good faith actors?

    I get your point but trust is a two way streeet.




  • Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's not a case of "If the Tories are involved then it must be wrong" as is your premise. Your logic assumes that the whole structure of the immigration department in the UK is systemically corrupted to the point that immigration officers will knowingly detain people who are not illegal immigrants. I don't subscribe to that logic.
    No, I'm not saying that at all. You're setting up a straw man there.

    Lookit, this didn't happen even in the Birmingham Six case. In that case the officers who fitted them up genuinely thought they were guilty; that was why they fitted them up. They were just far to ready to come to the conclusion that somebody was guilty without having a solid foundation for that conclusion; they were enmeshed in a system and a culture which encouraged that. And, once they'd done that, the whole system was geared against admitting any possibility that they might be wrong. And look what happened.

    Have we any reason to think that the Home Office might be too quick to come to the conclusion that someone is in the country illegally? Fûck, yes! Can you say "Windrush"? Can you draw any conclusions from the Home Office's own complaints that such a high proportion of its attempted deportations are frustrated if the intended deportees succeed in getting access to the courts? Or from the systematic demonization of whole classes of people by the political leadership of the Home Office? And the political pressure that results from the hysterical anti-migrant campaigns of the Tory press? Everything is lined up to produce precisely] the combination of attitudes, pressures and incentives that led to miscarriages of justice in the past.




  • Do you believe that the home office and the current home secretary are good faith actors?

    I get your point but trust is a two way streeet.

    Well, I believe they are acting in accordance with their own populist beliefs. You could argue that is good faith!

    My essential premise is that the core structure of the immigration department would be populated by principled public servants who would not detain people unless there was a genuine reason to believe they were actually illegal immigrants.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    they had been in the country ten years, so it is highly unlikely this was their first interaction with the home office. A van with enforcement officers in is the last step in a very long process, not a knee jerk reaction to a couple of brown fellas who can't speak any English. If they are valued contributing members of the community, then why did they not get leave to remain?

    There was plenty of jubilant discussion about Brits getting deported from Spain because they hadn't gone through the necessary process in order to remain, how is this any different?

    As was pointed out there is a difference in the processes. Never mind that it was the UK who forced the process that resulted in the Brits being deported from Spain.

    Why do you assume all required steps were taken? How do you know it isn't another Windrush scandal? In cases like these the authorities need to show they are doing the right thing so close to a scandal as we can't assume the authorities are always doing the right thing.




  • Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, I'm not saying that at all. You're setting up a straw man there.

    Well, I wouldn't see that as a straw man. But...
    Lookit, this didn't happen even in the Birmingham Six case. In that case the officers who fitted them up genuinely thought they were guilty; that was why they fitted them up. They were just far to ready to come to the conclusion that somebody was guilty without having a solid foundation for that conclusion; they were enmeshed in a system and a culture which encouraged that. And, once they'd done that, the whole system was geared against admitting any possibility that they might be wrong. And look what happened.

    ...this is a straw man! Comparisons between what happened yesterday and the Birmingham Six are invidious for a variety of reasons. It's literally incomparable.
    Have we any reason to think that the Home Office might be too quick to come to the conclusion that someone is in the country illegally? Fûck, yes! Can you say "Windrush"? Can you draw any conclusions from the Home Office's own complaints that such a high proportion of its attempted deportations are frustrated if the intended deportees succeed in getting access to the courts? Or from the systematic demonization of whole classes of people by the political leadership of the Home Office? And the political pressure that results from the hysterical anti-migrant campaigns of the Tory press? Everything is lined up to produce precisely] the combination of attitudes, pressures and incentives that led to miscarriages of justice in the past.

    The same finger could be pointed at the Irish government. And has been regularly. This Tory government has decided to that there needs to be stricter immigration controls. It could be argued that there does indeed need to be stricter control of illegal immigration into the UK. How one goes about implementing that is a complicated discussion. In the context of what happened yesterday, my understanding is that immigration officers tried to detain suspected illegal immigrants. Is that a horrible breach of human rights by a vicious Tory government? Or is it simply the implementation of a reasonable immigration law?




  • Peregrinus wrote: »

    Well, I wouldn't see that as a straw man. But...



    ...this is a straw man! Comparisons between what happened yesterday and the Birmingham Six are invidious for a variety of reasons. It's literally incomparable.



    The same finger could be pointed at the Irish government. And has been regularly. This Tory government has decided to that there needs to be stricter immigration controls. It could be argued that there does indeed need to be stricter control of illegal immigration into the UK. How one goes about implementing that is a complicated discussion. In the context of what happened yesterday, my understanding is that immigration officers tried to detain suspected illegal immigrants. Is that a horrible breach of human rights by a vicious Tory government? Or is it simply the implementation of a reasonable immigration law?


    Indeed it is a complicated discussion. Dawn raids on a cultural holiday are a great way to inflame tensions for an organisation that has had a pretty terrible track record in the last few years. Police can do their jobs only because of the consent of the people and PR is a pretty important part of their jobs. Any idiot should have known that this was a terrible way to fix the lack of trust in the Home office at the moment.

    As far as I know they haven't been accused of anything more serious that would require a heavy handed approach. They seem pretty settled in the locality so I am not sure why all of this was required. What were they going to do? Flee the country?

    If the Home Office has enough people who are pure of purpose and fairness how did Windrush become a thing?




  • pixelburp wrote: »
    Sigh. Of course you pivot into accusations of Brit Bashing. Jubilance too it seems :) I'm not getting sucked into comparisons because we both know each situation is completely different; not least because the UK residents in Spain had a much clearer, easier path to residency than these Glaswegian folk would (likely) have had. Illegal immigration is scarcely known for having transparent, easy bureaucratic means towards residency. In some countries, the opposite is true.

    Let's not suddenly pretend that the path to residency for illegals from non-EU countries is equivalent to the blue-rinse bridage retiring to Benidorm to eat chips in the sun. The rights and wrongs can be debated in that respect, but there's no moral or legal equivalence you can draw with the those in Spain finding themselves turfed out through their own inertia. Except for some moral absolutism brownie points because I think everyone's stance on the main topic here is well illustrated by now; be it mine, others like Bonnie - or you :)

    Here's the thing though either way: we know full well that the Home Office has a patchy record when it comes to enacting fair and proper application of its own ruleset. The Windrush scandal should be an indication enough of that, giving pause to consider when the continuing application of deportation is always either fair - or just.

    All I'd ultimately argue is that these cases be taken contextually, locally and consider the human impact or element. However, in an era of politically motivated quotas, it's also equally possible these Glaswegians were easy targets to chuck in a van and make Patel's reports look good.

    It wasn't anything to do with Brit bashing, just an observation on people's double standards ( and crass assumptions as well, it would appear).

    If someone is illegally in a country, then that country must have the right to deport them, otherwise what is the point of having immigration laws, why not just scrap visas, work permits etc and let everyone in.

    This isn't just about keeping a few brown skinned people out, it is to keep people within the net. People outside of the system are more open to exploitation, as in the case of the Morecombe bay tragedy. To even suggest that an independent Scotland would do otherwise is rediculous and just confims my original statement that this was little more than a bit of popularism by the First Minister.

    There are estimated to be between 600 and 800,000 undocumented immigrants in the UK, but of course Priti Patel personally selected these two to be picked up and questioned ;)




  • Aegir wrote: »
    It wasn't anything to do with Brit bashing, just an observation on people's double standards ( and crass assumptions as well, it would appear).

    For double standards to apply, first your comparison must be both accurate, and apt.

    You tried to draw a moral and legal equivalence between financially mobile peoples choosing to retire or move to Spain for their own pleasure, and illegal immigrants operating outside of system to travel to another country in desperation/hope (be it to escape persecution, poverty, or any host of negative consequences for staying in their original location). The two situations might be unified by the concept of migration - but not remotely by circumstance.

    Where's the crassness? Snark about blue-rinse? I hope not, 'cos playing the Sealion is a bad look when you yourself snarked about "Rent a mobs" in response to the Glasgow protest. Sauce for the goose Aegir.

    I'll give you one thing: I believe the UK police were waiting for certain individuals to be arrive in the UK from their Spanish homes - so both demographics you're trying to compare contain a criminal element that ruin the reputation for the rest :)
    Aegir wrote: »
    If someone is illegally in a country, then that country must have the right to deport them, otherwise what is the point of having immigration laws, why not just scrap visas, work permits etc and let everyone in.

    I agree, in principle. Illegal immigrants ideally should be processed as quick as possible and if needed, deported. That's the humane thing to do and reading on those trying to live within the slow-grind of bureaucracy, it's hell having that Sword of Damocles over your neck for years. But that's governance for you; slow, unwieldy and as Windrush has shown, can have disastrous consequences.

    People don't just live in limbo waiting to be processed either; and why I say cases should be treated contextually to their respective circumstance. It's not without reason America has had broad amnesties for long-term migrants living "illegally". People live lives, work jobs, do their best insofar as the system allows. They earned the right to be residency by graft, and the sweat of their brow, to be melodramatic.

    And hey; maybe these two in Glasgow did all this. Maybe they didn't. The community felt strongly enough to believe the former but I'm not so glib as to think Immigration is a cut and dry issue. Or naive to think political influence doesn't dictate application either.




  • Christy42 wrote: »


    Indeed it is a complicated discussion. Dawn raids on a cultural holiday are a great way to inflame tensions for an organisation that has had a pretty terrible track record in the last few years. Police can do their jobs only because of the consent of the people and PR is a pretty important part of their jobs. Any idiot should have known that this was a terrible way to fix the lack of trust in the Home office at the moment.

    As far as I know they haven't been accused of anything more serious that would require a heavy handed approach. They seem pretty settled in the locality so I am not sure why all of this was required. What were they going to do? Flee the country?

    If the Home Office has enough people who are pure of purpose and fairness how did Windrush become a thing?

    Indeed one can level much criticism against this Tory government and the immigration policies they espouse. But where is the evidence that what happened yesterday is connected to Windrush? That this had anything to do with a lack of trust in the Home Office? That the immigration officers tried to inflame the local community? That was not simply an attempt to detain two illegal immigrants?

    Anyone who reads my posts would know that I detest this particular Tory government. But it is too simple to immediately and automatically blame their nasty populism for every single event such as yesterday's. It's a bit like two legs good and four legs bad and if we do that then we are playing their game. They want polarisation. They want to eradicate truth and nuance.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    It wasn't anything to do with Brit bashing, just an observation on people's double standards ( and crass assumptions as well, it would appear).

    If someone is illegally in a country, then that country must have the right to deport them, otherwise what is the point of having immigration laws, why not just scrap visas, work permits etc and let everyone in.

    This isn't just about keeping a few brown skinned people out, it is to keep people within the net. People outside of the system are more open to exploitation, as in the case of the Morecombe bay tragedy. To even suggest that an independent Scotland would do otherwise is rediculous and just confims my original statement that this was little more than a bit of popularism by the First Minister.

    There are estimated to be between 600 and 800,000 undocumented immigrants in the UK, but of course Priti Patel personally selected these two to be picked up and questioned ;)


    Or she just disagrees with the immigration laws and how they are enforced as they stand as opposed to not wanting any immigration laws. Hence she was happy with a protest against the laws she disagrees with.


    Those double standards apply to different cases...


  • Advertisement


  • Christy42 wrote: »
    Or she just disagrees with the immigration laws and how they are enforced as they stand as opposed to not wanting any immigration laws. Hence she was happy with a protest against the laws she disagrees with.


    Those double standards apply to different cases...

    It will be interesting come Indtyef2 time and what the SNP will be saying about immigration and the measures to curb illegal immigration.

    She will have to thread lightly after yesterdays statement.




  • It will be interesting come Indtyef2 time and what the SNP will be saying about immigration and the measures to curb illegal immigration.

    She will have to thread lightly after yesterdays statement.

    I think you've conflated Scottish and English nationalism there.

    English nationalism is chiefly ethnic in nature whereas Scottish nationalism is civic. In any case, Sturgeon will detail a policy and the voters can decide in the event that they secure another referendum.




  • I think you've conflated Scottish and English nationalism there.

    English nationalism is chiefly ethnic in nature whereas Scottish nationalism is civic. In any case, Sturgeon will detail a policy and the voters can decide in the event that they secure another referendum.

    and there we go again.

    Two Indian guys overstay their visa, The Glasgow office of the Border Agency tell them to leave, they refuse so Glasgow Immigration officers are sent to carry out the enforcement....


    and it's all the fault of the English.

    Like I said, if/when Sturgeon has to oversee this kind of enforcement if/when there is an independent Scotland, who will she blame then?




  • Aegir wrote: »
    and there we go again.

    Two Indian guys overstay their visa, The Glasgow office of the Border Agency tell them to leave, they refuse so Glasgow Immigration officers are sent to carry out the enforcement....


    and it's all the fault of the English.

    Like I said, if/when Sturgeon has to oversee this kind of enforcement if/when there is an independent Scotland, who will she blame then?

    Come on now. That's preposterous.




  • pixelburp wrote: »
    For double standards to apply, first your comparison must be both accurate, and apt.

    You tried to draw a moral and legal equivalence between financially mobile peoples choosing to retire or move to Spain for their own pleasure, and illegal immigrants operating outside of system to travel to another country in desperation/hope (be it to escape persecution, poverty, or any host of negative consequences for staying in their original location). The two situations might be unified by the concept of migration - but not remotely by circumstance.

    these are two Sikh guys from India, you'll have to give me a bit more details on how the Sikh community is oppressed and persecuted there. If yo find it, does it also include details on how the Sikh community celebrate Eid?

    These guys, a father and son, came to the UK for a better life, I have no issue with that. I love seeing diversity within a community, it is actually one of the things I found difficult to adjust to in Ireland when I first moved here. But immigrants (and I include myself in that) have to register, they have to follow the rules and regulations for the country they are moving to, no matter what they think of them. That's just part and parcel of being an immigrant. If you don't, then you face the very real prospect of a knock on the door at 5am.

    pixelburp wrote: »
    I agree, in principle. Illegal immigrants ideally should be processed as quick as possible and if needed, deported. That's the humane thing to do and reading on those trying to live within the slow-grind of bureaucracy, it's hell having that Sword of Damocles over your neck for years. But that's governance for you; slow, unwieldy and as Windrush has shown, can have disastrous consequences.

    People don't just live in limbo waiting to be processed either; and why I say cases should be treated contextually to their respective circumstance. It's not without reason America has had broad amnesties for long-term migrants living "illegally". People live lives, work jobs, do their best insofar as the system allows. They earned the right to be residency by graft, and the sweat of their brow, to be melodramatic.

    I don't disagree, although I do believe the Windrush thing was a completely different set of circumstances and is a clear example of why the UK needs a national ID card. It would have resolved all the problems faced by those affected.

    There is a lot of support for immigrants in the UK, not just from charities either, the system gives a lot of support. When I went with my wife to Slough Job Centre to get her NI number, we could have had a translator to assist in any of about nine different languages, the forms and assortment of leaflets detailing the process similarly were available in a number of languages you would struggle to understand what more could be done. I really can't see why anyone with a bonafide claim to remaining in the UK would not go through the process.
    pixelburp wrote: »
    And hey; maybe these two in Glasgow did all this. Maybe they didn't. The community felt strongly enough to believe the former but I'm not so glib as to think Immigration is a cut and dry issue. Or naive to think political influence doesn't dictate application either.

    maybe they were just two guys who chanced their arm and overstayed their visa, maybe they were heads of an international crime gang, we have no idea. That is why I am amazed the first minister decided to completely undermine a service she aspires to lead, so quickly and so categorically.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    and there we go again.

    Two Indian guys overstay their visa, The Glasgow office of the Border Agency tell them to leave, they refuse so Glasgow Immigration officers are sent to carry out the enforcement....


    and it's all the fault of the English.

    Like I said, if/when Sturgeon has to oversee this kind of enforcement if/when there is an independent Scotland, who will she blame then?

    I'm genuinely wondering if you're even reading posts now. I was specific with my words. If you're going to keep fabricating points to dodge engaging with the ones I made, I'm not going to engage with your further.




  • GT89 wrote: »
    Deleted post.
    What you're advocating there, GT89, is a referendum on English independence.

    To which any self-respecting Scots, Welsh or Irish nationalist would say "Of course. If the English want an independence referendum they should have one. Why not? They don't need our permission."

    But I think it says a great deal about the political reality in the UK that an English vote on whether the union between England and Scotland should be maintained is a vote by England on whether "to kick Scotland out". So long as English people think of England's place in the union in this way, that's a powerful reason why Scots, Welsh and Irish people are likely to prefer independence. Who want to be in a union with a country that thinks it not only does control your destiny, but has a right to do so?




  • Peregrinus wrote: »
    What you're advocating there, GT89, is a referendum on English independence.

    To which any self-respecting Scots, Welsh or Irish nationalist would say "Of course. If the English want an independence referendum they should have one. Why not? They don't need our permission."

    But I think it says a great deal about the political reality in the UK that an English vote on whether the union between England and Scotland should be maintained is a vote by England on whether "to kick Scotland out". So long as English people think of England's place in the union in this way, that's a powerful reason why Scots, Welsh and Irish people are likely to prefer independence. Who want to be in a union with a country that thinks it not only does control your destiny, but has a right to do so?

    It would be quite a scene for England to leave the UK.

    I wonder how'd they'd feel about the rUK then!

    Interestingly, legally speaking, all things staying as they are as of today, wouldn't they take Wales out with them? That would be some craic.




  • I'd assume the Scots will have a whole swathe of farmers now seriously examining this independence thing with the advent of the Australian trade deal knocking a huge blow to all farm sizes in Scotland more so the smaller ones.


  • Advertisement


  • listermint wrote: »
    I'd assume the Scots will have a whole swathe of farmers now seriously examining this independence thing with the advent of the Australian trade deal knocking a huge blow to all farm sizes in Scotland more so the smaller ones.

    Not sure how many crofters are left?


Advertisement