Thursday, 14 December 2017

spurious leap

What is this assertion by the National, that the Brexit crisis over the Irish border proves there would be no hard border with a Scottish state? They never argue out any substance behind this, because they have none. The deduction does not follow. They just want it to stick from getting repeated. We don't even have the certainty yet of no hard Irish border. DUP stepped in against the apparent deal. We always knew that most sides wanted to avoid an Irish hard border, it was no big news at all that the British govt reached a point favourable to making such a deal. It establishes nothing about Scotland's situation at all. There are (1) no peacekeeping rationale and (2) no economic relations with an EU member neighbour, to drive what would happen to the Scottish border. We are not the same situation as Ireland. It remains as possible as ever it was argued in the indyref, for disagreed policies to cause a hard border. Not indy but exactly from within the Union! is where we should be able to copy any EU-friendly alignment of regulations that NI opts to have, without a hard border for us if without one for them.

Tuesday, 1 August 2017

back of the queue ?

Today's news on disastrous long queues at airport borders in Europe, between us and the Schengen area: because in the same miserable world trend as Brexit, oppositely to rationality, Schengen borders have recently been made tighter and even non-Schengen EU cou tries' citizens now have go be checked against a database on terrorism alarms. Scottish Yes always said it would stay with the British Isles Common Travel Area and not Schengen. Does this now undermine its whole case to be the way to keep our familiar comfortable place in the EU at all?

Thursday, 29 June 2017

indyref2 consultation responses published

THIS blog was created because in the bill consultation indyref1 they refused to publish my submission, and gave no good reason for it.< br />< br />At least this time they have published it. They have made a mess of its readability by the way they have published it, their formatting has failed to have any paragraphs. So you have to struggle with that; but I had divided up my main points with asterisks and ~ signs, and that now helps a bit to overcome the mess. They show you where at least the more important paragraph breaks should be.< br />< br />Important points about the inclusiveness of future citizenship rules are made and exist in the record. These points were of course made before Sturgeon tried to call indyref2, let alone before the election, but only after those events have they published the responses.

Monday, 1 May 2017

May not get hard


So it can win. If it keeps up that rate it will win. Thaf is s very rare rate of election campaign gain. It is standing up to scrutiny that its policies are not hard left, or hard Brexit. But they are hard no to deals with the SNP.

They can ge, because SNO can't vote to put a Tory government in, so Labour does not have to make any deals tk prevent that. They have to be, because the last election was stolen from Miliband by the SNP making their arrogant mud stick to Labour with English voters. Tragically, had that not happened, nsirher would Brexit and the whole situation behind this election.

Clearly now, the reality of all the ,oss of sensible European facilities in a pigheadedly nationalist Tory hard Brexit is daunting voters. Accelerate that process, go Labour.

Sunday, 2 April 2017

Gibraltar point

Spain has always been diplomatically changeable. During indyref1 it gave different indications at different times, of its vetoing intentions in the EU, so that both sides were able to quote as suited them, The Yessers always made a religion of the quote they selected, waa look a foreign minister expressed disinterest, so Spain won't veto us, ignore all other signs. But anyone who acy followed the news got to see that Spain's politicians were divided in their intentions, and we would never know, still will bevef jnow, who will be the Spanish government at the time of a Scottish application to the EU.

You can tell from the timing, that Spain's present move of saying no veto is part of its new game over Gibraltar. An unfavourable leverage upon Britain over that territorial unit which alsi has had a ref (2002) and voted British.

We have got used to always saying Spain, when discussing the veto issue, because of Catalonia's prominence, But Spain was never the only vetoing country. Belgium, Italy, Romania all remain possible vetos.

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

Democracy required to be one-sided ?

- The petition to British govt taking a constitutional position that indyref2 now should not be authorised.

Because it is a high frequency neverendum, indyref1 has still only been over for 2 1/2 years, and had a 3 year lead in! and it is lop-sided, not parity, to gave frequent neverendum on an ussue where only 1 sice can choose to gave it after every loss, and the other side get finished by one loss. That is why Jeremy Corbyn is wrong to think democracy requires accepting it.

It would be different for an issue that both sides might want to revisit regularly,e,g. if a measurable public reaction against Brexit happens as they experience loss of European-linked facilities and open doors. Which, the EU and Spain have quickly retold us, we won't get back by the indy route.

Thursday, 9 March 2017

a story of Britnat racism?

WAY-HAY, Jim Sillars has stopped being a Yes!! If the fevered-up indyref2 is tied to backing our continued EU membership and held for the purpose of achieving that, he won't vote for that. He will abstain the news suggests, but it places him choosing the British union he has opposed for 40 years over the EU. The British union where his Brexit sympathies won the vote, unlike in his ain nation. It has taken him until the crunch point of indyref2 fever to express this, we can imagine he put it off for as long as possible.

The unionists jumping to call this a terrible enbarrassment for Sturgeon are quite wrong. It's a great opportunity. An opportunity to how an indy movement cleaned of its past racist wing and making citizenship by parental descent unrefusable, fixed as a constitutional red line of human rights before we vote not after.

Sillars, always a Brexiter, personified the bigoted strand of nationalism that was anti-outsider even to our ain folk's next of kin diaspora, andwanted it to be a project for the resident population. He was the prominent Yes figure whose words were cited in EU petition 1448/2014 to make the Scottish state a pariah racist state if it betrayed patental descent Scots wuthout citizenship of their own country. He was the monster who hatefully told a big Yes audience at Liberton school, Edinburgh, on 7-5-14 "We must not he afraid of this" that he wanted the parental descent diaspora treated the same as migrants with no background here and filtered for desirable skills, and said "We can't have an open door" exactly as Brexiters are now made fun of for. Sillars was the outstanding example of why Sadiq Khan was right, and anyone who was at that Yes meeting and in recent days has angrily denied a nationalism-racism link has been lying. Sillars's line was a humanitarian evil, it would break up families, against European human rights article 8, would stop them living together in the same country to pool their resources and helping each other, economically against Toryudm and in giving medical care.

Yes is far better off without him, yes.