I believe international observation to be absolutely essential to another independence referendum. This is the submission I just submitted to the Scottish government’s consultation on rules for the next referendum. I do urge everyone to contact their MSP and support it.
I believe it is essential to add an element of independent international observation of the referendum process.
The referendum is about the creation of a new nation state. Neither the referendum itself can create a nation state, nor the subsequent negotiation between Scotland and Westminster. The nation state is only created by recognition by the United Nations. The international community therefore has a strong interest in the process.
There was a great deal of disquiet in Scotland over the fairness of the referendum campaign in 2014, and particularly the role played by the broadcast and print media, and especially the state media. There is significant public perception of BBC bias against Independence.
Electoral monitoring of the referendum should be undertaken by the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Scottish Government should write to ODIHR and OSCE and request such monitoring, and at the same time write to the UK government and ask them to support such request. The request must be supported by the UK government to be accepted by OSCE, but it would be politically very difficult, and look suspicious to members of the international community, if the UK government refused it when the Scottish government believed it to be necessary.
Not only will the OSCE send a large team to observe the conduct of the campaign and physical balloting and counting process, they will send an advance team of experts with international experience in monitoring media bias in campaign situations, with a particular emphasis on state media. These experts will produce a careful and scientific quantitative and qualitative analysis of the extent of media bias, and this analysis will be presented to all the member states of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe. The very presence of the international monitoring team will be a strong deterrent to bad media behaviour, and will boost public confidence in the process.
I wish to strongly commend this work by the ODIHR and I believe this proposal is essential to another referendum campaign.
Top work Craig, very valid concerns regarding the next referendum. I am now going to make another submission to the consultation process to endorse your request.
I interpret your comments about monitoring “media bias” (and especially “bias by the state media” – who are the “state media”?) as revelatory of a desire to interfere with free speech and, worse, an attempt to intimidate.
Who the devil are you to object if the majority of the media are hostile to independence for Scotland?
And if you consider the BBC to be a state medium, then it is a medium of the state called the United Kingdom, which is a unitary state. What gives you the right to demand that such a medium should give favorable coverage to those seeking to break up that unitary state?
I regret to say that this well-wisher of the “Craig as was” is beginning to wonder whether there was ever an “as was”.
What gives YOU the right to deny a fair referendum to the Scots when the last one was so patently obviously corrupted – not just by the media, but by the advance opening of postal votes, the (on camera) destruction of ballot papers, the prevention of returning officers taking their ballot boxes to the count, and so on and so on…….. All examples recorded and irrefutable. Were you one of the taking part in the corruption of the will of the Scots? Sounds like it by the way you are protesting the only sane way to conduct the next one.
What do you mean by a “fair” referendum? I imagine that if the pro-independentists had won the referendum w wouldn’t be hearing a squeak out of you. It is however common to hear the losing side in an election or similar to hurl around cries of “unfair” or “cheating”, although it is more usual to hear those sorts of cries after elections in Africa than in Europe.
As to your specific allegations (” all examples recorded and irrefutable”), am I correct in thinking that the SNP – the mainspring of the independence campaign – has not made any formal complaints? If I’m right, why do you think that should have been?
Over and out as far as you’re concerned, lassie.
It really doesn’t take you long to contradict yourself does it, Habbabkuk?
At 16.57 you defend the right of the UK to deny fair treatment to those who oppose its continuation.
At 18.10 you deny the very notion of unfair treatment of the Independence campaigners.
In other words the BBC is perfectly entitled to use its power to oppose the Independence campaign, but anyone who questions the fairness of the referendum is mistaken.
I imagine that ‘Enid’ is very happy to see the back of you. I know that I will be.
Bevs
“At 18.10 you deny the very notion of unfair treatment of the Independence campaigners.”
_________________
I am putting a question about the specific irregularities/fraud alleged by “Enid”.
“Enid” claimed ” the advance opening of postal votes, the (on camera) destruction of ballot papers, the prevention of returning officers taking their ballot boxes to the count, and so on and so on” (I love the “so ons”, by the way – her imagination must have run out).
I said : “As to your specific allegations (” all examples recorded and irrefutable”), am I correct in thinking that the SNP – the mainspring of the independence campaign – has not made any formal complaints? If I’m right, why do you think that should have been?”.
“Specific allegations” – got it, Bevs?
++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not surprised you would like to see the back of me. It must be painful to have your mendacity so cruelly and so often pinpointed.
Over and out, laddie.
“It is however common….. in Europe”
So why are YOU the one who ‘doth protest so much’?
We want a fair referendum, one where all parties honour the result.
The EU referendum didn’t go the way the British government wanted, the Prime Minister resigned and left politics,the will of the people was respected.
The independence referendum didn’t go the way the Nationalists wanted and right away they started talking about making the people vote again because they didn’t get it right. They didn’t respect the people or honour the result.
It’s obvious which is the honest party and which the dishonest. We can see who respects democracy and who doesn’t. It’s the Nationalists need watching and watching like a hawk.
Had the unionists not changed the parameters of the vote i.e. promising full federalism at the last minute, and then subsequently refused to deliver,the result may have had some validity.
This would have been equivalent to the EU promising Westminster full control over immigration at the very last minute of the EU vote and then reneging on it the very next day after Remain declared the winner.
The English press and those who supported EU exit would have gone ballistic and demanded an immediate rerun and rightly so.
That is where we are with Scottish independence.
May have had some validity?
It did have some validity it’s the whinging Nationalists who will always find some reason, any reason, to ignore the result and the will of the people that have no validity.
There is no point in holding another referendum, when they lose again the Nationalist will just ignore the result again and start demanding a third referendum. They have no respect for democracy and no respect for the wishes of the people.
“Had the unionists not changed the parameters of the vote i.e. promising full federalism at the last minute,..”
________________
Is that what was promised, last minute or not?
By whom? Links with full text, please.
It’s funny Fred talk about others “whinging”, when his post is whinging about nationalists.
The following link may be of interest to Habbabkuk, although more of a con than a formal commitment, which some people fell for.
http://i4.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article4265480.ece/alternates/s615b/1.jpg
JOML
The link is apparently unsafe and therefore useless.
Please source or link your claim properly : where, when and by whom was this “promise of full federalism” made and what was the precise formulation?
I’m baffled by the idea that preventing ballot boxes being taken to the count could be an effective way of skewing the result unless you’re suggesting that persons unknown had already counted the votes and then deliberately sought to destroy them?
“What gives you the right to demand that such a medium should give favorable coverage to those seeking to break up that unitary state?”
No one is asking for favourable coverage. Balanced coverage is what is being requested.
In what conceivable sense is the UK a”unitary state”? Perhaps it once was, at least formally, but when?
You’re quite obviously “no from around here” or a Troll..
I think they should be there to adjudicate when the Scotland football team plays in the World Cup Final as well.
In the interests of freedom and justice I think no-one should be allowed to make a case against independence.
You seem to be getting a trifle hysterical, Habbabkuk. Of course the BBC is a state medium. But who the devil are you to say that one of the constituent countries of the said state should be discriminated against and fed propaganda by the other country in the state. The BBC should be serving the population of Scotland just as well as the population of England and Wales. It has no remit to discriminate against the interests of one part of the state against the other.
And try to calm down a bit.
The BBC should be serving the 55% of Scotland who voted to remain in the Union.
It is no service to them to distort the information they receive or to pour propaganda down their throats.
Are you jealous?
You latest comment demonstrates why it is impossible to discuss rationally (or even to argue) with you.
I write “one could equally well say (again, opinion but not proof) : “the BBC is serving Scotland by not pushing the independence case because it considers that independence would not be in Scotland’s best interests” and your only reply is to accuse the BBC of distortion or pouring out propaganda.
That reply demonstrates amply that as far as you are concerned, an opinion which might be contrary to your opinion is just distortion and propaganda.
And now, buzz off 🙂
Eh no…….surely it should serve us all?
” The BBC should be serving the population of Scotland just as well as the population of England and Wales.”
_____________________
You obviously believe that the BBC is not serving Scotland because it is not pushing the case for independence. That is opinion but not proof.
One could equally well say (again, opinion but not proof) : “the BBC is serving Scotland by not pushing the independence case because it considers that independence would not be in Scotland’s best interests.
Habbabkuk,
Colossians 2:4-5 and Proverbs 10:19 apparently.
The BBC is a very influential information provider to four nation states that together are called Britain. Should one of those states decide on a vote to leave then as licence payers contractually they are entitled to the same impartial service as the other nation states, on that account no they cannot favour or encourage support for one side over the other.
A political leadership crying foul would be certain to get impartial coverage from aforementioned media wouldn’t it…Not.
We Scottish folk are entitled to fairness in our own decision making, I feel sure that most Scots would like to take back charge of our own dealings as an Independent country and the 100 years that it has taken to get this far is
a just and sure reflection of the power of a biased media and lopsided parliamentary representation where Englands MP’s will always outvote Scotlands. So yes there should be International Observation.
I made some enquiries with US and Canadian Consulates General and embassies regarding their observers in 2014. I got the runaround. I can detail it to you directly, Craig but suffice it to say it was not redolent of them protecting our interests and those of democracy against those of Westminster and Whitehall. I would be even less satisfied with them as observers now, post President Trump. EU and other nations would be more reliable in my view. What are your thoughts
Perhaps Craig could ask for a few Russian observers now that they seem to be the good guys (and good Europeans)?
___________________
Re the “substance” of your post: perhaps the US and Canada embassies were just keeping their nose out UK politics? You know – like what the Israeli political counsellor has been slated for not doing…?
Or there might well be a few spare observer types available at the Israeli Embassy now, eh ?
🙂
I confess I am unaware of the constitutional status of the guarantees given to Scotland by the Acts of Union (e.g., separate church, separate system of law). Can they be abrogated by a simple piece of legislation at Westminster without any Scottish consent in some form being required?
If they cannot, is it accurate to consider the United Kingdom an absolutely unitary state?
I think you’re well aware of what I meant by a” unitary state” for the purposes of this discussion, Lysias.
Which probably explains why you wrote “an *absolutely* unitary state”.
Nice try, but over and out as far as you’re concerned, laddie.
I made the same point in my return. I also expressed support for the (suggested?) new rule that count supervisors must reveal the results of the reconciliation count to Counting Agents if requested. At the North Lanrkshire count I was refused this information at a counting table where it was clear from the reactions of the staff that the discrepancy between the number of ballots in the box and the report from the polling station was very considerable. After several recounts the discrepancy remained but the supervisor instructed that the ballots be counted anyway.
Did you bring your complaint to the SNP and did the SNP enter a formal complaint? If not, why not?
I brought my complaint to the attention of a senior member of the SNP. He told me that the count supervisor was within his rights – hence my support for the proposed change. I know that the supervisor is allowed to accept discrepancies within certain limits (I don’t know what these are – they may vary) but it seemed to me from the confusion on the faces of the ennumerators (and some meaningful glances in my direction) that there was a major problem which should have been brought to the attention of the Returning Officer.
So, as far as the major protagonist of Scottish independence was concerned, there were no grounds for a formal complaint. The last part of your post is purely subjective and mere supposition.
Look, I’m not trying to put you down but surely you must agree that what you have described can not be taken, for a minute, as evidence of the accusations brought by “Enid” (above)?
Subjective perhaps, but I have attended many counts over more than two decades and I cannot remember a single instance of a reconciliation counted being repeated, let slone repested several times. It was a major count and the SNP person was technically correct: the supervisor is not obliged to tell me the result of the reconciliation count – the decision to proceed is his alone.
Some time after the result activists are allowed access to the ‘marked up register’- the polling station record of who voted, but the results of the various reconciliation counts are not revealed. Hence my support for the proposed change.
As for Enid, her evidence is anecdotal. However other analyses draw attention to the unprecedented take-up of the postal vote. The numbers look wildly improbable but so many things were different about indyref that rigorous mathematical analysis would be required to establish fraud. I don’t expect such an investigation to take place before independence.
Tried to get this for IndyRef… I hope you have more luck!
https://www.change.org/p/the-scottish-government-approach-the-osce-and-request-an-election-monitoring-mission
Odd; I seem to remember Habbabkuk claiming to “not have a dog in this [the independence] fight”, yet now that the neutrality of the BBC is in question…
Hmmm…
the “fight” is the question of whether Scotland should be independent or not. So what’s your point exactly (or even inexactly)? Hmmm…??
And then there is the question of if it is a hard independence or a soft independence.
Or rather, come to think of it, the neutrality of mass “news” media generally…
????
This programme goes over much of what concerns the public.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TXQYuLUAbyw
International observation is a must for Indyref2 ? The state run BBC is totally bias against the SNP and Scotland .
It was totally biased against Brexit as well but we had a real thirst for independence.
May I interrupt…This is extremely strong and seems to have disrupted normal internet communications between London and New York.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/donald-trump-kremlin-blast-fabricated-report-russian-ties-asfbi/
Live
Donald Trump: It’s a disgrace the intelligence agencies allowed false news out – it’s like Nazi Germany
Tony
Completely with Craig on the need for international monitoring of next referendum.
And even that won’t assuage the coming months/ years of British-media head-hammering propaganda we face before any referendum campaign’s so-called “Purdah” (laugh).
By the way, for those interested in Lysias’ query (17:37) regarding Scotland’s constitutional status within the Union, I recommend a look at the recent intervention on behalf of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) to the Supreme Court Article 50 ‘Brexit’ Appeal.
The backbone of this highly informative submission (written by Aidan O’Neill QC) is an exposition of Scottish and English constitutional heritages, with particular focus on our contrasting views on State sovereignty.
The pdf can be located by scrolling down to ‘Interveners’ (4) on the Supreme Court site here:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/article-50-brexit-appeal.html
Or use this direct link to the pdf itself:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/independent-workers-union-great-britain.pdf
Poor old Craig. It must be terribly sad to see all these popular movements succeed across the world while his own little pet cause of scottish independence slips further and further from his grasp. He can’t seem to accept the fact that he has already had a referendum under very favourable circumstances and that he lost that referendum decisively.
This isn’t some little banana republic that needs the UN to come in and monitor its elections. You’ve got to grow up and win your independence by the strength of your arguments and the stength of public feeling. A hostile media is par for the course. See Brexit and Trump for details.
Scottish independence isn’t going to happen because Scotland doesn’t want it, and if another referendum were held tomorrow, they would want it even less.
Now move on and write something positive about Britain for a change, you sad old loser.
Surely, only an Anon1-entity would regularly follow a “sad old loser’s” blog? You sound bitter in your post and you include nothing positive about the UK either.
To his credit, Craig always distanced himself from allegations of vote-rigging. It seems this is no longer the case.
PS, I tend not to comment on blogs to which my every response is “Spot on Craig, another perfect post!”.
Sure the media is biased and was heavily biased in favor of maintaining the Union. So what?
You think the media was not biased against Brexit or against Trump? What exactly is the pro-independence argument here? That Scottish people are stupid in comparison to the US electorate or the aggregate UK electorate? This does not sound like a persuasive argument to me.
The media and the establishment are against Scottish independence and they set the public news agenda. What about the average Englishman? My guess is they don’t care much either way. However with all this endless bleating they may come to care and they ultimately seek to expel Scotland from the Union just as they decided to expel the EU.
Be careful what you wish for. If Scotland becomes independent then you may have need to explain to the Scottish people just why it is you hold them in such contempt.
The most brilliant outcome would be to give the vote to the English and for the English to deliver what the Scotch Nats cannot. A thumping, resounding “Fuck Off Scotland” from south of the border is what is needed to settle this matter for good.
That’s a thought which has occurred to me on occasion, I must confess**.
I wonder if Anon1 would agree with me if I suggested adding Northern Ireland in that expulsion?
In that way one would be shot of two lots of whining Celts and one lot of primitive Prods, one would embarrass the govt of the Irish Republic, my dictum “do not go a-whorin’ after false gods” would be rapidly validated and England and Wales would save a good deal of public money.
Could be a win-win 🙂
____________________
** Note to Clark : entirely consistent with my not having a dog in this fight 🙂
There are some good Scots, notably the gillies and gamekeepers and the ones who jump around in 19th Century tribal dress for our amusement, but in general they have outlived their usefulness. There is simply nothing left to extract from the colony.
“my dictum “do not go a-whorin’ after false gods” would be rapidly validated ..
Your dictum is it?
You are sounding more and more like a discounted Evelyn Waugh-without the comedy.
It is mine in the sense that I frequently use it on this blog and believe I’m the only one to do so.
Does it annoy you for some reason?
BTW, Evelyn Waugh was a fine writer, although his opinions and approach to life would not find favour with, for example, a Trotskyite.
There is a distinction between Brexit/Trump and Scottish independence. Brexit/Trump built on established hatred and fears. Brexit/Trump were the worse side of the liberal establishment on steroids. All they had to do was press buttons long primed by those they defeated. Whereas the Scottish independence campaign relied on challenging the baselines. I’m not defending the veracity of the claim but the indy campaign was built on the idea that the Scots would build a fairer, more just, welcoming, egalitarian society. The indy campaign had to undermine establishment orthodoxy whereas Brexit/Trump both had the much easier task of building on orthodoxy.
A fairwer, more jutht, welcoming , egalitairwian sothiety. It was built on the idea! (Not that I’m challenging the vewathity of the claim!)
Unlike howwible waythist Brexit and uvver howwid fings which are totally counter to my revolutionary ideals.
It’s just not fayre. Now excuse me while I melt.
Moult? You are a second layer of carpet over the actual carpet, made of dog hair.
Interesting photo – but what’s with the headphones, the headscarf, her 10 year old brother using a 20 year old DVD player and TV, whilst she is filling in a ticksheet whilst using a calculator before mobile phones invented??
Where’s the sliderule?
I’ve still got one in the attic.
I can’t believe Scotland hasn’t advanced that much since John Logie Baird invented the Telly nearly 100 years ago.
Come on Keep Up. Us English quite like You Scottish really.
I’m not surprised most of you Scottish moved down South
Tony
Well at least MacQuarrie’s gone from. BBC Scotland. That’s the good news.
Bad news. He was made Director Nations and Regions in September – whatever that entails..
It’s a nice little earner. £192.8k pa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/macquarrie_ken
He has a piscine look.
“Piscine” – you’re quite a wordsmith!
What’s the word one would use to describe the look of a querulous old nanny-goat, I wonder?
Caprine.
They can give you quite a bite and’or a head butt when roused.
About time you packed it in for the night to reboot. You have had such a busy day on here.
Craig, I’m not particularly convinced that the EU is a better bedfellow than the UK, but us little Englanders absolutely detest our parliament interfering with the wishes of other nations, such as Al Qaida in Syria, such as BBC bias in the Scottish Independence referendum.
Your breadth of vision and experience around the world has shown you that what is good for Ghana is good for Glasgow. The interfering hand of neo-imperial Westminster, operating still like a tarantula or zombie’s disconnected hand long after the empire has been destroyed, can be checked by rule of international law.
If failure strikes one corner of the UK’s political machinations, it will weaken the rest of the corporate malignity, not to say cancer, which is the remains of the British empire. The cancer which bankrupted Africa’s richest country and the Middle East’s most liberal country in under 10 years.
There is nothing more revolting than seeing the corrupted minorities of the UK’s colonial past, pandering to the bribes and promises of the failed British Empire. The tweeded SNP MPs in Westminster, the UK imams who send young men to fight against Syria.
Your biggest enemy is not the BBC and its polished lies and bias, but the bought bastards clinging onto the driftwood of empire instead of helping us to prise our political elites from power.
Odd that the resident snitch says he would be happy to see Scotland and Northern Ireland expelled from the United Kingdom as a bunch of “whining Celts” but seems to have no such wishes about Wales and Cornwall.
@ the resident faker
‘Cos they don’t whine, you mendacious twister, and are grateful for the largesse they receive from Westminster.
______________________________
Habbabkuk-speak : “That’s a thought which has occurred to me on occasion”
in Lysias-speak : “.. would be happy to see Scotland and Northern Ireland expelled”
‘This isn’t some little banana republic that needs the UN to come in and monitor its elections.’
Really? With the police (still) investigating the 2015 Tory majority? With the media owned by a few billionaires? A pound to a pinch of shit you’d describe the un-monitored USA elections as free and fair! You cannot have a shred of self-respect.
Why wasn’t this in place with indyref1? Is the SNP that naive that they think they are in a democracy…
The SNP organised the entire shooting match.
If anyone was fiddling it was them.
How many SNP M.P.’s have been caught fiddling?
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Should a country make its own decisions?
A simple question easily answered by honest people.
This is an absolute must
Where have all these nasty Yoons sprung from. Chillax peeps, the FM has no plans to call indyref2 until the time is right. We’re not quite there yet. Soon though. 😉
To those who are unaware, the British state is required to assist Scotland to become independent, if it wishes to comply with the spirit of international development law. International observer would seem compatible with this obligation.
“The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)
“The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)
With regards BBC impartiality. Both the previous and new Royal Charter that outline the BBC’s duties, require the BBC to promote Britain and social cohesion within the UK. The BBC would be failing it’s duty if it was not actively pro-Union and anti-indy. In portraying Scotland through an English controlled lens, the BBC impairs Scotland’s accurate self-assessment and self-identification, so compromises Scotland’s judgement and decision making. Their main task following the collapse of British Labour in Scotland (BLiS___d), appears to be the misrepresentation and belittlement of Scotland while promoting the Ruth Davidson No Surrender party (shy Tory). And they charge for the pleasure. For example, the BBC in Scotland recently admitted they simply amplify the views of the corporate media. Hardly the function of a state broadcaster.
Can the BBC respect the human rights of Scots who do not identify as British, i.e. the majority of Scots?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_personal_identity
http://www.slideshare.net/andywallis/representation-theory-15568052
The Roots of Domination: Beyond Bourdieu and Gramsci
http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Marxism/Roots%20of%20Domination.Sociology.pdf
To those who are unaware, the British state is required to assist Scotland to become independent, if it wishes to comply with the spirit of international development law. International observer would seem compatible with this obligation.
Aaah now I see Mr Brodie….and the sanctions to be applied against governments who ‘fail to comply’ with the ‘spirit of international development law’ are what precisely ? The Spanish government for one is obviously terrified of the consequences for non compliance with the majesty of ‘international development law’, given that it is even less co-operative with these provisions (as they allegedly relate to Catalunya) than is the UK in their alleged relation to Scotland.
Apparently there are no sanctions for failing to comply with the spirit of international development law, though it tells you all you need to know about the British state and does not change the circumstances on the ground. Scots were denied access to their inalienable “Right to Development” in 2014, as a result of a thoroughly compromised process, IMHO, which the BBC plaid a significant role in. International observers would help avoid such doubt in the process for indyref2.
Apparently there are no sanctions for failing to comply with the spirit of international development law
Trans- So ‘international development law’ therefore has about as much utility as a box of farts.
What about as a guide to best practice towards achieving sustainable patterns of development? British exceptionalism is of course far more valuable than protecting the future for all.
Right to Development link.
http://www.un.org/en/events/righttodevelopment/pdf/rtd_at_a_glance.pdf
It just doesn’t make sense to me that an international entity would have the exclusive capacity to decide over people’s sovereignty. But I accept it as part of the power play that often characterizes the fight for independence of a community, which opposes a majority in often conflicting situations.
I’ve witnessed two referendums who didnt win the necessary majority to proclaim Quebec’s independence. Though i am a fervent admirer of Trotsky’s theories on imperialism, i am left wondering if the disintegration of powerful States, such as the ex-USSR, is something that happens to the detriment of a global fight against exactly…imperialism.
On another note, in the course of my studies and work, i have participated and witnessed in citizens juries, experiences which have been truly educative. The last one which tackled more sensitive issues of state security, has left me somewhat scarred but i am confident that this has led me to appreciate the benefit of these experiences. Not only as it brought me to understand the thought process and the more irrational perspectives that surround political and socio-economic issues but most of it all, the power that these experiences have to shape and influence authorities and governmental actors, as much as to broadcast certain issues in the public sphere.
Cordially, Carolina
Cordially, I greet you, Carolina. I admire your gentle approach and wish you well with your studies.
Maybe the Indys should take a look at the castration of Cyprus as an independent state and member of the EU, being organised immediately by ” Fuck the EU” Victoria Nuland , soon to be garbage of the neo-con swamp.
If Scotland were to be run by the SNP troughers at Westminster, how long do you think it would take them to sell Scotland to their bigger neighbour, if the piggy troughs and piggy shelters were cosy enough to shelter them from the will of the people.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194876.html
” Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State, did not spend much time and energy with Christmas and New Year celebrations this year. She has another very urgent and pressing problem to solve, before leaving the State Department, and this is the “Cyprus conflict”. The way she wants to solve this conflict is by transforming a second member of the EU, after Greece, into a protectorate. As the proposed solution for Cyprus is higlhy unstable, powers outside the EU will be provided also with a bomb inside it, that is with the possibillity of provoking a Bosnian-type conflict inside, not outside EU borders.
In the same time she wants also to get Turkey admitted immediately to the EU, by the window of the “Cypriot settlement”. By virtue of the provisions of the “Cyprus settlement” under consideration now, Turkey is invested after January 12 with many of the rights and powers (and none of the obligations) of the member-states. It will also legalize in Geneva, its military presence and its right to intervene militarily inside the European Union.”
This is a major coup d’état in the last seconds of the neo-con administration, and why so much stinky pig-shit fake news is being sprayed around by Israel.
What a lot of whataboutery.
Does social evolution scare you? There, there, never mind, I’m sure an independent Scotland will thrive. Btw, do you agree that space is not equal to place or are you a communist. Meta-ethical moral relativism is hardly an enlightened basis to organise a modern state, no?
Why don’t you just call me a pseudo-intellectual, for daring to disagree with the NWO?
Not sure about evolution, let alone social evolution, and not sure Islam has much time for moral relativism.
If you’re happy to take your place in the fossil strata of the Jurassic sandstone of NWO politics, Do it. I’m not going to complain.
Giyane,
A lesson many of us learn when we are younger is not to compare an apple with an orange.
Cyprus has two claimants in addition to its own sovereignty. Victoria “fuck the EU” Nuland would like one claimant to take all and militarise the island, even though it is not currently in the EU. She has to offer Turkey something for all its proxy services to NATO, gun-running , oil-running, terrorist-running and human trafficking.
Scotland will be in a similar position when it becomes independent, having a weakened claimant, England and a much bigger claimant, the US who might wish to use it as a military/naval base after it has been de-militarised by the UK.
If Scotland wants to socially-evolve / climb the slippery pole of power, they can have the USIS post-neo-cons for controllers. That should keep them warm in the short and curlies.
Guyane,
Claimants, would, like, not currently, proxy, similar, when=If, might, wish, after, if, can=could, should.
A combination of words that tell me you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to Scotland.
Or maybe you know nothing about neo-cons. No fixed laws mean anything to them.
I contact the ODIHR in 2013 to ask for oversight of the independence referendum, their response could not have been clearer, they stated theat the only entity that can ask for oversight of elections/referendums and press coverage is the sovereign government of said country, in their veiw unless UK governmet asks them they’re not interested!
Yes indeed. The post does in fact address your precise post. If the Scottish government requests OSCE oversight, and formally and in public asks the government of UK to support its request, it is very difficult for the UK government to refuse without appearing to the international community to be planning to cheat. Particularly as the UK government is always pushing to monitor others folks elections.
I see Nicola has hired a team from England to rescue her failing flagship hospital as the NHS in Scotland hits crisis level.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20170112/281479276104389
But keep on dangling that indiref2 carrot under the Nationalist donkey’s noses and they will blindly follow.
So does the alleged failure of one hospital justify Scots being denied access to their Right to Development? I suppose it depends on what one values as significant, British nationalist tradition or universal human rights.
Hegel and Fanon on the Question of Mutual Recognition: A Comparative Analysis
http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/7520/Hegel%20_2008_.pdf?sequence=1
We decided we wanted to remain part of the UK.
It’s time Nicola started concentrating on the day job.
Still struggling to get that soggy meme off the ground? Come on man you’re not even trying.
Never mind the outcome, for a minute, won’t you allow your ethics to rise above your beliefs, or did you think the 2014 indyref a credible exercise in pluralist democracy? Are you unaware of “Project Fear”, or imagine there was no outside interference and misdirection from Whitehall (Scotland was extinguished in 1707, no pound, etc.). Did you think the Electoral Commission impartial? What about the activities of the CBI and their numerous members throughout Scotland’s public institutions? BLiS___d busing in activists from England.
Away and think seriously about what you are supporting. Britain or Scotland, ideological nationalism and organic nationalism. The gradual replacement of authentic Scotland with a Scotland shaped through English misrepresentation of Scottish experience and culture.
The World Today: Imagined Communities – On British Nationalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15nqjGCAqd4
Benedict Anderson
The Nation as Imagined Community
http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/anderson.htm
https://nationalismstudies.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/benedict-anderson/
That youtube clip was a real curates egg Mr Brodie ; a moving appreciation of Benedict Anderson from his friend and colleague Tariq Ali, a crisp and clear exposition from BA of his theory of Nationalism, insightful stuff from Tom Paulin on the relationship between British Nationalism and its bastard child on steroids, Ulster Loyalism- and then some A grade waffle from Hamish Henderson & Ms Lewis.
Benedict Anderson was of course patrician,gay and Anglo Irish, and Tom Paulin is an English born left wing Ulster Prod married to a Punjabi- perhaps their multifarious identities sharpened their intellects when discussing this subject, leaving the much more one dimensional Henderson & Lewis trailing in their wake.