Why do I wake up if I'm still tired?
Why do I sit here letting my tea get cold?
Not quite awake and not quite anything.
Of Scotland; a friend and I are meeting this weekend to try to find some sense re the possibilities of Independence.
Clause 38 of the current EU withdrawal agreement states the sovereignty of the UK government. But that is not the law of the UK. It is a convention. If a law was passed in Westminster and the Scottish Judges deemed it draconic or ridiculous, they could overturn it in Scotland.
But if this teeny barely noticeable declaration of UK sovereignty becomes law, (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3323980124284812) it effectively means that the Scottish government is no longer sovereign in Scotland. The Scottish people have not voted for that in any way.
No amount of sentiment for the United Kingdom as was can detract from the fact that the people now running it are grifters hitting the big time. I don't mean this in terms of a government I just don't like (there's never been a Tory government I did like) I mean these people are close to, if not actually, criminal in their dealings, and that the people they are pandering to are dangerous. That's the bottom line. So the question is whether Scotland should suck up this quietly and duck for cover or... or what? Declare independence? Because there will be no referendum allowed from Westminster, so either the Scottish government hold a referendum without such permission, and act on the results of that, or they make a UDI.
Received wisdom is that Scotland gets more than it takes from the UK's coffers, that it couldn't sustain itself as a state... But I am finding it really hard to check this claim in any real sense. To what extent this is long term Unionist propaganda is the question, and with this government in Westminster, lying is the default.
So what would happen, or, more constructively, how could Scotland sustain itself and be stronger?
Why do I sit here letting my tea get cold?
Not quite awake and not quite anything.
Of Scotland; a friend and I are meeting this weekend to try to find some sense re the possibilities of Independence.
Clause 38 of the current EU withdrawal agreement states the sovereignty of the UK government. But that is not the law of the UK. It is a convention. If a law was passed in Westminster and the Scottish Judges deemed it draconic or ridiculous, they could overturn it in Scotland.
But if this teeny barely noticeable declaration of UK sovereignty becomes law, (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3323980124284812) it effectively means that the Scottish government is no longer sovereign in Scotland. The Scottish people have not voted for that in any way.
No amount of sentiment for the United Kingdom as was can detract from the fact that the people now running it are grifters hitting the big time. I don't mean this in terms of a government I just don't like (there's never been a Tory government I did like) I mean these people are close to, if not actually, criminal in their dealings, and that the people they are pandering to are dangerous. That's the bottom line. So the question is whether Scotland should suck up this quietly and duck for cover or... or what? Declare independence? Because there will be no referendum allowed from Westminster, so either the Scottish government hold a referendum without such permission, and act on the results of that, or they make a UDI.
Received wisdom is that Scotland gets more than it takes from the UK's coffers, that it couldn't sustain itself as a state... But I am finding it really hard to check this claim in any real sense. To what extent this is long term Unionist propaganda is the question, and with this government in Westminster, lying is the default.
So what would happen, or, more constructively, how could Scotland sustain itself and be stronger?