Scottish Hate Crime law

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
rivegauche
Distinguished Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:05 pm

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by rivegauche »

Another tired argument. We were made a vow. Which they broke. Democracy is a moving target. It has moved. Live with it. The Scottish people have made it abundantly clear that we want another referendum. We woz robbed. You move the goalposts you move the politics. You reap the consequences.

The UK is broken. It is led by privileged simpletons. We have had enough. Perhaps you ought to examine this situation yourselves. It is all wrong. English people are suffering too. In fact we keep hearing from people in N England who have similar morals to the Scots that they wish they could be part of Scotland. In fact England is broken. The sooner you recognise this the better. People outside the rich SE are overlooked and disadvantaged. But that is for you to sort out. I am not going to interfere in England the way you insist on wanting to interfere in Scotland. Good luck. You will need it. Boris Johnson as a leader? You must be off your heads. When the Bullingdon Club rules the UK for the second time in recent years the UK is in deep doodoo. The best your country could come up with was a choice between Boris and Corbyn. Is that the best you got? You might accept this. We don't. Your choice, not ours. We like Nicola. If you don't that is of no consequence. She is our leader. We chose her and we continue to prefer her to any of the alternatives. Boris is not fit to lick her boots. The people of Scotland will decide where Scotland goes. Not people who do not live in the country who think they still have an Empire that includes us. The English have difficulty accepting that some people do not want to be English We laugh at such people, because we really, really do not want to be English. You are the ones who blurred English and British and British and UK. We want to de-blur it by having sense of focus. We have our own identity and we want to run our own show. We hope to remain friends with our neighbours. All you arguments are too little too late. But in the meantime, bye bye.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1340
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by pelmut »

rivegauche wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:26 pm
Democracy is a moving target.
Really?  ...or it just that the result of a democratically-taken decision doesn't happen to suit you this time?
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
rivegauche
Distinguished Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:05 pm

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by rivegauche »

pelmut wrote:
Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:21 am
rivegauche wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:26 pm
Democracy is a moving target.
Really?  ...or it just that the result of a democratically-taken decision doesn't happen to suit you this time?
The result of a democracy this time is that 58% of voters in Scotland want independence, and the opportunity to test this in a proper poll is being denied to us by people in London and, apparently, Somerset. it is not your show. It is absolutely not your place to tell us how we may proceed on this. I just feel sorry for the people in England who live north of the Mersey-Humber line, who do not have our escape route - dictated to people motivated by little beyond a balance sheet. I have to pay extra tax to live in Scotland but I have the comfort of knowing that money is going to help people who are not so well off as I am. We see beyond £ signs and are willing to put up with some financial issues to live in a decent country Every UK country except England is feeding poor children in the school holidays. Thank goodness that is already devolved. Now for control over immigration, foreign policy and defence. We do not wish to have any more foreigners murdered in our name One and for all we in Scotland insist on determining the future of Scotland. We have had 300 years of others telling us what is good for us. No one living in Somerset has the slightest right to tell people in Scotland whether or not or how they may vote. Democratic decisions at the time? Scotland has not voted Tory since (I think) 1956 yet we have had a succession of dreadful inadequates imposed on us by others. How inadequate do you have to be to keep a country in a Union by denying it a vote? That is not a Union. It is an abusive relationship. I am not going to respond to any more views on this from outside Scotland. Your views on this are not relevant unless you are supporting what the majority of people in Scotland vote for. All that counts is the ballot box in a democracy but when England doesn't like where democracy sees to be heading, its response is to remove the ballot box. And you are seriously questioning our interpretation of democracy? When people want a vote and they are not allowed it, democracy no longer functions - you don't have a Union, you have an English Empire, enabled by bullying. Congratulations - the UK is thus a failed state in a democratic context. Only those who live in Scotland have a right to decide on this. Being told we can't decide ourselves for reasons you have devised is laughable. The more you tell us we can't decide ourselves, the higher the Yes vote will climb when we eventually get that vote.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1340
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by pelmut »

Independence would mean no Scottish M.P.s in Parliament telling Somerset what it can and cannot do; no Scottish voices dominating BBC Radio 4; Scottish news being relegated to a minor mention (or none at all) in our media.  Why are you assuming I don't want the U.K to be independent of Scottish control?
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Stu »

Opinion polls are extremely unreliable, as we saw in 2016 with both the Brexit referendum and the US presidential election. People often use pollsters to vent dissatisfaction with the status quo, but that does not mean they are willing to follow through in an actual vote when confronted with their voting slip and an actual decision. Referendums are preceded by campaigns for both sides and effective campaigning changes minds. In a second Scottish referendum, the voters would be made painfully aware of the economic implications of choosing independence when Scotland was outside the UK, with no currency or central bank of its own, the inevitability of a hard border with England (which is by a wide margin its largest export market), a massive fiscal deficit and no possibility of EU membership for many years. The old adage "be careful what you wish for" springs to mind.

On the point relating to Sturgeon, I think she is hideous. She tried to negotiate directly with the UK's opponents in Brussels when her own population had voted against independence; that was verging on treason and would have been a crime in the USA. It was also interesting to see how she tried to throw her predecessor under a bus with the allegations. She has subsequently criminalised loving parents who may smack an errant child, and she is attacking freedom of speech in a way that would befit a totalitarian state.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4336
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Sinned »

If you want to be a self-determined country then why not just have your referendum anyway? Why do you have to wait for permission from London to do so? Maybe it won't have any legality but it would prove a point. I'm not saying that I am for or against an independent Scotland. I can see benefits and problems but you makes your choice ....
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
User avatar
greenboots
Distinguished Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:50 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by greenboots »

This discussion (like so many other "binary" arguments) is pointless. Whatever happened to the mute conversation button?
Shilo
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 pm
Location: NW UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Shilo »

I can’t understand the logic of a government that wants Britain to be independent of Europe yet doesn’t want Scotland to be independent of Britain.
It would be far better if governments worked together instead of against each other but that wouldn’t suit the egocentric politicians who think they have power or the oligarchs who actually pull their strings.
:roll:
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Stu »

Shilo wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:29 am
I can’t understand the logic of a government that wants Britain to be independent of Europe yet doesn’t want Scotland to be independent of Britain.
It would be far better if governments worked together instead of against each other but that wouldn’t suit the egocentric politicians who think they have power or the oligarchs who actually pull their strings.
The UK consists of peoples who share a common history, culture and language - and currency. The EU consists of countries as diverse as Cyprus and the Netherlands, and Greece and Finland, where such features are not shared. The UK has been able to operate as a single sovereign entity, a country of countries, for over 300-years, fighting wars side-by-side. The EU consists of countries that have had little to do with each other, have little in common in terms of shared values, and have often been at war with each other. Scotland has been given increasing levels of devolution for the past two decades, with powers shifting from London to Edinburgh. Conversely, powers are continually being transferred away from nation states towards Brussels. The Scottish Nationalists want to take all the powers from Westminster and quite a few from Edinburgh and hand them over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. In any case, Scotland is a very long way from qualifying for EU membership.

If a majority in Scotland want that, then the rest of the UK will benefit financially and they should of course be allowed to leave. But it should be spelled out to them exactly what leaving the UK will mean for them.
rode_kater
Active Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:46 pm

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by rode_kater »

Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:50 pm
The EU consists of countries that have had little to do with each other, have little in common in terms of shared values, and have often been at war with each other.
I feel this is a huge mischaracterisation. While there are large differences between the eastern and western edges of the continent, within it's more of a continuum. The north-eastern parts of NL are in many ways culturally closer to their neighbours in Germany than the western parts of NL. Even within Germany or France there are large differences. You can't place hard borders on cultures, and that makes sense because the borders in Europe *are* arbitrary, they're historical accidents. This is part of what drives integration, the realisation that the borders are arbitrary. Which is why things like Schengen is uncontroversial: there is no world in which it makes sense to have to show your passport to visit the supermarket down the road.
Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:50 pm
Scotland has been given increasing levels of devolution for the past two decades, with powers shifting from London to Edinburgh.
The UK is the most centralised country in Europe. So it's good they're giving something back, but you have a very long way to go. In the UK Councils cannot even determine their own council tax rates, how bizarre is that? In any case, decentralisation has been the trend across Europe for some time now, the UK has some catching up to do.
Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:50 pm
Conversely, powers are continually being transferred away from nation states towards Brussels.
Which powers? Be concrete. Most EU legislation is extremely vague with lots of grey areas. It can be no other way with 27 sovereign states. Most things people believe the EU "forces" are based on people pushing an agenda, rather than on what the text actually says.

I'm a firm believer of subsidiarity: the principle that decisions should be taken on the lowest level possible. A fundamental principle of the EU. When it comes to setting standards to goods and services, there is a benefit to harmonising over as large an area as possible to minimise overhead for business. Other stuff like land planning should be done at regional level. The question is: what kind of things are best organised at a national level, given we know the current borders are arbitrary historical accidents?

My opinion: very little. Ideally we'd redraw the map so borders actually reflected the trading, social and cultural realities. We'd have a lot more "states", but they'd be smaller. I'm also a realist and know this will never happen.

However, I think Scotland could be made happy if the UK became an actual federation, where England was split into several parts with a constitution that enshrined subsidiarity. Then it would be able to determine it's destiny much more than now, without having to leave the UK.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11766
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by crfriend »

Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:50 pm
The EU consists of countries that have had little to do with each other, have little in common in terms of shared values, and have often been at war with each other.
My understanding on this is that it was primarily the dream of Otto von Bismarck who wanted a united European continent that could put centuries of meaningless and destructive wars behind it. And that's largely been achieved, although there remain detractors who would go back to the old way of doing things, wars and all.

I'm not convinced of the common currency, although it does simplify matters a lot; however, it pretty much requires that everybody be on a level of economic parity that just doesn't exist (yet) in Europe -- and we see the disaster of "open trade" with highly-asymmetric nations such as the USA and China.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Stu »

rode_kater wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:49 pm


I feel this is a huge mischaracterisation. While there are large differences between the eastern and western edges of the continent, within it's more of a continuum. The north-eastern parts of NL are in many ways culturally closer to their neighbours in Germany than the western parts of NL. Even within Germany or France there are large differences.
I agree that there is often a gradation rather than a sharp political border, but the same could be said for any two countries that share a border - including China and Russia, China and India and so on. But borders do exist and for good reason. Nation states cannot exist without borders and, without defined nation states, democracy cannot function.
rode_kater wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:49 pm
In the UK Councils cannot even determine their own council tax rates, how bizarre is that? In any case, decentralisation has been the trend across Europe for some time now, the UK has some catching up to do.
Councils do have some powers to decide their own council tax rates, but subject to limits placed on them by central government, who directly fund much of what councils provide anyway. With respect, I think that is a different argument to teh one I was making.
rode_kater wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:49 pm
Which powers? Be concrete. Most EU legislation is extremely vague with lots of grey areas. It can be no other way with 27 sovereign states. Most things people believe the EU "forces" are based on people pushing an agenda, rather than on what the text actually says.
The old EEC had legislative powers only in respect of matters relating to international trade. It could not, for example, have decided that menthol cigarettes must be banned from sale in member states, or that lawnmowers and golf buggies must have third party risk insurance when used on private land. Energy policy offers another example. As part of an annual review of the bloc’s ‘Energy Union’ – plans to unite member states' energy systems – the EU Commission set out plans to end the requirement for a unanimous vote by all 27 countries in the EU to make changes to energy taxation rules. BTW - under the proposal, such votes would move to qualified majority voting, which gives each country voting power based on its population.

There are many other examples because, slowly but surely, the EU is expanding its scope far beyond international trade.
rode_kater wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:49 pm
I'm a firm believer of subsidiarity: the principle that decisions should be taken on the lowest level possible. A fundamental principle of the EU.
Yes, that is supposed to be a basic principle of the EU under the relevant treaty, but the EU only takes that so far and is more than ready to flex its muscles when it seeks to impose its will. We have seen how this fails with the recent conflict between the ECB and the German Federal Court, the latter concluding not only was the ECB acting unlawfully in providing financial stimulus, but even the ECJ had made a judgment outside its authority.
rode_kater wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:49 pm
When it comes to setting standards to goods and services, there is a benefit to harmonising over as large an area as possible to minimise overhead for business.
Harmonisation should ONLY apply to trade between nations and not to matters which are strictly internal. Laws which ensure such harmonisation are a double-edged word that can be stifling, restrictive and even undemocratic. The reach and scope of the EU has, in my view, expanded so far beyond those of a trade bloc and into the realm of a superstate that it poses a danger to national autonomy and democracy.
rode_kater wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:49 pm
However, I think Scotland could be made happy if the UK became an actual federation, where England was split into several parts with a constitution that enshrined subsidiarity. Then it would be able to determine it's destiny much more than now, without having to leave the UK.

On that point, we can possibly agree.
Shilo
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 pm
Location: NW UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Shilo »

As RK says there are very similar cultural identities with parts of Britain and parts of Europe. For instance Germany and the Netherlands are very similar to parts of England. Brittany, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland share similar culture, and many others. The borders between states, currencies, Governmental systems are all artificial constructs imposed by whoever exercised power at the time. Most wars within Europe, with one obvious exception, have been instigated by those very same people. Any student of history can cite how these people are much more concerned with profiting from them than which side actually won.
When you consider exiting the EU, look at who is actually driving the sheep and swaying public opinion. It’s those very same people.
Incidentally they were also instrumental in inhibiting the success of the Euro which would have prevented them amassing even more of the filthy lucre. Before you hide behind the false flag of patriotism ask who benefits and who suffers. I’m old enough to remember a time before the EU when the UK was often referred to as the sick man of Europe. I don’t wish to return to those times. Unfortunately it’s our children who will actually have to pay that bill.
:roll:
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Stu »

Shilo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 am

When you consider exiting the EU, look at who is actually driving the sheep and swaying public opinion. It’s those very same people.
Sheep? That is both unwarranted and insulting. My Euroscepticism began in the 1990s with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty and that hardened when, whilst on a graduate course in constitutional law, I looked in more depth at the implications of that treaty and the direction of travel. These concerns were further confirmed when the European Constitution was devised about 12-years ago, only to be replaced by the Lisbon Treaty. It was Lisbon that fired up public discontent about the UK's future in the EU, with a huge majority calling for an IN/OUT referendum around 2012. These people calling for a referendum were not sheep (and nor am I!). Quite the reverse. We can think for ourselves and see the inherent dangers of centralising legislative powers away from elected governments and towards a bureaucracy in a foreign land. If there are any metaphorical sheep, it is the ones who did what the vast majority of the Establishment wanted - the leading politicians, bankers, billionaires, FTSE 100 chief executives, media chiefs etc. They were distracted from the bigger picture, which was the subsumption of their country into an anti-democratic pan-European empire by stealth, by encouraging people to focus only on international trading arrangements.
Shilo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 am
Incidentally they were also instrumental in inhibiting the success of the Euro which would have prevented them amassing even more of the filthy lucre. Before you hide behind the false flag of patriotism ask who benefits and who suffers. I’m old enough to remember a time before the EU when the UK was often referred to as the sick man of Europe. I don’t wish to return to those times. Unfortunately it’s our children who will actually have to pay that bill.
Nobody mentioned patriotism; that is just another straw man argument dreamed up by the losers of the referendum to mischaracterise the winners and it is not relevant. This is about democracy, which can only function in a society which has an identified "demos" - a defined population of people who share features such as those I mentioned. I am also old enough to remember when Britain was the sick man of Europe, but the notion that EU membership rescued the country from that is pure fallacy. Britain's ills were the result of trade union militancy which had brought the country to its knees. The antidote to that was Thatcher, who managed to emasculate the union barons by defeating Scargill and Co in the Miners' Strike of 1983/4.

Our children will eventually see the wisdom of leaving the European oligarchy, maintaining an independent and sovereign national identity and enjoying the liberties of democracy. Then we will see who the sheep really were.
Shilo
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 pm
Location: NW UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Shilo »

All I will say is that there has been a faction lobbying for exit from Europe since the original referendum votes to enter. This was one of the main reasons for the “establishment’s” antipathy to Ted Heath for having the temerity to defy them in the first place. Ironically it was Margaret Thatcher who stated that government by referendum was anti democratic. No doubt encouraged by Denis ( one of the worst eurosceptics) and confirmed oligarch. Surely no one can argue that a series of small nation states are easier to manipulate by enormous multinationals. Charles Levinson foresaw this in the 1950s and 60s He was dismissed as a radical. Since then they have gained in power. And now their power is greater than many nations.
It was I who raised patriotism as the fiction employed by these campaigners with the argument that we should regain our sovreignty. Many of those who followed didn’t even know what that meant and yes they were sheep! I didn’t say you were but if wish to be considered one I won’t stop you
:roll:
Post Reply