Article 8 really is used

A link to a Europhile site on citizenship legalities with a global citizenship ideal. globalcit.eu/tying-up-historical-loose-ends-the-nationality-and-borders-bill-uk/ This link discusses changes and impacts from Britain's present Nationality and Borders Bill,

whose main purpose is to be nastier and less fair to refugees, but it actually also tidies up some fairness anomalies around the old British Overseas or Dependent Territory citizenships dating from the Imperial era. These anomalies included some racist anomalies around parents' marriages affecting getting those citizenships by descent, and through which parent.

The page mentions a case won using article 8, the European Convention on Human Rights article on family life. The same article as I have cited ever since the White Paper, in the long conflict with the indy movement and SNP for Scottish citizenship by parental descent to be unrefusable. I cited article 8 in my EU petition 1448/2014 during the indyref, to recordedly cite to the EU that article 8 obliges it to disown shun and sanction Scotland as an international pariah racist state and have no dealings with us, until our citizenship by parental descent is unrefusable.

How totally vindicated I am now, in an action and a campaign basis that mindless cybernats have often rubbished. Article 8 already is used in court cases over citizenship and to overturn discriminatory citizenship rules. It was the right article to cite and it already used for this purpose. It is well founded.

Rockall imperialism

No momentum or much news is happening now, indywise. It's all flagging. The Herald was right to report, to the Believe in Scotland site's rage, that Yes's recent day of action was a flop, as 1000 of them taking part from 120 local groups is less than 10 in each place. Huddled groups chatting to the folks already well disposed towards them.

Meanwhile the polls are comfortably unionist again. The nat poll surge in the earlier Covid period, when the blame for wobbles around shutdowns and reopenings hit the British govt first, is long over. It already was before the election, as Scottish govt showed it had no cleverer ways to cope and was drawn to follow mostly the same as what British did, with mostly the same swings in and out of shutdowns caused by the same forces.

The National is full of pieces fighting within the Yes movement, over its loss of all momentum feeling and its split on gradualism. The writers and their fragmented grassroots know the picture is desultory.

So to show keeping up effort with their arguments, this Believe in Scotland, the latest brand name for their side, has flyered homes. 2 flyers arrived at my home today, on pensions and on a set of economic stats about us.

Those included: "32% of the UK's landmass and 62% of the offshore maritime area", illustrated by a map. 62% ? That we have the actual majority of maritime area ? What ?

The map has, sticking out of our coastal waters, a long horn of supposed maritime area protruding out to the northwest, just into the open sea. What justifies that ? What is supposed to make it our maritime area ? Simply ROCKALL ! Ain't that ridiculous ? A little rock you can't even land on gives us a great sticky-out extra maritime area to tip the stat, to let us claim the biggest ? A misleading creative stat that is just a ptake, and a nat piece of map-grabbing imperialism: innit !

Will the same people power be done against deportation of Scots?

《 It is increasingly apparent that the UK government is incapable of delivering an immigration system that reflects Scotland's values of compassion and dignity, the Justice Secretary has said.

Humza Yousaf ... 》 So reported the National, on the Glasgow People Power victory that stopped the immigration raid and 2 cruel deportations. All fair credit to the National, it has 3 times published letters from me on the citizenship concern, (11-7-16, 3-12-16, 6-11-20) it is open to it.

There is no compassion and dignity in having, under the name "civic nationalism", a theory of nasty insular disapproval of close diaspora and nationhood by family ties. Not including parental descent in the automatic conferrers of citizenship. Scotland may have values of compassion and dignity, but its indy movement has not towards a whole population group of its own nation.

To them, the Yes movement has made another hostile environment! Throughout the years of pursuing it I have found a shocking quite widespread adherence to theory that there is a moral virtue of rejecting "blood + soil" or "ethnic nationalism" by rejecting descent Scots and diaspora, and saying a nation is only its resident population. So that cruel bigoted exclusion breaking up families in breach of ECHR article 8, is getting defined as anti-racist, and nice inclusion defined as racist! Logically inverting that the whole point of being against racism is to protect inclusion.

All immigration control is global apartheid and will be remembered so in images of evil vans and raids, and in this inspirational people action. So - will the same people action be forthcoming to stop deportations of Scots, from their own country, under the indy citizenship rules that ever since the White Paper, the Yes movenent abd SNP have never budged from planning to have? Do they want to stop that hostile environment too? Will enough media ask the good folks of Glasgow that, to generate an answer?

Union mandate !

3 Unionist parties 1 364 656
2 Nat parties 1 326 194

That is not a ref2 mandate, that is a Union mandate! Unionism won the popular vote. Our voting system of Additional Member may be PR but it's still not 1-2-3- preferential. Split votes on the same side can't be undone by the voters' second preferences. Hence, the side that is more split across parties can win the popular vote yet lose the election in seats.

Sturgeon of course knows those numbers. As popular vote, direct number of votes, determines a ref, we know quite safely tnat she does not want one now. Neither side can afford to risk one, as it does not take professorship for John Curtice to tell us. Sturgeon can't hold the SNP together without a nominal show of confrontation for one, but has just kicked safely imto next year any parliamentary action on it. Most of her followers understand that first she will try to whip up more support by grievancemongering, and see if they can climb out of thus 50-50 divide of the voters.

The Alba Party's failure suggests that nat voters are mostly on their movement's cautious side, not the emotionally raving militants' side. They are not bursting to force a ref2 when they know its result would be a complete gamble. This election was the first time that has been actually tested, between 2 nat parties with different views on speed of action.

Notable that Tommy Sheridan, who since 2017 has made speeches at indy rallies demandihg tnat ref2 be called unilaterally, joined the Alba Party.

Curious that both the Alba Party, and its Unionist counterpart George Galloway's All For Unity Party, both led apparently from the left, both chose to blow it with progresssive voters in the same socially reactionary way! Both supported the anti-transgender reaction against the self-identification law. Alba did it in a trans-excluding feminist way, you could find it on Youtube, women demanding a biological reality definition of women. All For Unity did it by arguing a family values line like the 1990s Major government, you could find it on its own site and Facebook, including a nasty sinister oppressive line for parents to have power to decide what to allow their kids to know. There was leafers' hubris in doing that. For Salmond, a recent survivor of the unjust witch'hunting of men, it ws surprising and seems illogical to side with the angrier more excluding type of feminism! Exactly the type that sides with the witch-hunting more fervently.

Labour comes out of the election best. Quite unlike the concerns of an unsure position that afflicted it in the Corbyn period, Labour stood on a definite manifesto line against a ref in this term of govt, and held its candidates to that line, with strong pre-election purging of candidates who haf aberrated from it.

way to go abolishing juries, for observing ECHR and qualifying for EU

The last possible way for the SNP govt to convimce anyone they want Scotland to be a progressive EU member complying with human rights, ECHR being part of EU law, is to abolish juries. Let alone, to do it exactly when it looks like done in reaction to not liking what a jury did, not getting it to do the dirty against Salmond.

"PLANS FOR RAPE SUSPECTS IN SCOTLAND TO FACE TRIAL WITHOUT JURY" - Times headline, Mar 18. (Times links are paywalled but the headline suffices,) Plans to put half the population under politically abusable arbitrary authority including in deciding serious crime guilt on one word against another. That is exactly the type of arbitrary authority culture that Salmond said in the recent scandal hearings, makes Scotland's polity not ready for independence.

In reaction to him saying that: instead of moving to fix it they are escalating, militantly making it much worse. Abolishing the safeguard that cleared Salmond's name, and straight after it did. Openly going for the arbitrary judicial authority that could have been used to jail him at plotters' convenience and for a discriminatory reign of terror against men with guilt in accusation, and decided on by one person who will be part of the state's political elite.

Too many keen to buy indy as the new standard lefties' dream, have chosen to forget how the SNP govt attempted, at the pandemic's start a year ago, to abolish jury trials for its duration. Now it clearly hopes for the PC gender prejudice around this area of crime to override the concern that reasoning voters should have: for jury trials and presumption of innocence, and for how it is never safe to take just conflicting words, one or several against another, as evidence of guilt. Evidence is measurable verifiable facts. Competing words never are that.

guilt by quack theory

SOMEONE POSTING ON THE STURGEON/SALMOND SCANDAL HEARINGS - I have a background in understanding and teaching non-verbal communication having studied it at length, and delivered workshops and training to a multitude of groups including trainee psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, police officers and social workers.

ME - As a civil liberty concern towards this idea of "teaching non-verbal communication" from involuntary mannerisms not intended to be communication at all. - Post-traumatic stress and autism are both things that can make innocent folks show the same nerves or blanked emotion, as hasty or high-handed police/psychiatrists/teachers like to interpret as showing guilt.

Does what you are teaching incorporate that fact and avoidance of that danger? It can only be moral if it does.