yes George, show us what the democratic means is

Because as we are now, devolved, eveyone living in Englandandwales is at liberty to escape this shocking pre-fascist virtual banning of protests and demonstrations there, by moving to Scotland. Compare that to how a Scottish state under racist "civic nationalism" would want to reject even some Scots from making that move. To make citizenship by descent tefusable is to hand over our economic emigrants' families, on a plate, to what George Monbiot has described in the Guardian.

Paragraph from a Guardian article by George Monbiot, 19 Oct 2022, on public apathy towards environmental protest:

《 Writing for the Mail on Sunday, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, claimed: “There is widespread agreement that we need to protect our environment, but democracies reach decisions in a civilised manner.” Oh yes? So what are the democratic means of contesting the government’s decision to award more than 100 new licences to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea? Who gave the energy secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, a democratic mandate to break the government’s legal commitments under the Climate Change Act by instructing his officials to extract “every cubic inch of gas”? 》

But George Monbiot himself ignored the court change, after he spoke at a Globalise Resistance conference in Glasgow 2001.

The court change benefits fightability of everything he urgently cares about. Since he has experienced arrest on an environmental protest, intentionally indeed, George Monbiot arrested for defying Extinction Rebellion protest ban - 2019,  he surely has every personal motive to care against the largely media-ignored violation of the human right to presumption of innocence, by the US and Canadian border systems giving innocent arrested people a worse status for entry. The court change helps fightability of that too.

So WHEN MONBIOT URGES YOU TO LISTEN, ON THE ECO EMERGENCY, MAKE IT CONDITIONAL. ONLY LISTEN ON CONDITION THAT HE EXPRESSES SOME LISTENING TO THE COURT CHANGE.

Wee Alba Book citizens

There is now the Wee Alba Book, newly published by the Alba Party, given out at demos. p55

《 " The plans for how to manage Scottish citizenship were set out at the last referendum and still apply. Anyone born in Scotland or born to Scottish parents or grandparents will have an automatic right to citizenship, as will people resident at the time of independence." 》

Claiming this was the position in the last ref is of course spin lies. Salmond himself would not say this position to me as a caller on his last ref phone-in. The White Paper and Yes policy last time, which the SNP has still never budged from, was a racist shocker appealing to the same type of nasty anti-outsider voters as Brexit. It made citizenship by descent refusable, it made citizenships by birth or residence conditional on preexisting British citizenship

Faced with this, during the indyref I lodged EU petition 1448/2014 which is a human rights law resource always there for anyone's use. ECHR human rights are part of EU law. So I cited that article 8, family life, wil oblige the EU to disown shun and sanction Scotland as an international pariah racist state and make no dealings with us, unless citizenship by parental descent is unrefusable.

But that history only matters to defending that I + we were right to vote No because of it. Even if Salmond was not saying the right position then, his party is now.

This new book corrects the citizenship policy + states the perfect line on it. But it states it just for the Alba Party - does the Yes movement agree with it? Do the other indy parties agree with it?

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.

response open letter to Lisa Nandy, to Mark Frankland's

Response by Maurice Frank to Mark Frankland. He is a Yes supporter, English and liking Scotland's political life better - though his argument from no visible homelessness in his home Dumfries does not ring true at all to the Central Belt cities. On Jan 18 Frankland wrote and blogged an open letter to Labour leadership candidate Lisa Nandy, in an angered response to her Andrew Neil interview. It s going viral akonv nats on social media. This response is to Lisa Nandy too, + is confirmed emailed on 20 Jan 2020 -

In urgent factual correction of MARK FRANKLAND's open letter to you on SCOTLAND, here is a too underreported fact about our situation. There is in fact a shocking family-wrecking racist prejudice that the Yes movement and SNP have, to date, still never removed from their policy. It is just as bad as anti-Semitism or Windrush. It has been there ever since their White Paper in 2013, it also surfaced as far back as our 1999 election, when a Labour broadcast warned: "If you move to Newcastle and have a child, will they automatically be a Scottish citizen? No! They will have to apply."

It is a prejudice against nationhood through family ties, against being Scottish and entitled to citizenship by the practical connections that routinely go with having a parent who is. Copied from Quebec, they proposed in the referendum that automatic citizenship should only be by birth or residence at the instant of statehood.

Now, calling any category of citizenship automatic can be problematic, as a person with several possible citizenships may not want the one that some official wants to deem automatic: so I have no problem with asking claimants to descent citizenship to take an active step of choice for it. But obviously what must be automatic is that they get it. That is, it must be unrefusable.

Faced with inability to get any Yes source to say this, during the campaign, I lodged EU petition 1448/2014. This was not the naive humble type of petition making a request, it was a citation of ECHR article 8 on family life: so it remains a legal resource for anyone to cite and use. It cites, that article 8 obliges the EU to disown shun and sanction as an international pariah racist state, and not build any relationship with, a Scottish state where citizenship by parental descent is refusable.

Since then there are 3 limited successes to record fairly:

• In the National of 9 Jul 2016, Paul Kavanagh's column included parental descent in a list of European norms of citizenship.
• only verbally on a stall, a self-declared international law expert in the Yes Marchmont and Morningside group in Edinburgh concurred that ECHR will require us to honour this citizenship entitlement.
• at Perth's hustings last May 16, which was recorded, the Greens' Maggie Chapman gave the right answer on this.

There are good "Yessers" who persist in an unsecured faith that this will not be a problem. Some are my friends. But there are frequently encountered Yessers with the prejudice, to show it is a serious problem. Many of them hold that their theory "civic nationalism" defines a country as its presently in situ population, and makes it virtuous to reject anything to do with "blood and soil" - and they will class family ties as implying blood and race. They faithfully think it is a progressive line against genetic views of race, to reject our emigrants' offspring from being Scottish, hypocritically at the same time as claiming emigration as a Yes issue! As well as simply being xenophobic excluding and hateful, this line breaks apart families. Nationhood by parentage has always come from the life practicality of folks’ ties to their families, to the places where their families’ lives are rooted, and to family’s mutual support and sharing of resources. All nothing to do with genetics and long predating all knowledge of its existence.

They won't budge when you explain that. They cling to a seeming fear that to admit any practical humane argument for families will be a blunder into a naughty endorsement of blood-related thoughts. So they put themselves in an absurd mirror-image position, of calling inclusion racist and calling vile family-breaking exclusion anti-racist and progressive. During the campaign I had a bonechilling conversation of this nature with a Radical Independence stall, arguing that line in all theoretical earnestness, opposing and calling racist any parental descent citizenship at all, constantly asking "how far back do you go?" to everything I said for nuclear families whose practical position is obviously not the same as the distant past's generations. MP Angus Macneil denied to the Sunday Post 23 Feb 2014 that anyone who has never lived here is Scottish.

The position of an emigrant's child, born in diaspora and growing up in the wrong country, has a parallel with the transgender position in the wrong gender: it too can be an emotional dysphoria with a practical basis. Not to uphold it is a social inconsistency. Their identities collide with the horrible school bully attitude I propose to name "birthplace racism", even dividing siblings: the bigotry of regarding country as dictated by birthplace. Then should the racists could get to see their victim rejected by the country they identify with?? Birthplace has visibly not correlated with country ever since the ancient Jews' Babylonian exile in the Old Testament, many folks are born in places they have no further connection with, Labour's morally outstanding recent election policy of right of return for the Chagossians recognised descent nationhood, it features on both sides in the Israel/Palestine problem. But given that common sense life practicality makes citizenship by birth also a natural right, notice a cruel exclusion by the Yessers here too. Against an older SNP pledge, they wanted to make citizenship by birth only apply to preexisting British citizens, thus continuing to cruelly exclude folks born to visiting parents who the British rules have excluded since Thatcher's changes in 1983. I met such a person online and failed to get Yes to solve his position either!

Just as Tory ministers with immigrant backgrounds have been happy to do anti-immigrant things, existence of some diaspora-born Scots in the independence movement's lead names does not disprove this descent citizenship scandal. The onus can only be on Angus Robertson, Lesley Riddoch, Mike Russell, Iain Macwhirter to explain why they support a movement containing prejudice against themselves. Meanwhile, by human rights there is never in the world a duty, there was not in 2014 either, to allow independence votes for any nation unless it is known that its citizenship rules will always comply with all family and personal practicalities without any cruel gaps.

Maurice Frank

Boris as an anti-racist card against SNP !

If Boris wins the druggies' naughty contest and becomes Prime Minister, he will be the second ever diaspora-born PM, relative to all Britain. First was the little known Bonar Law in 1922. That fact will actually give the Tories an advantage over the SNP in anti-racism! This makes unaffordable as well as ridiculous and obscene, for SNP and Yes to continue to cling to their racism against the offspring of our emigrants, and their ECHR-violating New Clearances hate policy against parental descent being an automatic entitler to citizenship.

When they ask us, do we want EU or Boris: how then is it going to look when a family-splitting cruel bigotry by SNP/Yes makes us invalid for EU, by non-compliance with ECHR article 8, petition 1448/2014 recording the EU's duty to disown shun and sanction us an a pariah racist state in international law for it, while the racist Brexit we are supposed to be escaping from is actually led by an example of what SNP/Yes is being racist against?

An example added to Angus Robertson, Lesley Riddoch, Mike Russell, Iain Macwhirter, 1930s SNP founder Eric Linklater, 1990s Plaid Cymru leader Dafydd Wigley who Salmond used to share election phone-ins with, and Ireland's indy leaders Eamonn da Valera and James Connolly.

(btw it has become accurate to say "SNP/Yes" since the welcome development recorded at Perth's recent hustings, that the Greens have come round to the right side of this issue.

Marchmont and Morningside

This National story, on "Yes surveys" by local groups in hope of getting through to undecideds and "mibbes" - comes from the experience of a local group in a No-voting and affluent part of Edinburgh - from Yes Marchmont and Morningside, Of interest because they also have a guy claiming expertise in international law, who was on their Meadows Festival stall.

So as well as doing the surveys they can put in writing anything that voters need put in writing. Specifically, that guy can get Yes to issue in writing in Scottish govt's name, what he told me only in unrecorded speech at the Meadows Festival. That our treaty obligations in Europe, to Council of Europe not just EU, will guarantee that citizenship by parental descent will be unrefusable. That the strand of nats who are racist against that, who were the dominant voice in ref1, won't get their way.

History is full of states breaking treaties: I can't take his word that any treaty will enforce it. Can only be sure you will observe it when as an internal action within Scotland you directly write it into our proposed state's red line human rights standards. According to him you have to. But can he put your pen where his mouth is? That is my survey question back to Yes Marchmont and Morningside.

No new case for nowt

Right - now that we've seen it online, we know it contains nothing but economics. Economics shown to be opinion, as it is argued over by columnists from both sides. The more militantly optimistic nats feeling let down by its recommendation that we go for a fiscally powerless unauthorised use of the pound, which they had not thought good to argue for in indyref1! Clearly the hired opinion makers for a new case for optimism have run scared of optimism in the fiscal cost + potential austerity of committing to try to create a currency.

Anyway - "Scotland:a New Case For Optimism" IS NOT A SECOND WHITE PAPER. The Herald had tried to bill it as one, ahead of it coming out. It contains no plans for a Scottish state outside its economic strategy. Mpst importantly it contains nothing on rules for citizenship. While it has a pro-immigration sentiment, it says nothing about remofing the bigoted racist atrocity against a section of Scots, that was in Yes's offer last time round, + making citizenship by parental descent unrefusable.

So it has changed nothing, as yet, around that moral reason to vote No. That supervenes over all the document's economic thoughts regardless of their merits.

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.

submission on indyref2

The original point of starting this blog was when they would not publish a submission on their original bill consultation on an indyref, in 2010 when it never went ahead. To publish the searching issues that they were preferring not to.

So it matters to present my submission this time too:

Q1: the proposed arrangements for managing the referendum?

* on policing and supervision -
Commissions generally speaking are undemocratic, because they define their own remits and in such a way as to exclude accountability to enquiries from the public. Typically whenever we contact a commission we get back a reason why our enquiry is not in their remit. That is not a structure to earn confidence "beyond reproach" (1.5) internationally.

Just if the Electoral Commission has that power, no matter how it acts in practice, to deem its judgment as the entire arbiter of the referendum's fairness of conduct would usurp that place from the people. There points against doing that, a concern of fair campaign policing, which needs raising and preventing from recurring in this campaign, following an experience in the EU referendum.

The commission then chose not to consider it its business to take up the issue of how policing affected campaign fairness on the ground. Hence it chose not to take up the inconsistent treatment of Remain campaigners at Edinburgh Haymarket station on polling day itself as well as the days before it.

After railway staff had first indicated an objection to campaigning on the paved space in front of the station and had claimed a land boundary which our organisers were sceptical of, I emailed to British Transport Police asking for They never replied, and on polling day itself they allowed campaigning to take place for some 2 hours of the morning travel peak until our numbers were tailing off and only then intervened against those of us who remained, and refused to tell me the land boundary they claimed jurisdiction up to. This was after our organisers had promised me from their information on the land that this could not happen, and when it did happen no land information was forthcoming from them or from the Lib Dem office at Haymarket which some of the campaigners (not all of that party) were operating from. After which, in the evening travel peak I observed campaigning taking place unstopped on exactly the same land at a time when 2 publicly prominent Lib Dems were also campaigning near the same spot.

It will be an irregularity upon your referendum, as it also was upon the EU one, if the campaigns are subject to inconsistent policing, and policing carried out with refusals to evidence its jurisdictional boundaries. Even more so if carried out after campaigners anticipating a possible problem have fairly requested in advance from the police force concerned a clarification of boundaries and assurance that police will keep to them. The campaign will not then be "beyond reproach"(1.5) It is an intimidatory experience, affecting campaigns selectively and without parity.

This evidences a need to organise availability on demand of exact boundary information, to all persons desirous to campaign as well as to the 2 national campaigns. For the national campaigns it evidences a duty to the care of their participants, to obtain this land information and not to fail to back up their campaigners with it when any challenge arises. It is not acceptable to civil liberties or electoral fairness to be expected to take police officers' word on a contested jurisdictional boundary, as at a rail station, without them having to evidence it. For railway staff and authorities too, the campaign will be irregular intimidated and interfered with unless they always have to show evidence of land jurisdiction boundaries and they are absolutely never backed up in saying "You don't need evidence" and just making police threats instead. The referendum will in fact be irregular unless this possibility automatically has been excluded preemptively from happening, police pinned down to a committal line of consistency on it, an automatic right enacted for every campaigner with such an experience to have a place to put it on parliamentary record, have the action on it formally obliged to be committal not noncommittal, and this be mentioned in media and scrutinised by any visiting observers of the electoral process.

There is a duty to factuality that their campaign references to the EU referendum result include reflecting on how legitimate it is in light of the unresolved experience of inconsistency in policing of campaigners. Your referendum will automatically have no uncorrupt status if this is quietly not acted on, and will only have any uncorrupt status if this automatically is acted on.

* On section 30 and status -
Sanguine expectation to obtain a Section 30 order (1.4) is startling. At time of writing, UK government appears to disagree that this referendum is justifiable or defensible to hold at this short interval after its predecessor, and to hold to the principle of "once in a generation" without circumstantial conditions. You need to prevail by the force of your contrary argument's content, instead of by any formal powers, in order to obtain a Section 30. It can only be supposed that you are asking for it in order to have followed the proper course until you encounter a refusal, to bolster your challenge then on international grounds for entitlement to call your referendum, at worst getting into a Catalonia position over it. The context of your claim of changed circumstance, relations with the EU, by definition has to be a context of anti-racism and progressive open attitude to borders, not faulted in any way as conflicting with this. I created an item that affects whether it will be so faulted, or successfully establish legitimacy at all, as well as affects the case for a Section 30.

During the campaign of 2014 I lodged European parliament petition 1448/2014, of course benefitting from British EU membership enabling it. It was not the naive type of petition asking a favour that can be refused, it was a citation of the EU's duty to ECHR article 8, family life, and it always exists on record for anyone to cite and make use of at any time. It cited: that the EU will have an international duty to treat Scotland as a pariah state and not embrace deals with it or accept its legitimacy, if citizenship by parental descent is refusable.

Can I yet hope that this situation, which made me a No voter last time, will not be repeated, since the National's columnist Paul Kavanagh on Jul 9 included parental descent in a list of European norms for citizenship? That admission will conflict with the closed community racism of making it refusable. But sadly, your campaign during 2013 conflicted with it too but for all the 9 months from White Paper to poll I could not commit any Yes source to pledge unrefusability for this citizenship, and several answers heard at Yes meetings confirmed refusability. Resulting division of families is only part of its injustice: it meant Scots being rejected from their own country. An answer I received right at the campaign's end seemed to shift sentiment but kept noncommittal by deferring all actual decision of citizenship rules until after a Yes vote.

The UK never had any duty to host a Scottish referendum offering that moral wrong akin to the Clearances, I raised that point in post-poll submission to the Constitutional Affairs Committee's review. Last time the UK continued to hold itself bound by the Edinburgh Agreement which it had made before the White Paper, but it can have no duty either morally or internationally to grant a Section 30 for a repeat offering of the same. Most simply, and it should have acted on this thought last time too: national self-determination is for the whole community of a people, it is never for part of it to reject another part, and that whole community includes family next of kin, and that always includes first generations of diaspora. In a mobile world it is commonplace to be caused by parental movements to be born in diaspora from the country where all your belonging and practical roots are: from your country.

This is directly against the horrible school bully bigotry of birthplace racism: the idea that country is dictated by place of birth. Birthplace racism has been visibly factually wrong ever since the Babylonian exile of the ancient Jews 6 centuries BC, it would do catastrophic offence for anyone to apply it to the modern Palestine/Israel situation. It divides and allocates to different countries siblings who have identical backgrounds. Irish and Welsh nationalisms both had diaspora born leaders prominently in their twentieth century histories. Experience from the previous referendum bill indicates that if I give any named examples of diaspora born people you will refuse to publish the submission. So I refer you to the list of 55 famous examples I submitted to Common Weal on Sep 26. But this is not against having birthplace as one of the routes to citizenship. That practice rightly caters for a status quo population's continuity and that everyone has the possibility of needing a practical connection with the place where practical circumstances placed their birth even if it is not their country. To refuse this also divides families. It just needs to be clear that no state can claim anyone as a citizen against their own will by any route including this one - so for example, English Welsh Manx or Irish people who were born in Scotland and do not personally wish to become its citizens upon independence, no party can impose that they do. That would need clarifying for any set of birth citizenship rules, for because birth does not dictate country there will always be false positives - and with that clarifier, the false positives do no harm.

Instead, to illustrate by imagining our relations with an independent Wales: presumably expected to be friendly. To have Welsh born in Scotland be trapped here unwillingly and Scots born in Wales be trapped there unwillingly, would harm both countries, and blight their lives with tensions around unnecessary ethnic oppression and state responsibilities to unwilling citizens made more practically needy by cruel division from their families. Hence, both states will owe to each other as well as to their own nations, to have human rights compliant unrefusable citizenship by descent. As many members of those 2 diaspora-born groups as take this up, opt to reside in their own country unrefusably, and do not opt for residence in the other country and maybe not to keep birth citizenship of it either, the other country suffers no harm from the false positive that they could have opted to keep it.

So it was also shocking last time to see birth based citizenship tied to preexisting British citizenship, contrary to an older SNP pledge of citizenship for everyone born in Scotland. I took up the case of a person I had met in the internet comment system Disqus, resident in the US, who was born here just after a rule change in 1983 to parents who were only here on temporary student permissions: he was in the heartbreaking outrageous ethnic injustice of being excluded from British residence when his felt affinity is here. He had hoped that independence would be his opportunity, until I could get no commitment for him following the White Paper. I am still racked with anger on his behalf.

If you hold that decision of the proposed Scottish state's citizenship rules should be left until after a Yes vote has happened, it will be fatal to this referendum's legitimacy to mandate for the Scottish people, and legitimacy of claim to be held and making the case to hold it prevail. Instead, the bottom lines of compatibility of those rules with human rights must be already set and constitutionally binding before the poll, where we know for certain that that is what we are voting on, not after. This needs to be built in to your case for having grounds and entitlement to hold this referendum at all, and thence into the Scottish state's entitlement to be created at all. When your case for holding it, your case for claiming "material change" has happened, is a crisis to the survival of our open border relations in Europe, your case innately has to be an anti-racist outward looking welcoming open border stance. Hence you would blow that stance, and your claim to legitimacy of action, by having any closed border stance to elements of our own community as the Scottish people. Hence the organisability of this referendum requires this standard written in as a constitutional fundamental, a condition of the future state's status, which a post-independence parliament will not have power to undo. My Euro petition helps to bind this further.

Meeting this standard means, writing into the case and claim to hold the referendum, that the ECHR compatibility and the European citizenship norms that Mr Kavanagh listed are constitutionally binding on a Scottish state for its legitimate existence, and re fixed before the poll not after: including the following 2 specifics, committal not noncommittal:
~ citizenship by descent shall be unrefusable: every person with the descent concerned, at minimum as last time's White Paper detailed it, who applies for this citizenship automatically gets it. They are Scots of this people equally as much as the resident Scots are. There shall be no discretion to refuse it.
~ citizenship also shall be unrefusable for everyone born in Scotland, without being subject to any other condition such as preexisting British citizenship.

While 2014 was a taint on our history, a referendum held on the above basis would be a proud achievement: helping to entrench red lines of citizenship justice internationally, as standard to bind all countries, in a racism blighted era desperately needing red lines. These red lines would become a stronger leverage upon the UK too, and all that is wrong and distressing in its border practices at present, even if No wins again. Last time, despite your favouring of skilled migrants, your proposed citizenship rules appeared to me to be aimed at a certain quantity of nationalist voter with inward looking insular feelings of the nation as a clammed up community, and a perception of even diaspora Scots as disdained outsiders. An MSP disgracefully denied that anyone is Scottish who has never lived here. I found it ethnically vicious experiences, exactly what civic nationalism claimed to avoid, to encounter both a Radical Independence stall and a Green who were convinced that it was progressive to be harshly against any descent citizenship at all. Some definitions of civic nationalism I encountered seemed to make a virtue of only caring about the resident population and of labelling as ethnic any feeling for anyone else. Thus both sides chasing the anti-outsider vote.

The entire situation now claimed for entitlement to hold another referendum conflicts with and does not legitimise any repeat of that, and points against a mandate for it. Cleaning up the Yes offer into compatibility with standing for a welcoming Europe of open borders, will take renouncing all past errors of insularity and disowning the attitudes I have just itemised: not denying they exist but actively breaking with and repudiating them. As well as a great moral move, this is part of your organising to have any justification to act at all.

* on media coverage of the status -
With a background now explicitly in issues of anti-racism and citizenship rules, unlike last time, it is obvious but should be stated explicitly to avoid doubt, that the media's job in fairly covering such a campaign includes covering every citizenship issue raised. This to be a standard of whether the campaign is being fairly covered. Another issue which this includes is something which the protagonists can not make happen by themselves, can not offer to deliver as their own policy, but can support the claim for, or can say how it potentially affects them. This is the claim that the interventions in the 2014 campaign by the US, Canada, and Australia oblige them to form a pan-Western citizenship union with us. The National Jul 11 is the only instance yet of this being recorded in traditional media. These 3 countries urged a No vote on grounds that it was bad to create a border and a citizenship division within present Britain, yet this was a double standard because they all became independent from the British Empire and subsequently created hard border divisions with us. These run through many extended families thanks to the historical pattern of emigration.

The logic of their campaign intervention was that they should remove those barriers again, forming a citizenship union with us. Because they argued against us losing united British citizenship, this union would equivalently be a total joint citizenship abolishing the distinction of its holders as any particular one member country's citizen at all: that more total than the EU has ever done, and nicely harder ever to dissolve. They intervened in our constitutional future, made themselves parties in it deploying a concern against citizenship division, hence they owe us consistency with their intervention, and it means taking this seminally progressive step which is wonderfully opposite to the present momentum for increasing barriers. This scenario, if it happened, would totally alter citizenship issues' place and impact in the campaign. So the existence of a claim that it should happen is of public campaign interest.

It makes necessary also to cover proposed diplomatic policies toward the US if this great advance does not happen and present divisions continue. This includes an issue which is at the core of our state's morality to its own people in how it chooses to engage with the US, which the news media injustice of our time has included never discussing or mentioning, and which the posited citizenship union would end for us. US border control's long standing practice, in breach of the oldest human right of all, innocent until proved guilty, of judging foreign visitors who have no criminal convictions from arrest histories, and asking "Have you ever been arrested or convicted... " as one question. So much for the special relationship: close allies of the US do not get their citizens The absence of this last time from media scrutiny of the ethicality of both campaigns' intentions for our international relations, including the ethicality of police cooperation with any state willing to do this to our citizens, was another of last time's media deficiencies. It also has core relevance to the morality of supporting US wars in Asia argued as being for human rights, opposition to which we know always features in Yes campaigns.

* on balance of the campaign's scrutiny of Scottish v British political standards -
An item which featured in Yes campaigning last time, which could not be forseen, can be forseen now from that memory. This was the implication from all the child safety scandals following Savile, that British media institutions found involved in those scandals were less to be trusted as a result in their campaign analysis and portrayal of reality. At grassroots level this continued into an argument against the UK political institutions, from these scandals having a reach into the political culture. But because this was left to grassroots voters' perception, no balance was ensured. It was only applied against a No vote's merits. The balancer needed for equity between the campaigns, was for the Scottish devolved body politic to be scrutinised for for its standards historically towards the same issues.

This equity needs to be seen to happen this time, to get you an international status of fairly conducted campaign, "beyond reproach". It needs to include a scrutiny of both bodies politic for whether they function uncorruptly towards child protection. Such a scrutiny itself is only uncorrupt if the bodies politic have no veto or selective power over the content contributed for scrutiny. By definition and unavoidably, this gives an automatic right, for any person who claims to have evidence on any child safety issue of failures to prevent specific dangers to children, to have it published. Their evidence need not come from Scotland as clearly the issue is about the impact of standards shared across Britain which can have impact on society here.

Because child maltreatment can destroy life prospects unjustly, it can affect life achievements and skill levels. This gives it a link to the citizenship issues, because skill levels feature in selective immigration policies. So the racist wrong done to any section of the Scottish people rejected from citizenship entitlement includes that child maltreatment, which they may have suffered in another country in an already unhappily exiled childhood, could then unfairly cost them the skilled migrant route home.In the past campaign I heard a prominent Yes voice with anti-diaspora views suggest the skilled migrant route, to a large Yes meeting and in answer to my question. Hence, it is submitted here another consequence, of his referendum's entire legitimate basis having to be an unfaultably inclusive welcoming stance on all migration issues, bolstered by my Euro petition on that, that it has to include this entitlement to publishing of evidence on child safety issues.

Q2: the proposed technical changes to polling and count arrangements?

* on eligibility -
Agree that it is historically well established that votes on territorial status and self-determination are done by the resident population. Unavoidably the referendum's primary result should be counted from them. But there is a lot of excluded feeling around, often being expressed, by Scots who find themselves living away temporarily, e.g, for work reasons, at the time of a poll, this one or the previous. Its expression needs providing for, and there is a way.

Separately from the official ballot of the resident population, you could conduct postal ballots for the expat community to express their view: 2 separate such ballots, for those residing in the rest of Britain and the rest of the world, because these have different significances. These ballots would not be part of the official result, they would simply be counted as a point of fullness of information, so that all observers can analyse what extra meaning this casts upon the result. It might add to the decisiveness of the official ballot's result. Or, if the official ballot has a controversially close result, these extra ballots will add to the picture of the nation's opinion in debating what to do with the result.

There is no fair way to define exactly who the expat community are, and most importantly it can not be by birthplace racism as some have proposed, which wrongs the expats who are diaspora-born Scots: and no practical way to organise a register where they can all prove themselves. This is another reason why they can only be given a side ballot of opinion not part of the official ballot. The participants would have to each define and show their own connection to Scotland of any nature within the human rights basics for citizenship that ECHR article 8 establishes, and their ballots counted along with statistics as to the connections asserted.

Berwick on Tweed, of course is outside your enacted authority: but you could still give it its own extra referendum, again counted separately, with 2 questions: on its feeling on inclusion in a Scottish state as well as whether there should be one. How to do this when you have no power to organise polling stations there? You can provide postal voting perfectly easily, and provide polling stations at points just on our side of the border, on the bus routes out of Berwick: at Clappers and Foulden and Paxton.

* on transparency -
Keep a tally of how many observers from each side attend counts: not just who are registered to attend, but who actually do. For precautionary purposes of evidence and showing you had that care, in case there are any conspiracy theories about the count.

Again thank you for not choosing the corruptibility of an all postal ballot. Personal voting is more transparent. Quite right for uncorruptibility's sake, and for precaution against conspiracy theories, that you change to checking 100% of postal vote identifiers.

However what of the weakness that our polling in person system is vulnerable to personation of voters? Any voter who can demonstrate their identity with a reasonable sureness and whose vote has been stolen is entitled to still be given their vote, and the stolen vote annulled by ballot number in the course of the count. A stronger approach of care for the voter's rights than has been UK practice to date.

Q3: the proposed changes to rules on permissible participants?

* on para 3.7: national campaigns' entitlement to an all-voters mailshot -
This should not be just an entitlement, it should be compulsory for them to use it and do a mailshot. This is because each national campaign is a coalition, and has been subject to an official body's decision in getting recognised as a national campaign. Hence, if chooses not to do a mailshot, there can be recriminations where some parts of the coalition feel wronged by that choice and consequently by the campaign's selection and approval by the Electoral Commission to be the campaign. Perception of a fully conducted and fair campaign then suffers. This is a lesson from history: this actually happened to the Yes campaign for voting reform in 2011, which chose not to use its mailshot entitlement. Local Yes campaigns, including the one I belonged to, were very discontented with this decision and felt wronged that we had had no say in it, and that our consent had not been required to put that remotely led top-down national campaign at our head. That was experienced as a bad campaign practice.

Q4: the proposed campaign rules and rules on spending?

* on campaigning safety -
Any process can only ever be "beyond reproach" if all public concerns can be heard automatically not selectively. That is instead of the unaccountability of leaving it to the Electoral Commission to select which to listen to.

e.g. Legitimacy suffered last time from the perception and claim that voters felt intimidated against displaying No posters on their homes or land, and the visible fact in most places that Yes posters were overwhelmingly more common, not correlating at all with the result. It will only be clear that intimidation claims on either side are being responded to on their merits, if they are registered, accessible and checkable by the public, in a register of public concerns and it is seen by international observers that it is enforceably in practice that they have to be answered, whether by the Commission or otherwise. The sought international status of "beyond reproach" depends on it being seen in practice, not on an evadable notionality.

The policing issue I described in Q1 is another example.

* on spending -
Last time, the Electoral Commission was unable to advise how anyone should register spending if they wished to campaign for a policy point that might mean voting either way: e.g, before the point when Yes had cast the same doubt on EU citizens' continuity here as it now critiques UK policy for, what if you wanted to say vote for the most pro-immigration position subject to a moral priority of not betraying descent citizenship? That meant voting Yes only if Yes would bind itself foolproofly to descent citizenship unrefusable, and voting No otherwise or if there was any doubt. A definite unevaded answer from Yes would establish which side such a campaigner should register as: but the Commission denied being able to extract such an answer, and said it is just up to campaigners to choose which side they are on from what the campaigns have chosen to say. My enquiry showed this did not cover all campaigning positions, and it helped the fair clear informing of campaigners and voters to be avoided and muddied. This should be changed. Voters need to be able to ascertain, policy by policy, whether the vista of European border openness, cited to justify holding the vote, really is being offered to them. This is one extra route to do that wherever policies get left in doubt.

Missed opportunity or a meant miss?

This national survey is an absurdity. It is so incapable of obtaining any content of value, that surely that can't be accidental? Surely it's just a ritual the SNP is doing to make itself look, to the sheep, like it's doing something? while running scared of receiving any actual feedback from the issue driven No voters, so not providing any space in the survey for giving them issues.

They must know you can't answer the survey questions on ranking issues' importance to you, in any way that reflects accurately what your voter view on the issue actually is. e.g. immigration. If you are a nice caring pro-immigration Europhile, firstly you won't like to say that immigration matters to you, because that is usually taken to mean you are a racist anti. Suppose you clear that hurdle, and because Yes was pro European open borders they read your answer to mean that you are too. Then they celebrate and count it as a good Yes issue to use to appeal to your vote - and they are deluded, for in fact the issue swung your vote to No. You will vote No again if they again propose, as the White Paper did, an injustice over giving citizenship by parental descent. You may also have voted No because Sturgeon threatened to take residence away from EU citizens, as a negotiating weapon, in exactly the way she now condemns May for doing.

If you are a citizen of another EU country and had no vote in the Euroref, how do you handle the question of which way you voted in it? They must know that poser would arise. If you are Polish, Danish, Irish etc, how do you answer the question whether you feel more Scottish or British?!

Sturgeon's absolute claim that we must stay in the actual EU and somehow defy both the Euroref's British result and Spain's veto on EU membership for us, is running out of momentum. Alex Neil, SNP minister, is now telling his own side to swallow that they are going to get less. That is a crisis of dream for the nats' wish driven sheep, who also are seeing that Brexit is not causing a tipping of public opinion in favour of indy. To retrieve anything, such as our place in the single market, we need to engage with doing that.

Neil says that a hard border with England is a disastrously unpopular vote loser, such that with it they can't win another indyref. But the unpopularity comes from folks expecting to actually be subject to this border and experience it as a barrier, as it would be if it was between 2 states. But not, if it was within a united Britain, such that British citizens and residents have this status on both sides, so can cross the line freely. They would not experience it as a hard border, and nor would anyone making a permitted visit to the whole UK. It would only be a hard border for the EU citizens exercising free movement to Scotland when they no longer can to England, and others who are allowed into only Scotland under a home rule power over immigration. That is how we could keep a united Britain with its importantly united citizenship and yet keep Scotland (and NI with us) in the single market while Englandandwales leaves it. Indeed, we could join the Schengen area too under this arrangement.

"how you qualify for citizenship of most European countries"

From Paul Kavanagh's "Wee Ginger Dug" page in the National:

" It's quite likely tbat an independent Scotland will extend citizenship to every British citizen resident in Scotland when independence is achieved, and to everyone born in Scotland or who has a Scottish parent. That is, more or less, how you qualify for citizenship of most European countries."

This is not yet the atrocious racism problem in the last indyref solved. "Quite likely" of course is not certainty. But welcome, and record and keep, that a columnist in the National, the nats' own paper, has put in print that he finds parental descent citizenship natural and an axiomatic likelihood. Has he forgotten the White Paper or is he a welcome vanguard of the nats deciding to change it? Are they going to comply next time with the ECHR human right to family life? This writer has chosen encourage a spark of hope for it.

One hand and the other?

So now this same Alyn Smith will be remembered for his impassioned beg to the European parlt.

It was a good speech, and cautiously all our Remain voters can endorse it. But his case to the EU sits side by side with petition 1448/2014, and it's down to the nats whether they will bring the both into conflict.

To back up Smith's plea, they simply need to make the right choice not again to offer us evil racism against the Scottish diaspora, in their citizenship rules for independence. If they do, it will be a hypocritical contradiction of the anti-racist and inclusive argunent for keeping ties with the EU and will blow that apart. The EU stands cited under ECHR article 8 on family life, to disown a Scottish state as a pariah racist state engaged in ethnic persecution, if it makes citizenship by parental descent refusable.

We will woo you with rudely blatant brush-offs

Sunday Herald: Sturgeon, ‘We will woo No voters to support the ‘beautiful dream’ of independence’
Me to Sturgeon's public message system: "We will woo Yes campaigners to the beautiful human rights duty, that the diaspora born offspring of Scotland's emigrants and travellers shall have unrefusable citizenship of their own country."
Reply: "Thank you for your letter of 15 March 2016. I have been asked to reply as our team is responsible for responding to enquiries to the Scottish Government about immigration. It may be helpful to know that immigration and citizenship are matters reserved to the UK Government and Scottish Government has no devolved powers on these matters.

I hope this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely Laura MacCallum."

They know perfectly well that a declaration to Yes campaigners is about conditions under independencem, and they answer with deliberate obtuseness about not having the powers now, saying nothing about independence at all. This is a STARK AND ARROGANT FAIL in Sturgeon's promised dialogue with No voters, right from its start. A contempt of the public in its blatantness of not answering. On the key item to whether a Scottish state will be human rights compliant to its own nation's families or a pariah racist state internationally.

This is a totally failed start for Sturgeon's wooing initiative.

in a little box with nasty barricades

For the anti-outsider racism against Scotland's diaspora which made it morally necessary to vote No, the worst of the leading nats was Jim Sillars. He it was who actually proposed that the Scots born in diaspora as the offspring of our emigrants - whose emigration itself was supposed to be a nat issue - should be filtered for desirable skills the same as migrants with no roots here, before they can live in their own country. He took this line of xenophobic hate speech towards a section of his own nation, in his campaign dialogue with George Galloway and to the Yes meeting on 7 May 2014 at Liberton school, Edinburgh. SSP leader Colin Fox was sitting beside him and continued to do a campaigning tour with him calling him a friend.

I saw it because it was my question on citizenship by descent that he was answering. He told the same meeting that he was a Eurosceptic who would rather Scotland be like Norway and join EFTA, he retains from 70s nationalism its anti-EU strain, the idea of sacrosanct national sovereignty not getting pooled and united with anyone. Anti-Europeanism is now another racist anti-immigration position, because it means, and at British level much of it is motivated by, ending the union of free movement and travel. Going back to having nasty barricades up to the rest of the world outside your little box of global apartheid.

It fits him perfectly that he has now announced he's campaigning for an Out vote in the referendum, and splitting with the SNP mainstream by it, as he has ranted against the party control created by Salmond. The nats are better off without him, but will they realise it and break with his sick level of anti-diaspora bigotry?

Sillars will have no claim to moan or to claim any crisis if Scotland votes In and Britain votes Out. It is a matter of record that he wants the opposite.

Common travel binned already: try visiting Ireland.

Britain has been breaking the British Isles common travel area with Ireland, affecting both parts of it, without admitting so in any prominent political outlet.

Since 2010, shows this paper from when they started it, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257182/cta.pdf, they have done immigration checks on the crossings from Northern Ireland to the mainland. It is shocking to see it, as I did on the Belfast to Cairnryan crossing, with "immigration enforcement" on their uniforms, checking identity and asking exactly immigration type questions about where you were travelling to - on a domestic travel route that is wholly inside the UK. It is not caused by NI's history, any extra security because of that would be security rather than open explicit immigration checking. Dangerously it does not make NI feel treated like part of the union, does it? The idea behind it is supposed to be, that the Republic is more liberal on immigration, and the Irish peace requires there to be easy crossing into NI by road an appearance of open border between the 2 parts of Ireland, so Britain will let the Republic's policy govern who can reach NI but it will still put a trap in an unexpected place to catch folks trying to reach the British mainland. This is why it is only being done in one direction, coming from Ireland, not going to it.

A friend who has visited family in the Republic reported that he was asked for his passport when crossing into NI on public transport! This is exactly what is not supposed to happen under the common travel area, and all our media debate on the EU and during the referendum took as common knowledge that it does not happen, that we have a happy little passport-free travel area with the Irish Republic. Googling, you can find stories since 2011 of this happening. It's not being publicised in media and politics, it's only folks who travle to Ireland and experience it who are getting to know this is happening.

As a No voter who is migration liberal and has no love at all for Britain's present border culture, I'm writing against Britain's practices here and accusing that they weaken the union. But this revelation is more of a problem for nats than unionists, because during the referendum the Yessers relied heavily on claiming they could predict that rUK would keep the common travel area with us because it would be rational. They insisted cavalierly that we could dismiss as bluff all contrary talk. Some Yessers actually relied on this, to argue that my anger at Yes's citizenship plan betraying the Scottish diaspora was unnecessary, because the common travel area resolved it. Predicting common travel's certainty to remain in place would mean, all the Scots born in the rest of Britain to emigrant parents and still living there at the date of indy, who Yes intended to betray without unrefusable citizenship of their own country, would still always be free to move home as part of common travel. So it would not matter how deficient and full of loopholes Yes's rules for Scottish citizenship were. This is clearly disproved by what is happening to Ireland. If intrusive migration checks are now capable of being intruded sinisterly upon civil liberties even inside the UK, between its nations, and if we are illicitly and dishonestly breaking the travel area with the Irish Republic too, both of these shocks show how easy and casual it would have been for rUK to put them onto a new Scottish state's border.

It's obviously another reason not to vote Conservative if you care for the union.

Will the Electoral Reform Society prevent Yes peer pressure bias ?

To Juliet Swann the admin worker in Electoral Reform Society's 2-person Scottish office. Their director Willie Sullivan works for Common Weal and has long given the impression of being a Labour Yesser.

“If the Yes bias in yesterday’s session on citizen’s conventions was accidental, you will be happy to agree with measures to prevent its repetition. This event was supposed to be nothing to do with backing either side on independence. From the main speaker, it was: nothing wrong with the main speaker. The offender was the supporting speaker with a Canadian experience who came after her.

To prevent hijacking of events, a rule needs to be billed, saying: whenever a claim is made in favour of either side on independence and in the referendum, someone on the opposite side will be entitled to respond to it. Even though this is a diversion from the meeting’s intended topic.

Otherwise, speakers can use events supposed to be about other things, to project claims on behalf of one side as measured facts without having to justify them. The supporting speaker, you will remember, claimed to have measured that Yes voters were more likely to have researched their facts than No voters.

This was obviously intended to make No voters sound stupid and propagandise that the facts pointed to voting Yes, and it was presented in support of a pushily self-satisfied Yes voter in the audience who had expressed that prejudice already. We then had to make the most of our opportunity to contribute to the intended topic’s discussion, without getting any opportunity at whole-room level to give a No voter’s defence to the claim made against us. As a result, that Yes voter left believing she had picked up a scientific statistic in support of her prejudice, and she was not accessible in the informal time at the end either as she chose just to engross herself with a friend then leave. Any number of folks could have seen the spectacle of her prejudice confirmed and been swayed by it themselves too. These all left without ever knowing that a No voter present in the room thought they had missed a big fact when they researched their votes, and thought the statistic claimed was misleading because it did not consider whether voters chose reliable sources for their facts.

My counter to the statistic, as a No voter, would be: (1) it assumes the voters had available all the facts they needed, but facts of big importance to me on racism and citizenship were not easily available, (2) did these voters question the Yes campaign on facts and dig behind them, or just accept claims as facts because they wanted to believe? (3) some voters for a status quo may be choosing on the evidence of life experience, hence have less need to read up on it, this does not make their choice less intelligent. This just to show I have an answer – and if I slipped in claims for my side into an event about something else, you know the Yes voters would have an answer and would be indignant to have it heard.

This is a question of whether ERS events and their findings are reliable, or will be corrupted by bias towards the Yes movement’s undemocratic game of peer pressure. I find it necessary to circulate the question openly, so that future participants and the whole reform scene be alerted to watch out that you make the right choice to prevent hijack bias by always having a right of reply to it when it happens.

As you know, I raise this question already from a position of lapsed membership, because of the unanswered question on exactly where you shared our local group’s voter question action towards the 2 ref campaigns.”

This may be read by folks who never reached the meeting, so I would mention about that too. Why was there any need to do this relatively small meeting as a limited places book your place event? They told us there was a waiting list of folks who had not got places, they emailed asking we to tell them if we weren’t coming, yet by the chance of stormy weather on the day folks did not turn up and there were lots of empty seats without the waiting list folks having had a chance to be there. This was brushed aside quite trivially saying the weather would make them relieved. This is a totally unsatisfactory standard of practice towards inclusion in democracy! the very thing we were there for!

Astonishing chilling threat of mass deportations.

The SNP's threat issued on Jul 14, to take away residency from the EU citizens already living here, effectively a mass expulsion from the country, if we get trouble with rejoining the EU, was an eye opener and shocker for many. The mask dropped from how racistly the nats are willing to operate, all that means for what a new state would be like, and how it correlates with the shocker they are doing to families in their citizenship plan.

Could there possibly be any more to come, you were already wondering?

This has turned up, from Yes street activity, openly being offered to voters. A booklet produced by the famously English-based Yes blog Wings Over Scotland, called "The Wee Blue Book". A booklet of what they say are key point to convert you to Yes and supposed to be difficult for No supporters to answer - in fact they are all the scare claims and unevidenced assumptions you have heard before and very easy for No supporters to answer.

But on p61, in the chapter "Negotiations" on what would happen after a Yes vote, up pops this surprise:

" Scotland being out of the EU would certainly hurt Scotland, but it would massively damage the rUK too in several very obvious ways.

It would be disastrous for rUK businesses, but more to the point it would cause bureaucratic chaos the likes of which has never been seen on these islands, as 400 000 English, Welsh, and Northern Irish people suddenly lost the automatic right to live in Scotland and a similar number of Scots risked expulsion from the rest of the UK.

It is barely an exaggeration to say that the whole of Britain would grind to a halt. People wouldn't know who they could do business with and who might be deported the next day." - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS A THREAT TO CARRY OUT A MASS DEPORTATION! A RACIST ATROCITY! IT IS IN THE CASE YES ACTIVISTS ARE NOW MAKING TO THE PUBLIC IN THE STREET! THERE IS NO THREAT ON THE BRITISH SIDE TO THROW ANYONE OUT, THIS COMES ENTIRELY FROM THE YES SIDE. DO WHAT WE WANT OR WE THREATEN TO OVERTURN THE LIVES AND TAKE AWAY THE LIVELIHOODS OF, AND DEPORT, THEY ACTUALLY SAY THEMSELVES DEPORT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE! WHO AT PRESENT LIVE PEACEFULLY IN A UNITED COUNTRY!

THIS IS THE NATIONALIST MONSTER ON AN INCREDIBLE SCALE!PRINT COPY AND SHARE THIS POST!And remembering that Yes's citizenship plans don't make it unrefusable by descent from a parent, and Alex Salmond himself would not tell me on his phone-in on Jul 29 it would be unrefusable, you can tell that by "English Welsh and Northern Irish" who would lose their residency and become subject to DEPORTATION!!! yes read it in there!!!! they likely count a good number of Scots by background and family too!

THIS IS A FRIGHTENING TIME OF HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCY. WHEN HAS BRITISH POLITICS EVER CONTAINED SUCH A BARBAROUS THREAT OF EXPELLING POPULATIONS????? VOTE NO, VOTE AGAINST THE SIDE THAT MAKES THIS THREAT, AND BE READY TO CHALLENGE THE LEGITIMACY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW OF ANY SECESSION PLAN INCLUDING THIS THREAT AT ALL.

how it trumps the nat line on Tory governments, economy, Trident, and everything

THE SCOTTISH REFERENDUM IS A HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCY.

THE YES SIDE IS SNEAKING PAST VOTERS UNAWARES A HORRIBLE RACIST PLAN TO DIVIDE FAMILIES, RUINING THEIR PRATCIAL ABILITY TO HELP EACH OTHER AGAINST POVERTY OR IN TIME OF MEDICAL NEED. A POWER FOR OUR NEW STATE TO TURN SCOTS AGAINST SCOTS BY REJECTING WHOLE GROUPS OF SCOTS FROM THEIR COUNTRY.

THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THE COMMON SENSE OF INHERITING CITIZENSHIP AUTOMATICALLY, AND TO MAKE IT REFUSABLE BY THE STATE FOR THOSE SCOTS WHO CAN'T ARRANGE TO LIVE HERE ON ONE PARTICULAR DAY, AND WHO WERE BORN OUTSIDE SCOTLAND TO EXPAT PARENTS, TO GET CITIZENSHIP. THAT WILL AFFECT THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO LIVE HERE, IF COMMON TRAVEL BREAKS DOWN. THEY WANT TO PUT EVERY POSSIBLE PREJUDICE IN THE WAY OF SCOTS' ENTITLEMENT TO LIVE HERE, AND TO MAKE CITIZENSHIP SO RESTRICTED IT AMOUNTS TO A PURGE OF THE NATION. IT IS A TOTAL BETRAYAL OF SCOTS WORLDWIDE.

I wrote this for those friends who tend to follow the organised lefty scene and are voting Yes on its tide of optimistic dreams, and kept sending me Facebook invites to Yes meetings. Always trusting that scene and anywhere its group, psychology leads, they simply have not noticed or thought to check up on Yes's plans for citizenship. They have trusted that all is bound to be well and non-racist with anything the lefty parties support. With good welcoming pro-immigration consciences, just like mine, they have only heard Yes's progressive sounding spin during 2013 on encouraging a certain number of new entry.

In Britain's present racist mood, neither side nor the media have seen fit to draw your attention to a betrayal of Scottish families against ECHR article 8 on family life, an anti-immigration hate crime on the Yes side. Do you have a real enough conscience to take pause and look into that when you hear of it, now? Not like the fanatical nationalists you know your conscience does not sit easily with, willing to vote for this betrayal just out of abstract national pride, like the 2 I got when leafletting in Dumfries who just shouted out "this is a disgrace, it's all lies" and probably will be too scared to check up and discover it's not.

Yes will make inheritance of Scottish citizenship from a parent refusable by the state. It will take away the common sense principle of family life of automatically inheriting the background citizenship from a parent's origins, of the country your family life might want to resume in. Folks who move away often intend to return, the prompters to move away economically reluctantly have even been cited as a Yes argument. So it makes no practical sense, it is spiteful racial hatred as bad as any other you have ever encountered in citizenship rules, to put a question mark over such returners bringing their offspring with them. No Scots who have moved away, mostly to rUK, in recent times and who have families there to be caught by present events, had any expectation that it would result in a threat to their offspring's entitlement to live here, this is the last thing they imagined possible to come actually from the nats who are supposed to care about us as a people.

But you will notice in hindsight that return of the diaspora, undoing the Clearances, is not a principle you have ever heard about from nats. It shows the betrayal has been long prepared, it is an electoral choice to appeal to a bigoted version of nationalism that is anti-outsider, motivated by fear of the world beyond our closed little huddle, that only likes or cares for the population already here. Hence, in a racist period, to jettison being associated with immigrant unpopularity for returners. This is hidden deceitfully in the concept "civic nationalism", a term that has been claimed to be ever so enlightened and avoidant of racial attitudes, but no attitude can be more racist and hating than the "civic nationalist" line that the whole project is only concerned with the folks who already live here. This is how Pat Kane, after a lecture he gave, came to tell me that he would be first to speak up and say "this is wrong" to making any further provision for the diaspora.

Is that what organised left optimism made you think you were voting for? I discovered the betrayal, and that No is the less racist vote, from enquiring into the White Paper plan that citizenship by descent can be registered for, giving evidence of the descent. From as soon as this came out, I went through all possible routes, the government, Yes campaign national and local, and the Yes supporting parties, asking to know simply that this registering would not be refusable. The registering provision covers grandchildren too, so simply by saying it was not refusable they could have put themselves in the position of offering a better deal for the diaspora than the status quo, and then, if the continuity of the principle of unrefusable inheritance was firmly built into the new state and under no threat, that would have made me vote Yes. I am a supporter of global free movement, I hate the global apartheid of any borders, and that points in favour of No that you have to think thrice before creating any new border, throwing away a well-integrated union of nations that already exists with a long history of free movement. But it can be right to do that if you are going to resist a racist move in the state you are dividing and make borders more open overall. What I most want from either side is the most humanitarianly generous borders we can get but specifically starting from the moral priority of our country's openness to its own diaspora. I have no innate loyalty to a state, on either side, so they were not wasting their breath on an already unbudgeable voter. Instead, they are the ones who showed they won't budge.

The answer, which you can check on by your own enquiries, is IT WILL BE REFUSABLE. It will affect who can live here if the common travel area breaks down as it easily can. Of people already living at the time of independence, only the ones who are preexisting British citizens, on top of chancing either to be resident here on one particular day or born here, get unrefusable citizenship. The system is not even tied to one form of prejudice, it mixes every form of prejudice you can think of to be as restrictive and anti-outsider as possible. Though it discriminates against exile-born Scots, it is not exactly what I call "birthplace racist" -the horrible school bully bigotry of regarding everyone's country as dictated by birthplace, which everyone exile-born has encountered as a form of racist bullying and which has been visibly wrong ever since the Babylonian exile of the ancient Jews. The system actually also rats on an old SNP pledge of citizenship for everyone born in Scotland, it requires inheritance of British citizenship too, some nationalism and an obvious appeal to racist voters. As a result they never gave any answer for a real cruelly treated person in America, who I have met online, who can't get British citizenship or live here because he was born in Glasgow just after a rule change in 1983 to parents who were only here on temporary student permissions - he was hoping for better from the indy movement, instead his case does not create the moral dilemma of owing to him to vote Yes because they have given him absolutely nowt. None of you however wishfully optimistic can look away from that revelation of Yes's real character.

So the system is residency-racist - designed to be only for the narrowest conservative view of the folks who are already here and who do not fall under any of several prejudices against belonging, and to make the rest of the world rejectable including the rest of Scots. That means to vote Yes is to vote for A NEW CLEARANCES, the massive hate crime of a rejection of Scots by a Scottish state, a hating xenophobic purge of the nation that will scar our history. It is more than just emotional, important though that always is against racism's impact, it goes directly to the practical economic survival of families. Families divided into different countries against their will are prevented from coming together to support each other against poverty, including by taking each other in, and in time of medical need.

The Yes argument of no more Tory governments, even if it was right, is totally answered and thrown away by this. Yes means creating a power to reject Scots in rUK, to abandon them to stay there, under governments made more often Tory by our departure, to suffer every hardship thrown at them cut off from any family support available to them. This of course impacts on the lives of families they have here, e.g. parents who left temporarily and have returned. In having a conscience against racism you have already swallowed that it's wrong to vote for hateful purges against parts of society even if the folks offering them also offer good economic promises for the other parts of society they favour, as the Nazis did. You have felt horror at that how that wins anti-immigrant parties votes. If you are a left winger and vote Yes because you want no more Tory governments, knowing what Yes intends for citizenship, you will do exactly the same thing, purge a country of a population group, as well as you will vote upon our own families and next of kin an actively increased vulnerability to Tory governments.

Besides, I actually heard at Common Weal's big day, which was Yes-supporting, a panel of lefties including SSP discuss post-Yes prospects and they expect indy to be such a shift in both SNP's and Labour's definition of themselves that both are bound to go through an uncertain period of redefining who they are and what they are for, which will be an electoral weakness for them at a time when the Tories, renamed, will be released from their unpopular association with distant-feeling British governments and will be well placed for a serious electoral challenge. So lefty Yessers themselves are not expecting no more Tory governments, it's just another of the SNP's many wishful myths, and in 2010 the SNP vote was 491386 and Tory vote was 412855, not that much different! And where is no more Tory governments in the nats wanting a gradual several years transition away from using the British benefits system, totally exploding every unevidenced claim that voting Yes might be an escape from austerity? As also do the impacts on trade and world ratings of us using another country's currency without permission or any role in running it or of a collapsed currency union. I learned only from a public debate, not from any media why? that you can't even join the EU without a central bank.

The other Yes argument usually popular with left wingers, and not half as popular with the whole country as nats used to keep saying, is Trident. Tommy Sheridan called Trident "scrap metal", on the reasoning that it will never be used. Look what moral perspective that puts the racism issue into - there would be nothing moral whatever in taking scrap metal as a morally driving reason for voting for the persecution and cruelties described above. This would be so even if CND's persistent wishful claim that us getting rid of Trident would result in it going completely, was right. You would never consider voting for far right types of racist persecution to get rid of Trident, so don't vote for this one either. But adding to that, you know anyway it's a clutching at straws dream whose high chance of not happening could leave you having voted for racial hatred for no gain at all. rUK has it planned out to build a new base and keep Trident temporarily in America until it's ready, and you have heard many nat voices wanting to trade keeping Trident for the currency union in which we also absurdly would not be fiscally independent and would still have our spending controlled by British Tory governments we could no longer vote against and will be more frequent as a result, again so much for no more Tory governments or for escaping from austerity.

That inherited citizenship will be refusable I first got admitted by SNP minister Alex Neil, at the first Yes meeting I went to - where there was no comeback to answers. He said it's because of keeping out undesirables. If you have any critical thinking capacity, your alarm bells would go off instantly, to ask exactly who the undesirables are and does it mean the poor or the unemployed? Absolutely key Yes figure Jim Sillars, who is doing loads of touring meetings for them, confirmed it probably does, he would would want it to, and he claims to be a socialist. To an audience to whom my question had already raised the thought of dividing families, he opened with the instantly familiar racist sentiment "We can't have an open door", where within the Union we already do have an open door, and he said he wants the exile-born to be subject to filtering for desirable skills exactly the same as is planned for migrants without any connections here at all. He openly told them "WE MUST NOT BE AFRAID OF THIS".

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ANYTHING SO INHUMANLY RUTHLESS RACIST FROM ANY FIGURE OUTSIDE THE FAR RIGHT PARTIES? Yet SSP leader Colin Fox sitting beside him said not a word to disown it and has continued to do touring meetings with Sillars and call him a friend at them. This remains unknown to the Yes faithful who are not following this question, so it is hidden from them in plain sight. Sillars is anti-EU too and to have Yes making so much use of him as a speaker, to trade unions too and incredibly the exile-born Yes supporter Lesley Riddoch is doing a meeting with him in Livingston, points further against Yes's reliability towards the EU. Think of that as you remember Sturgeon's recent threat to throw out all the EU residents already here, they will "lose their residency rights", if we get any trouble rejoining. That was a scale of slipping of the mask on nat racism that if you ignore it to cling to a dream you are part of something worse then UKIP. When I first became No I was worried about Britain leaving the EU and had to check my conscience with a Polish friend, who to my interest turned out already to be a No voter. Now the duty to vote No to protect Polish friends from the racially ugliest agenda you have heard from a major party, is clear and uncontestable.

That the Yes we are faced with is as vicious as this is a humanitarian emergency in our history. Sillars's tooth and claw capitalist plan to divide families takes no account of bad education systems, troubled families and interventions/social work situations, unrecognised conditions like autism or dyslexia, or Savile-type hidden abuses in institutions, all as causes of not having high value skills. This in a political culture that is still utterly closed to allowing evidence on these things, like mine against damaging education methods, to be heard. So it is a plan to further punish for being victims, all abuse survivors and all folks who had their childhoods damaged by unscrupulous adults, by having their country reject them for it. To vote Yes knowing this, is to vote to add to the longer life toll of crimes upon children and to punish their victims.

Yet get this, I have even found a Radical Independence stallholder willing to defend Sillars and call this unprecedented racism good socialism. He argued it is racist to give anyone an advantage from their background connections and fair to treat everyone outside the country the same. So the Marxists of Radical Indy want to select workers like so much meat for their profit value to the rich, to abuse abuse survivors, and to hammer ordinary families' liberty to come together to protect each other from poverty. He knew this practical point was unanswerable for he kept avoiding it by diverting onto repeating, several times after I had already answered it, the racist question "How far back would you go?"

Friends in Fife invited me to a Yes meeting in Kirkcaldy with Tariq Ali. Is all of the above any background to accept the pathetic "I would hope so" that was all he was left able to say on trusting Yes's intentions on citizenship? Where was the trustworthiness in the written answers my early enquiries got if answered at all, the obvious evasion of just saying read the White Paper - to a question on clarifying it? Not until it became possible to use enquiries on the campaigning rules as a lever for clearer policy answers did I get any, and they totally leave it open for these horrors to happen:

Policy officer Nickola Paul who wrote the policy: "Legislation will be made to establish detailed rules for Scottish citizenship in time for independence. Therefore further details of the procedural requirements and administration of the relevant rules in relation to Scottish citizenship applications will be available when the legislation is drafted." So vote not knowing what they are going to do. Yessers often fall back on this: oh the White Paper is only proposals and we will we will only decide all this after winning the ref and you can help us write our constitution. Spiv trickery, selling you a product with no guaranteed content, saying gamble on the outcome to a process that will be full of folks who were willing to follow such evil lead plans. Compare it to No's deal where the Union includes the status quo certainty already existing of a united citizenship. I met some decent-seeming Yessers from their strong Helensburgh group who were concerned to get their lead answerer to take it to their lawyer and see what solution she could get me, she ceased to answer any more after only coming up with this: "Apart from birth, parental birth and residence on Indy day there is no automatic right to a Scottish Passport. Our law incorporates the ECHR as will our constitution. Our political and social culture is to bring families together and not divide them. Our political class reflects our society which is compassionate. However we have a duty to our nation and the wider world to police our borders and be measured and responsible in our security and international affairs. There can be no carte blanche on this matter.."

Which is just proof of everything I have written. The "parental birth" reference is to the White Paper's provision for future born children, which is tied up in spiteful complex strings: it also requires that if they are born in Scotland their parent must already be a permanently permitted resident at the moment of birth, and if they are born outside, requires that their parents chose to register the birth in the correct way, though it's not the baby's fault if they don't. More nasty tricks designed to pile up the maximum of range excuses for power to reject folks, totally in the character of the worst racist-influenced citizenship provisions in other countries that have justice campaigns going on against them, and not at all in the spirit of Yes's propaganda claiming to be liberal, rendering it lies.

If you are going to trust a political class at its word on being compassionate where it promises nothing at all except to breach the citizenship inheritance principle and refuse any shred of safeguards, you are hooked to a cult. Indy has become like the new communism the way folks' desperate dreams are vested in it. The way Yessers will go on about economic sufferings and poverty, it's the first thing they do in all their meetings, to create a peer pressure, without giving any evidence that they will disappear under indy with our 2 neocon major parties and the Tories easily strong enough to come back. They just take it for granted and go for peer pressure to mask the lack of evidence.

This fits with the well known pattern cited by J K Rowling, that every doubtful questioning of any Yes prediction gets called scaremongering. It's a cult selling unevidenced dreams and shouting down questions. All its policies and prosperity predictions based on predicting that other parties will do everything Eck hopes they will do, when they can easily choose not to. The cybernats, I have had 3 encounters with their sham debate groups on FB matching the experiences of many who have been turned on personally for having any other view than faithfully uncritically following Yes. The national feeling of intimidation that is preventing folks from displaying No posters. The dishonest cult-like in-group intolerant character, of the form of nationalist culture that has prevailed, bears out the character of movement that would betray the diaspora.

So I included Helensburgh in my "no to a new clearances" campaign, which mostly has been Borders targetted. For the British-wide racist crisis certainly worsens the Scottish emergency, I have had 4 newspaper letters on it published but largely the media and indeed the No campaign have not chosen to focus on it, because they know it could raise a good pressure upon the British parties too to become nicer about immigration than they want to be. So I lodged a European parlt petition, 1448, against accepting the ref process as fair or a new state as validly mandated in all the EU's dealings with it, if the mass of voters were unaware of Yes's citizenship plans. A duty to voter awareness. Not naive enough to depend on the petition getting formally upheld in order to succeed. This petition makes the challenge that not to do these things would be a bad precedent for the EU against what it is, so just by being lodged it has already succeeded, putting this challenge in the record always there to refer back to.

Herald wiping comments and manipulating debate ?

On the following page on Frank Skinner, www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/comedian-fears-england-may-go-right-wing-if-scots-vote-yes.24817570, in the Disqus comments section is the Herald showing a manipulation of heard debate to favour Yes? It has excluded the following 2 posts from being posted:

• In answer to a racist called Alex who wrote "You are not in your country, unless you were born there":
  
  The school bully prejudice of claiming that birthplace dictates country divides siblings and has been visibly wrong ever since the ancient Jews' exile in Babylon. Tony Blair is English and was born in Scotland. Eamonn da Valera was born in America. The Silent Twins, Barbadian, were born in Yemen simply because their family was in the RAF there, left it at age 7 months and had no further connection with it in their lives. Among Scots, Alexander McCall Smith was born in Matabeleland, Fitzroy Maclean in Egypt, Edinburgh council leader Andrew Burns in Germany, Eric Liddell in China. Lesley Riddoch, Alec Home, the Queen Mother, and former Plaid Cymru leader Dafydd Wigley were born in England, while famously Norwegian author Roald Dahl was born in Wales.
• In answer to "Simon Harries, Cambridge" post beginning "I was born in Africa":
  
  "Simon - Yes has ratted on a former SNP pledge of automatic citizenship for everyone born in Scotland and is confining that to inherited British citizenship, in that negative way it is not defining citizenship by birthplace. But in another negative way it is. Scots who were born outside Scotland to emigrant parents, mostly in rUK, and can't arrange to be resident here on indy day, they won't budge on making their citizenship only discretionary and refusable. A humanitarian betrayal which will divide families, against ECHR article 8, preventing them coming together to support each other against poverty or in time of medical need, and means the Scottish nation rejecting and excluding a large part of itself.
  
  "Civic nationalism" has turned out to mean a selfish anti-outsider racism of only caring about the population who chance arbitrarily to already live here, thus totally hostile to moving around and orientated to making it harder. I got that from 3 sources at Yes events.
  
  Pat Kane told me he would be first to speak up and say "this is wrong" against any further openness to the diaspora. Jim Sillars, considered a leading nat speaker who is doing many meetings for them, answering my question on dividing families said he wants our exile-born children subjected to the same filtering for skills as migrants from anywhere with no roots here at all, and openly told an audience "We must not be afraid of this". Those of the exile-born who have suffered from bad education systems or corrupt abuses like Savile, and that is their reason for not having high value skills, will be further punished and rejected by their country for being abuse victims. A stallholder for Radical Indy, told about this, defended it and called it good socialism to treat all outsiders from everywhere the same and racist to give preference to "someone who happens to be descended..." and he never answered on the practical impact of dividing families, dodged it several times by just repeating the racist jibe "how far back do you go?"
  
  That the Yes we are faced with is as nasty as this is a humanitarian emergency in our history. But it's by enquiring and digging and going to meetings that I have discovered it, not by passive listening to the campaign. In the British-wide racist mood I can't make the media or No campaign focus on it, so have had to make personal efforts with a "no to a new clearances" campaign in the Borders, and a Euro petition against accepting a new state as fairly mandated if voters were unaware of this horror."

A Facebook link showing horrible cybernats giving a birthplace racist reaction to Rod Stewart, in their usual emotional haste forgetting that their position would apply against their own Lesley Riddoch too.

frank

Comedian Frank Skinner, in advance of coming up to the festival, has given a muddled view of the ref. Desperate nats could take it as a celeb endorsement of voting Yes, because he has said that from a selfish point of view he would vote Yes if he lived here. He happens to be factually wrong in that, he has listened to all the unevidenced propaganda that life under indy would not be, as it would, just as neocon as British life. But the muddle is, from the point of view of living in England he has also endorsed us to vote No, saying that would be better for them, that seriously telling argument of the fear of rUK being left more right wing by our departure.

A reply to him, as posted under the Herald article:

Mr Skinner esquire, You might not vote Yes if you lived here and had done some digging for yourself into Yes's plans in an are the campaign has not focussed on: citizenship. Being conceived in Scotland would not be enough for your son to get their favour. They intend to make it refusable by the state, not an innate right, for the Scots who were born in the rest of Britain and can't be resident here on indy day to inherit citizenship from their parent. I have often found decent but overfaithful Yes voters shocked to hear of this, and generated a few extra enquiries by it, but always with the same answer. With government, Yes campaigns national and local, including Helensburgh who checked it with a lawyer, and all the yes supporting parties, they won't budge - they won't make this class of citizenship unrefusable. This is a basic assault on family life, against ECHR article 8, and a new clearances, an intention to reject Scots from their country. If the British or European shared travel areas break down, citizenship will affect who can live here - and only last week, totally slipping the mask, we heard Sturgeon's seriously unpleasant threat to throw out all the EU citizens here if we hit any problem with rejoining the EU. The so-called "civic nationalism" they have claimed is wonderfully progressive and non-racist turns out to be so deeply racist and anti-outsider that it even kicks away Scots' extended families - for what it means is only caring about the population who chance to already live here. Even when emigration features in Yes arguments!

Dividing families is a very practical matter preventing them caring for each other or supporting each other against poverty and welfare troubles. Yet a stallholder for Radical Indy kept dodging answering this with the diversion "How far back would you go?" and called it good socialism to subject the exile-born children of our emigrants to the same filtering for skills as Yes proposes for migrants from anywhere with no roots here at all. To reject our children taking no account of life misfortunes, education systems working badly, abuses hushed up by punishment as was revealed in Savile, as causes of not having high value skills.

I have petitioned the EU not to accept the ref process as legitimate or a new state as mandated if the mass of voters were unaware of these sick plans. Now the Yes campaign especially its meetings consists of an ever more raving Project Fear threatening all sorts of lurid right wing prospects if we vote No, without any disproof that they would happen the same under indy too as our major parties are just as neocon inclined as the British ones. Everything they threaten is actually a reason to vote No, in order not to betray branches of our families who have already suffered life misfortunes to also suffer rejection by their country and being abandoned to suffer all the threatened things living in the rest of Britain, cut off also from the help of their families here unless they emigrate too, and shorn of our leftward impact on British elections. While in the union we can vote against right wing horrors instead of having them thrust on us by a big powerful neighbour with no say in it, let's take your endorsement of voting No for that reason.