|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 31, 2021 10:18:46 GMT
Crossbat I try to keep rancour out of any difference in interpretation, but probably fail now and then. Vigorously expressed argument isn't in itself detrimental to a discussion but it should be kept civil, I think ukpr and this its successor generally achieve this, which is a refreshing change from most similar blogs. I'm not my nature to be censorious, and perish the thought that I should be the curator of how people use and enjoy the site. I merely offer an opinion on the nature of some of the conversations where posters seem to get genuinely angry and upset. But hey ho, that might be exactly why people come on here. They may well be seeking a forum that offers them the excitement of such exchanges and the opportunity to talk at length on subjects that fascinate (obsess?) them. This leads me to a question that's always struck me about this forum. Are we in danger of taking ourselves just a bit too seriously, as if our fish and chip paper opinions on politics etc are carrying a weight far beyond their intrinsic worth and the size of the audience afforded to them? I suspect so, hence the touchiness to criticism often displayed and the pomposity that underpins a lot of the posting. But as I said, not for me to curate the site. My only option is the off button. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Dec 31, 2021 10:27:21 GMT
One can always revert to dilettantism :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 31, 2021 11:25:15 GMT
tancred - "What you are saying is utter nonsense. Rhodesia, not even part of the UK at the time, just a colony, declared UDI in 1966 illegally. The British government imposed sanctions and considered military force to overthrow the Smith government and restore legitimate government. It would have been fully entitled to do so. Similarly, if Scotland declared independence unilaterally the British government would be entitled to depose the Scottish government and restore direct rule from Westminster. Scotland is not legally a nation because a nation can only be defined as such if it is recognised in international law." I disagree entirely. Firstly, in international law, nations are typically defined by article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, which lays out that "the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: 1. Permanent population 2. Defined territory 3. Government 4. Capacity to enter into relations with the other states." [See www.eduskunta.fi/EN/naineduskuntatoimii/kirjasto/aineistot/yhteiskunta/suomi-valtiona/Pages/Valtio-kasitteena.aspx] This is not definitive, but we do have two certainties: 1) All nations have the right to self determination (UN Charter Art. 1) 2) Scotland is a nation (history, fact, and UK constituational settlement). Beyond this, come the vagaries of international law and speculation. In essence, if a territory declares itself a nation, then the balance of nternational reaction ends up defining whether it is or isn't so, and a small country like England would not be able to control that process. Consider this: Rhodesia opted for UDI under a system that dispossessed the indigenous and majority population from their political rights in order to grant total authority to minority white settlers with no democratic mandate. They were unable to demonstrate acceptance of their independence claim by the majority. It was not widely accepted by the international community. If Scotland ever achieves independence, it will be via a process of democratic consent, which may occur with or without the blessing of Westminster. Should it be opposed by London, and rUK fails to recognise iScotland, then we have the classic Taiwan issue, but England in no China. What would the reactions be? Under the UN Charter, Scotland would be within it's legal rights to declare independence; the EU would quite likely support and recognise them; the US would desperately want Scotland to remain in NATO, and if Scotland so chose, London would probably find itself largely isolated and under great pressure to accept the reality - if it's decision was based on democratic consent. This won't happen though, because we won't have such a stupid government in Westminster, and they will understand that in democracies, the majority get their way. The extent to which Scotland can be said to be 'a Defined territory' is debateable in that there may well be areas within it which would wish to break away from Scotland itself - the Shetlands and some of the Border areas with England come to mind. This would probably particularly be true were there any attempt by Holyrood to declare UDI - the legitimacy of which would almost certainly be rejected by the Unionist population and create a scenario of administrative chaos with much of the population ceasing to accept the writ of Holyrood whilst continuing to show alleigance to Westminster. A similar situation might arise in Wales too were Independence a serious option. The more anglicised areas - Pembrokeshire- Monmouthshire - Flintshire - might well decide to make alternative arrangements.
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 31, 2021 11:30:23 GMT
Good morning form yet another grey day in the PSRL - Steve, hope it didn't rain on your wedding day!
OMG, I logged off last night thinking the site was a bit slow, woke up and logged on a constitutional crisis and cultural war!!!!
Heaven forbid that anyone such as me should be able to, or qualified to, comment on such matters, but:
a) In the UK Parliament is Sovereign - full stop. The relevant international treaty is actually the Treaty of Westphalia which sets the principle of the sovereignty of individual nations as the basis for the international system. Scotland is recognised as part of the UK. Consequently other nations (you may get some exceptions who want to cause trouble such as North Korea) would only recognise Scottish Independence if it was the result of a legally legitimate vote which was in turn recognised by the UK govt and parliament. In the case that the Scottish Got just UDI'd, without the legitimacy of a vote to back such action or ran an 'illegal' ref, and there was a military action to maintain the coherence of the UK, the international community would view it as a Civil War. As the UK has a seat on the Security Council it could effectively veto any attempts by the UN to intervene on a sovereign matter.
b) Its the 'social' issues that tend to push people's buttons, which is why the right in particular use it as a means of mobilising their support. The sad truth is that people such as myself can't afford not to fight this fight as hard won rights can all to easily be taken away, and dystopia's such as the Handmaid’s tale are actually close to reality for some in the world today and as Afghanistan illustrates 'history' does not always go forward in a progressive manner. I personally have no desire to force anyone to live their life a certain way, but that sentiment is not shared by large segments of those who are 'socially conservative'. The 'society' they want to conserve was largely based on the patriarchy, suppression of women, white privilege and class.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Dec 31, 2021 11:38:48 GMT
Lululemon
Not a cloud in the sky beautiful late summer day.
Mind you we did travel from London to the leafy hinterland of Hertfordshire to find the perfect spot.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,127
|
Post by domjg on Dec 31, 2021 11:45:03 GMT
Apologies if I contributed in the raising of temperature of the recent discussion. The term 'socially conservative' has long been a huge bugbear of mine as it's been bandied about these last few years without what lies behind it apparently needing to be defined. Even the media has talked of the views of the 'socially conservative' ie in red wall seats needing to be taken more into account as if they're the ones being discriminated against. For me it's important to expose what is being encouraged/normalised here as what actually lies behind that phrase often ain't very pretty at all and goes against not just the spirit but sometimes even the law of British society in the 21st century. There's a reason the 'norms of the 20th century' are no longer societal norms and that's because of the great harm many of them caused. I think I'll take a break from here for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 31, 2021 11:58:09 GMT
Good morning form yet another grey day in the PSRL - Steve, hope it didn't rain on your wedding day! OMG, I logged off last night thinking the site was a bit slow, woke up and logged on a constitutional crisis and cultural war!!!! Heaven forbid that anyone such as me should be able to, or qualified to, comment on such matters, but: a) In the UK Parliament is Sovereign - full stop. The relevant international treaty is actually the Treaty of Westphalia which sets the principle of the sovereignty of individual nations as the basis for the international system. Scotland is recognised as part of the UK. Consequently other nations (you may get some exceptions who want to cause trouble such as North Korea) would only recognise Scottish Independence if it was the result of a legally legitimate vote which was in turn recognised by the UK govt and parliament. In the case that the Scottish Got just UDI'd, without the legitimacy of a vote to back such action or ran an 'illegal' ref, and there was a military action to maintain the coherence of the UK, the international community would view it as a Civil War. As the UK has a seat on the Security Council it could effectively veto any attempts by the UN to intervene on a sovereign matter. b) Its the 'social' issues that tend to push people's buttons, which is why the right in particular use it as a means of mobilising their support. The sad truth is that people such as myself can't afford not to fight this fight as hard won rights can all to easily be taken away, and dystopia's such as the Handmaid’s tale are actually close to reality for some in the world today and as Afghanistan illustrates 'history' does not always go forward in a progressive manner. I personally have no desire to force anyone to live their life a certain way, but that sentiment is not shared by large segments of those who are 'socially conservative'. The 'society' they want to conserve was largely based on the patriarchy, suppression of women, white privilege and class. Perhaps more accurately the Crown in Parliament is sovereign in the UK. That is the de jure position. The de facto position is that like any state the UK and its constitutional structures are only sovereign in so far as its citizens or sections of its citizens accept that it is and the state has the will and coercive legal and direct power to impose its sovereignty when they don't. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 31, 2021 12:06:03 GMT
I personally have no desire to force anyone to live their life a certain way, but that sentiment is not shared by large segments of those who are 'socially conservative'. The 'society' they want to conserve was largely based on the patriarchy, suppression of women, white privilege and class. I think that the most 'socially conservative' people in this country are some of those who have settled here from other parts of the world and seek to maintain the social practices of their original cultures. So white privilege isn't a feature of their world view. Practices such as forced marriage, FGM, honour killings and so on go way beyond things like a slight disapproval of homosexuality being presented as a lifestyle choice. To relate this back to politics, I have said before that the Labour party in particular will have problems reconciling the 'woke warriors' with their 'ethnic' supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 31, 2021 12:09:14 GMT
P.S. Should add the met police rent allowance doubled if you were married so on a purely mercenary level it made sense as well. Inheritance tax breaks good for married couples, so an incentive to marry on your death bed. There was a R4 presenter who had cancer and he intermittently reported on its progress as unfortunately it worsened. He managed a marriage in his final weeks, in hospital I think?
I wonder how many were deprived of that over the last couple of years?
Oddly, the same happened to two friends of mine a couple of decades ago. They had been living together for more than 20 years without getting married and shared a house which they owned half each of. They also had a life insurance policy which would have paid out to the survivor and would have covered the value of the other half of the house. Unfortunately local house prices had risen so much in the intervening years that the insurance policy was no longer adequate and the only way to keep the house was to get married in hospital a few days before she died. It didn't make any real difference for inheritance tax because the other half of the couple died about 18 months later. This all happened before the Government allowed transfer of the Inheritance Tax zero band allowance between spouses. |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Dec 31, 2021 12:18:32 GMT
a) In the UK Parliament is Sovereign - full stop. The relevant international treaty is actually the Treaty of Westphalia which sets the principle of the sovereignty of individual nations as the basis for the international system. Scotland is recognised as part of the UK. Consequently other nations (you may get some exceptions who want to cause trouble such as North Korea) would only recognise Scottish Independence if it was the result of a legally legitimate vote which was in turn recognised by the UK govt and parliament. In the case that the Scottish Got just UDI'd, without the legitimacy of a vote to back such action or ran an 'illegal' ref, and there was a military action to maintain the coherence of the UK, the international community would view it as a Civil War. As the UK has a seat on the Security Council it could effectively veto any attempts by the UN to intervene on a sovereign matter. This is facially incorrect. The UK has already lost territories to unilaterally declared independence, the idea that the rest of the world has to obey what the British Parliament says hasn't been true for a very long time. The UK explicitly can *not* use its Security Council veto to block the UN recognising the independence of any of its former territories, something that has already been directly tested. The 'Peace of Westphalia' being a binding precedent of 'Westphalian Sovereignty' has been entirely deprecated in international law at this point. There is no 'Treaty of Westphalia' that defines 'Westphalian Sovereignty,' use of the 'Peace of Westphalia' was an after the fact rationalisation for WWI era 'Westphalian Sovereignty'. The UN explicitly identifies the Right to Self-Determination. unpo.org/article/4957 |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 31, 2021 12:29:49 GMT
tancred - "What you are saying is utter nonsense. Rhodesia, not even part of the UK at the time, just a colony, declared UDI in 1966 illegally. The British government imposed sanctions and considered military force to overthrow the Smith government and restore legitimate government. It would have been fully entitled to do so. Similarly, if Scotland declared independence unilaterally the British government would be entitled to depose the Scottish government and restore direct rule from Westminster. Scotland is not legally a nation because a nation can only be defined as such if it is recognised in international law." I disagree entirely. Firstly, in international law, nations are typically defined by article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, which lays out that "the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: 1. Permanent population 2. Defined territory 3. Government 4. Capacity to enter into relations with the other states." [See www.eduskunta.fi/EN/naineduskuntatoimii/kirjasto/aineistot/yhteiskunta/suomi-valtiona/Pages/Valtio-kasitteena.aspx] This is not definitive, but we do have two certainties: 1) All nations have the right to self determination (UN Charter Art. 1) 2) Scotland is a nation (history, fact, and UK constituational settlement). Beyond this, come the vagaries of international law and speculation. In essence, if a territory declares itself a nation, then the balance of nternational reaction ends up defining whether it is or isn't so, and a small country like England would not be able to control that process. Consider this: Rhodesia opted for UDI under a system that dispossessed the indigenous and majority population from their political rights in order to grant total authority to minority white settlers with no democratic mandate. They were unable to demonstrate acceptance of their independence claim by the majority. It was not widely accepted by the international community. If Scotland ever achieves independence, it will be via a process of democratic consent, which may occur with or without the blessing of Westminster. Should it be opposed by London, and rUK fails to recognise iScotland, then we have the classic Taiwan issue, but England in no China. What would the reactions be? Under the UN Charter, Scotland would be within it's legal rights to declare independence; the EU would quite likely support and recognise them; the US would desperately want Scotland to remain in NATO, and if Scotland so chose, London would probably find itself largely isolated and under great pressure to accept the reality - if it's decision was based on democratic consent. This won't happen though, because we won't have such a stupid government in Westminster, and they will understand that in democracies, the majority get their way. The extent to which Scotland can be said to be 'a Defined territory' is debateable in that there may well be areas within it which would wish to break away from Scotland itself - the Shetlands and some of the Border areas with England come to mind. This would probably particularly be true were there any attempt by Holyrood to declare UDI - the legitimacy of which would almost certainly be rejected by the Unionist population and create a scenario of administrative chaos with much of the population ceasing to accept the writ of Holyrood whilst continuing to show alleigance to Westminster. A similar situation might arise in Wales too were Independence a serious option. The more anglicised areas - Pembrokeshire- Monmouthshire - Flintshire - might well decide to make alternative arrangements.
Well, Scotland is a defined territory in the sense that since the early Middle Ages its borders have been defined and are still defined as the extent of its legal jurisdiction. Your argument leads to the conclusion that the UK is not defined territory as one part of it has a defined constitutional mechanism for leaving it and another has about 50% of its electorate which wishes to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 31, 2021 12:31:35 GMT
Apologies if I contributed in the raising of temperature of the recent discussion. The term 'socially conservative' has long been a huge bugbear of mine as it's been bandied about these last few years without what lies behind it apparently needing to be defined. Even the media has talked of the views of the 'socially conservative' ie in red wall seats needing to be taken more into account as if they're the ones being discriminated against. For me it's important to expose what is being encouraged/normalised here as what actually lies behind that phrase often ain't very pretty at all and goes against not just the spirit but sometimes even the law of British society in the 21st century. There's a reason the 'norms of the 20th century' are no longer societal norms and that's because of the great harm many of them caused. I think I'll take a break from here for a while. Domjg - don't do that. I think your contributions are always thoughtful and well argued and add to the discussions under way. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Dec 31, 2021 12:35:35 GMT
Mercian
Honour killings , female genital mutilation and forced marriage ( there is a difference between forced marriage and arranged marriage as well but it's more nuanced, the latter being common practice in the UK until the nineteenth century and also not currently illegal in the U.K.) most of these practices are not standard in any part of the world and are normally criminal acts, in the country of origin just as they are here , although they clearly do exist in both locations.
As the majority of migrants to the UK come from Europe,particularly Poland and Ireland this really isn't a significant issue in the vast majority of cases , there is no evidence of widespread incidence of traditional practice which amount to criminal acts amongst any immigrant communities in the U.K.
Attitudes to sexuality tend to reflect religious beliefs more than ethnicity.Age tends to have an influence also.
Few people with no religious affiliation feel any significant concerns about other people's life style choices as long as they don't impact on them, why should they?
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 31, 2021 12:42:22 GMT
I personally have no desire to force anyone to live their life a certain way, but that sentiment is not shared by large segments of those who are 'socially conservative'. The 'society' they want to conserve was largely based on the patriarchy, suppression of women, white privilege and class. I think that the most 'socially conservative' people in this country are some of those who have settled here from other parts of the world and seek to maintain the social practices of their original cultures. So white privilege isn't a feature of their world view. Practices such as forced marriage, FGM, honour killings and so on go way beyond things like a slight disapproval of homosexuality being presented as a lifestyle choice. To relate this back to politics, I have said before that the Labour party in particular will have problems reconciling the 'woke warriors' with their 'ethnic' supporters. Hi Mercian, yes I think you're right that other cultures can be more socially conservative than even the most conservative of our own but I don't think that was what the discussion was about. It was more focussed on why some people feel inclined to foist their own views on others through legislation and rules, particularly when their views are restrictive of others' freedoms. Issues like abortion should surely be left to individuals and their very specific situations. I have no problem with legislation that seeks to protect the rights of minorities, even socially conservative minorities ( eg religion etc) , as long as it doesn't impinge on other people's rights to behave as their moral code permits them. So good examples in the past were : making homosexuality illegal, banning abortion, preventing women from working after marriage (that was a recent as 1939 in the civil service and other bodies), refusing to allow women to vote etc etc. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 31, 2021 12:44:23 GMT
Apologies if I contributed in the raising of temperature of the recent discussion. The term 'socially conservative' has long been a huge bugbear of mine as it's been bandied about these last few years without what lies behind it apparently needing to be defined. Even the media has talked of the views of the 'socially conservative' ie in red wall seats needing to be taken more into account as if they're the ones being discriminated against. For me it's important to expose what is being encouraged/normalised here as what actually lies behind that phrase often ain't very pretty at all and goes against not just the spirit but sometimes even the law of British society in the 21st century. There's a reason the 'norms of the 20th century' are no longer societal norms and that's because of the great harm many of them caused. I think I'll take a break from here for a while. Agree entirely. Thete is an active and deliberate move to push back against the progress of the late 20th and early 21st century especially emanating from extreme Christian and other right wing American groups. As a by product we are already seeing a rise in homophobic attacks as bigots see their views as being validated. |
|
|
|
Post by catfuzz on Dec 31, 2021 12:46:11 GMT
Pete Maybe but it would of course be the same people posting. If there were thousands here rather than the around 100-150 would possibly be more of an issue. I guess the point though is these exchanges can remain there and away from the main board, where those who enjoy endlessly repeating the same points to see who will concede ground (on the internet of all places!) can do so. What drew me to this site was the usually humble way people from different view points can debate the key few topics of the day, usually around politics. What I don’t appreciate in the most recent few pages are the kind of discussions that already have a home in the likes of Twitter, Facebook and other such places where the whole gamut of cultural issues are endless debated, mostly fruitlessly, whereby each side of the debate is trying to catch out the other to admit a mistake, or concede the other has the right of it. Such an exercise is pointless and largely just adds to the growing volume of useless diatribe that needs to be scrolled through. So yes, have debate, express views, but keep it in-line with the issues of the day and try to avoid passive-aggressive swiping at others, and if the topic veers off course, try to put in another thread. I’ll post on the relevant thread, but I’ve long held that a ‘general chat’ thread works on these types of forums where anything goes and can be off-topic, so that those who simply come here to socialise and express their views without debating the substance of polling (and surrounding political / cultural debate) can do so. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 31, 2021 12:46:49 GMT
The extent to which Scotland can be said to be 'a Defined territory' is debateable in that there may well be areas within it which would wish to break away from Scotland itself - the Shetlands and some of the Border areas with England come to mind. This would probably particularly be true were there any attempt by Holyrood to declare UDI - the legitimacy of which would almost certainly be rejected by the Unionist population and create a scenario of administrative chaos with much of the population ceasing to accept the writ of Holyrood whilst continuing to show alleigance to Westminster. A similar situation might arise in Wales too were Independence a serious option. The more anglicised areas - Pembrokeshire- Monmouthshire - Flintshire - might well decide to make alternative arrangements.
Well, Scotland is a defined territory in the sense that since the early Middle Ages its borders have been defined and are still defined as the extent of its legal jurisdiction. Your argument leads to the conclusion that the UK is not defined territory as one part of it has a defined constitutional mechanism for leaving it and another has about 50% of its electorate which wishes to do so. Scotland did not take full control of Shetland until the late 15th century. Ditto the Orkneys. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 12:48:29 GMT
a) In the UK Parliament is Sovereign - full stop. The relevant international treaty is actually the Treaty of Westphalia which sets the principle of the sovereignty of individual nations as the basis for the international system. Scotland is recognised as part of the UK. Consequently other nations (you may get some exceptions who want to cause trouble such as North Korea) would only recognise Scottish Independence if it was the result of a legally legitimate vote which was in turn recognised by the UK govt and parliament. In the case that the Scottish Got just UDI'd, without the legitimacy of a vote to back such action or ran an 'illegal' ref, and there was a military action to maintain the coherence of the UK, the international community would view it as a Civil War. As the UK has a seat on the Security Council it could effectively veto any attempts by the UN to intervene on a sovereign matter. This is facially incorrect. The UK has already lost territories to unilaterally declared independence, the idea that the rest of the world has to obey what the British Parliament says hasn't been true for a very long time. The UK explicitly can *not* use its Security Council veto to block the UN recognising the independence of any of its former territories, something that has already been directly tested. The 'Peace of Westphalia' being a binding precedent of 'Westphalian Sovereignty' has been entirely deprecated in international law at this point. There is no 'Treaty of Westphalia' that defines 'Westphalian Sovereignty,' use of the 'Peace of Westphalia' was an after the fact rationalisation for WWI era 'Westphalian Sovereignty'. The UN explicitly identifies the Right to Self-Determination. unpo.org/article/4957Several different things are discussed here, and they are not really related (law, politics, principles, etc). So both of you have valid points. But the 1648 Treaty has nothing to do with any of the current things (although could be used for a narrative). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 12:57:27 GMT
Jay Blanc:
“ This is facially incorrect.”
A case of mistaken identity then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 12:59:53 GMT
Can we have some more posts on the hot topic of Rhodesian independence please?
Seems to have died off a bit...which is a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by catfuzz on Dec 31, 2021 13:03:12 GMT
To add to my earlier point - topics like the recent sleaze allegations, leadership theorising, energy prices and cost of living are fair game, (even more so if there’s polling) because these have polling implications. Of course tangetial topics surrounding are in my view okay if they are limited.
Topics around wider political / cultural / ideological topics such as speculating if the world is growing authoritarian, or if ‘woke’ culture is too pedantic should ideally be kept to a minimum if in the main board,especially if it’s just to state ones belief on the topic without any reference to current polling implications.
COVID I feel is still a relevant topic, but i believe should be about the societal impact on case numbers and hospitalisations / restrictions / opening up, and not whether vaccines / lockdowns work (it’s very clear they do).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 13:09:05 GMT
I personally have no desire to force anyone to live their life a certain way, but that sentiment is not shared by large segments of those who are 'socially conservative'. The 'society' they want to conserve was largely based on the patriarchy, suppression of women, white privilege and class. I think that the most 'socially conservative' people in this country are some of those who have settled here from other parts of the world and seek to maintain the social practices of their original cultures. So white privilege isn't a feature of their world view. Practices such as forced marriage, FGM, honour killings and so on go way beyond things like a slight disapproval of homosexuality being presented as a lifestyle choice. To relate this back to politics, I have said before that the Labour party in particular will have problems reconciling the 'woke warriors' with their 'ethnic' supporters. Nonsense. There is no danger of the things you mention being made legal, but there is a constant threat that racist, homophobic and sexist views will affect law-making. Most of threat comes from religious bigotry (see Rees-Mogg) rather than anything to do with immigration. Your narrative is jus that, a confected narrative against "woke" to cover up old bigotries (see the Daily Mail) |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 31, 2021 13:28:30 GMT
Hi jayblanK
Not sure what you mean by being 'facially' incorrect? I''ll try not to take it personally.
The UK explicitly can *not* use its Security Council veto to block the UN recognising the independence of any of its former territories, something that has already been directly tested.'
Please can you provide an example of this - in 1965 re Rhodesia the UN backed the UK's position that it was illegal and the UK didn't use the veto? That was the first colony/dependency since the US to UDI from GB. Since then I think it’s only been Anguilla to UDI from the UK, which wasn't recognised and re-turned to being a British Crown Colony in '69. So please can you provide an example of where the use of a veto of this sort has been 'tested'. Also one thing in this debate people such as yourself are missing is that Scotland isn't a dependency or colony but an integral part of the UK. The only comparable historic situation would be with Ireland, where it was really only after the Anglo-Irish treaty when international recognition was given, not in 1919 when the Declaration of Independence was made.
We still very much have a state based international system - go and speak to some diplomats, especially Chinese and Russian ones on this topic. Also International law and domestic laws operate very differently, the former being based primarily on agreements (treaties/conventions etc) between states. Its not a question of other countries doing as the UK says - its how the international system and actors in it operate. States in general tend to be very reticent of intervening in domestic issues of other states, which a UDI un-backed by 'legitimate' ref would be seen as, as many have similar 'issues' within their own boarders. Attempts to apply western ‘liberal’ views and norms via the international system are very much in retreat these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Dec 31, 2021 13:38:37 GMT
To add to my earlier point - topics like the recent sleaze allegations, leadership theorising, energy prices and cost of living are fair game, (even more so if there’s polling) because these have polling implications. Of course tangetial topics surrounding are in my view okay if they are limited. As one of the few sites where it (fortunately) is not not an echo chamber of identical viewpoints, it is possibly too easy to forget that, for many people, politics (or at least the polling that will indicate future winners) is dull, with little engagement.
Hence, the issues that excite the politically aware (as, almost by default, anyone on this site is) often do not cut through to the "I vote every few years, but don't expect me to pay attention the rest of the time" group. Partygate being one of those: when it is referenced by Ant and Dec, then it has become a nationally important issue for those who don't "do"politics.
Others have pointed out that, often, it is not the detail of the story that cuts through, but that {whatever} was just another example to add to the list. Hence, perception matters far more than actuality.
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 31, 2021 13:41:56 GMT
Hi laszlo
But the 1648 Treaty has nothing to do with any of the current things (although could be used for a narrative).
It’s the basis of the current international system - international relations 101, and the continued primacy and centrality of 'states' in the international system is why I cited it in describing how states would react if the Scotland made a UDI. Some like to think we now have a 'rules' based international system, but in reality that is only partially true in some areas and only where it is in the interest of states to follow the rules do they actually do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladyvalerie on Dec 31, 2021 13:48:49 GMT
In 1975 I wrote a thesis on abortion, and a woman’s right to choose, for my degree.
And here, nearly 50 years later, we have men pontificating on whether women should be able to have abortions..
I stopped visiting the site in September cos AW had given up. I appeared to be the only self-identifying female posting and UKPR was like a Club for old buffers.
With honourable exceptions, here we go again.
|
|
|
|
Post by James E on Dec 31, 2021 13:57:39 GMT
@ Ladyvalerie
To put a positive spin on things, I believe that Barbara and Mandoninist have brought about at least a 200% increase in the number of women regularly contributing to UKPR (2); there may be more.
On the abortion 'debate' - I've been surprised to read some of the views expressed here, too. There are very few in the UK who would want to remove existing rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 13:58:24 GMT
Interesting to note that this theme of discussion started here yesterday following the socially conservative views expressed firmly by graham - a Labour supporter. So I think you are right to remind us that social conservatives can be found across the political spectrum, and in cultures not native to this country. As is so often the case ,discussion of this subject ,which has deeply interesting and important relevance for the way we live and interact , is debased by simplistic stereotyping and political bias. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 31, 2021 13:59:37 GMT
In 1975 I wrote a thesis on abortion, and a woman’s right to choose, for my degree. And here, nearly 50 years later, we have men pontificating on whether women should be able to have abortions.. I stopped visiting the site in September cos AW had given up. I appeared to be the only self-identifying female posting and UKPR was like a Club for old buffers. With honourable exceptions, here we go again. Thank you Lady Valerie. That's why I think it's important for female posters to stay and post. The more we can do to encourage more women onto this site the better the chance to alter the tone of board beyond abstruse historical issues, cricket/football and the technical specifications of fridges. That's why I think discussion of culture issues is important. They may not be important to older white men but they're less than half the population. Issues like that affect polling and therefore are right to be heard on this board. Otherwise we might as well give up. I bang on a lot about gender issues but that's only on here really. Elsewhere the alternative viewpoint of 50% of the population is better represented. Here we are few voices so it's important to keep those voices heard. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 31, 2021 14:03:00 GMT
I think that the most 'socially conservative' people in this country are some of those who have settled here from other parts of the world and seek to maintain the social practices of their original cultures. So white privilege isn't a feature of their world view. Practices such as forced marriage, FGM, honour killings and so on go way beyond things like a slight disapproval of homosexuality being presented as a lifestyle choice. To relate this back to politics, I have said before that the Labour party in particular will have problems reconciling the 'woke warriors' with their 'ethnic' supporters. Nonsense. There is no danger of the things you mention being made legal, but there is a constant threat that racist, homophobic and sexist views will affect law-making. Most of threat comes from religious bigotry (see Rees-Mogg) rather than anything to do with immigration. Your narrative is jus that, a confected narrative against "woke" to cover up old bigotries (see the Daily Mail) I was simply making the point that there are much stronger versions of social conservatism than those that you complain of, yet somehow these are rarely mentioned. People are criticised for having 20th century views, but those with 10th century views seem to get a free pass. And it's not confected. Here is a link from a source that you might respect more than the Daily Mail. www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c207p54m43qt/honour-killings |
|
