I'll not be opining on the death of Philip. This is because I do not believe in monarchy. I see them as having no right to a higher station than any other person. I consider everyone to be equal.
To me this is a case of a normal 99-year-old person who has had a good run in life, passing away. I have sympathy for his family for their loss, as I would for any person who has lost a loved one. But not knowing Philip personally, I can opine no further than that.
I can attribute no special meaning to his passing above what I would consider being appropriate for any other person I don't know passing away.
*can't opine
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The policy of the greens that they would seek to use the powers of holyrood to get rid of trident is complete and utter nonsense. There's only one way not to have trident in Scotland and that is NOT TO BE in a nuclear state like the UK.
Trident can only be removed from our shores by one means - independence followed by a direct order to the UK Government to remove its nuclear garbage from next to our second-largest city with a deadline after which we'll dump it on WM's front porch.
This is not an issue like fracking where you can simply block it by declaring a moratorium. These weapons are already there and good luck trying to rid Scotland of them under the UK Government.
Aidan O'Neill QC commences his submission to the court by referencing the declaration of Scotland (Arbroath) on the day of its anniversary for its absolutely unequivocal assertion and statement that in Scotland,
sovereignty rests with the people.
Aidan O'Neill states that it is fascinating to compare the Claim of 1689 to the English Bill of rights.
There is a different notion of sovereignty in England compared to Scotland. In England, sovereignty filters down from the king or queen. In Scotland, it rests with the people.
Comon people! it's this sort of thing that just ends up screwing us all. Sure it's awesome to get out of lockdown but all you're doing is causing cases to go through the roof again and into another lockdown. It's not a winning strategy!
All it does is put case's back up and give the politicians more excuses to curtail more of our civil liberties. Now that lockdown is ending, how about we not all screw ourselves. Let's just keep distance, wear masks, and clean hands.
And perhaps if we look at a park and go....."I can't stay at least 2m from other people..."then maybe not go in, for your own welfare"?
You know there are carers and disabled people who can count on one hand the number of times they've been out since last march because of this.
Just reading the documents for the #PeoplesAS30. The Lord Advocate actually says, and I quote:
"The pursuer contends that the Scottish Government has given an "undertaking that it will introduce and promote it as Government Bill before the next Scottish Parliament" and that this undertaking constitutes an enforceable legal promise.
"The document contains no such undertaking; nor could the present Scottish Government bind the Government to be formed after the forthcoming general election."
For 22 years, politicians have failed to answer a simple question. When 10,000 ordinary people sought to have it answered, they proclaimed that only politicians should be allowed to answer the question they have failed to.
We live in a nation where the people are supposed to be sovereign. The literal definition of sovereignty is "where power is derived". Telling 10,000 people and their representative you don't have the right to ask a simple question about your own country is not respect...
...for that sovereignty. It's a statement that you believe yourself to be above the peoples right to ask questions - that's just a fact.
But then to use the tax base of those same people to waste time, money and energy...
Politicians make promises and often they break them. I don't. I made a promise to do everything I possibly can to protect the peoples action and to push for the voices of the 10,000 who backed it.
It's extremely easy to criticise when you're not in full possession of the facts, and trust me, if you were, your hair would probably curly. I've asked people to give me a better option. They haven't. I therefore must take the least bad option to try and protect the case.
I do note, however, that those who have used the case for electoral advantage over the past year seem deafly silent on this and have also failed to come up with an alternative. Or should I say have avoided doing so. Go figure.