Moreover, this judgement in itself renders it weak and vulnerable – once again subjecting the independence of the Scottish legal system to that of the British state. In referring the matter to the final judgement of the Supreme Court in London the implication is that the Court of Session is not the highest court in Scotland – that it has no real independence, that Scots Law must be tested through a higher British court before it can be considered valid, legal and binding in and over this so-called union of equals. This strikes me as utterly pathetic.
In sum, for as long as Scotland and its valuable natural resources are of economic and strategic value to the British state, the law will function to preserve the integrity of the British state – even if that means denying the democratic will of the majority of Scottish people. The familiar argument against this assertion; that we had an independence referendum in September 2014, is a facile one. Scotland was granted an independence referendum in 2012 by David Cameron, a serial gambler, in the assumption we would lose.
Three days after the reports of his alleged behaviour were reported widely in the media, Mr Thomson took to Twitter to deny the allegations, saying they were “from anonymous sources” and “completely untrue,” and that “no complaint has been made to the police.” Not surprisingly, the Conservative-aligned newspaper The Telegraph reported the distress these allegations had caused Thomson and reiterated the point that the matter had not formally been taken to the police.
There are perfectly good reasons we do not tolerate the killing of animals for fun. There are good reasons we do not put up with needless animal cruelty – ordinarily. But above a certain wealth threshold the rules change. Rich people can do things for “unique” pleasure that are forbidden to the rest of us, and the state – in the pocket of the rich and ruled by the rich – makes blood sports perfectly legal – for the rich. People like Larysa and Jason sicken me. They are disgusting. But they are only symptoms of the real problem; a country that allows them to do these horrible things.
Yes, you read that right. According to the unionist media in Scotland a “civil war” erupted in the SNP last Friday following the resignation of Alex Salmond. It didn’t matter that no one in the SNP and no one in the wider independence movement noticed the outbreak of hostilities; fake news is just that – fake news. Yet, to mark the occasion – even as the BBC’s political editor Brian Taylor, “journalist,” tried to downgrade the fictitious infighting to “turmoil” – independentistas took to social media to juke it out with the hashtag “#SNPCivilWar.”
We must also commend Alex Salmond on the grace with which he resigned. He appealed to the membership not to follow him, saying that he would – at the soonest opportunity after he has cleared his name – reapply for membership. In doing this he has put the cause of independence and the unity of the party and movement before his own personal feelings of anger and humiliation – which he must no doubt be feeling. In expressing his love for the SNP and the independence movement he said that they have been the defining commitment of his life...
When the Advocate General says Westminster is sovereign and the Scottish parliament is not he is presuming a definition of sovereignty which is fundamentally foreign to the Scottish national constitution. More than this, he is assuming a unicity – a singular notion of sovereignty and power in a singular British state – that has never before been made explicit. He is giving England’s idea of sovereignty priority over that of Scotland. This engenders a worrying logical problem; unicity renders the heretofore existing duality of legal understandings impossible.
Where does this mindless obedience lead us? We know fine well where this behaviour leads; history teaches us all we need to know, and this is precisely why we refer to the defence of “only following orders” as the Nuremberg defence. This leads to the deprivation of civil and political rights, the creation of categories of political crimes, and to the exact same thinking that brought us the re-education camps and concentration camps of the totalitarian and authoritarian régimes of the not so distant past – and this is no facile comparison.