Derek McCabe

#Recovery #OHCA #MiH #SUD
#Dignity #Justice #Welfare

[Voice of Rabbis @voiceofrabbis]

The Jewish people were born at Mount Sinai through the Torah, not through residence in any particular land.

Moses himself was fully Jewish, yet never set foot in the Land of Israel.

That land remains holy to us.

It is not, however, our national homeland.

Zionism transformed a sacred religious inheritance into a political “fatherland.”

In doing so, it replaced the covenant with G-d with territory and statehood.

Judaism is defined by Torah and our relationship with the Creator — not by borders or a modern political project.


Zionism is not Judaism.

[Sara Salyers @SSalyers2]

Sorry for doing this but it is just too good a teaching moment’ to waste. What the poster, Mark, has said (below) is exactly what the British state wants to believe and wants us to believe. But this represents a combination of ignorance with certainty which we encounter *only* in the domestic arena. (Depressingly)

Here’s the reality, codified and binding on all UN member states.

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
PART ONE
THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT OF A STATE

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article l
Responsibility of a State for its internationally wrongful acts
Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.

Article 2
Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State
There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or
omission:
(a) is attributable to the State under international law; and
(b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.

Article 3
Characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful
The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international
law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal
law.

Now: the assertion of the British state of the right to control Scotland depends on whether there is an ongoing violation of international law. UK constitutional tradition upheld by the Supreme Court says it can decide whether its control of Scotland or the union is lawful. It can decide whether its control has committed it is committing a crime against Scotland. That’s its constitutional position. But that supremacy of domestic, constitutional law withers in the light of the ARSIWA code. Or as Professor Elliott explains:
https://t.co/xi0pG4pYR4

[BladeoftheSun @BladeoftheS]

As the UK plans to cut all its budgets to spend it all on Nuclear Bombs and Nuclear Submarines, let me point out that Nuclear Bombs are completely useless.

Either you launch them and start a Nuclear Holocaust, or you fire back when they hit you.

But either way, YOU are dead.

[Sara Salyers @SSalyers2]

🤣 I suggest you look up the statutorily required Scottish Coronation Oath/Oath of Accession and compare it with the gobbledegook pronounced by every English monarch since George I and labelled ‘the Oath of Accession’. (How nice of the English state to write a new oath for the Scottish bit of England. Nothing lawful about that though.)
Next explain how extending the English coronation oath to Scotland is creating a new Crown? if you check you’ll find the so-called British crown is just the same old English crown it was before the union. The annexation was brazen. Harley laughed about it and the speaker of the HoC boasted about it.

But then came the UN and decolonisation. Suddenly, the treaty is definitely in place; (stop looking at the facts on the ground you at the back!) Annexation? What Annexation?! Partners don’t you know in a jolly old voluntary union which created a whole new state. (It looks exactly like the old English state? Pure coincidence old chap.)

[Christophe Dorigné-Thomson @thomsonchris]

@UN Now still an English colony, Scotland will join soon; having started its decolonisation from the English colonial state.

[sarah @sahouraxo]

Israel dropped a bomb on a medical warehouse in Gaza.

The explosion carved a crater more than 10 meters deep.

This was not a military target.

This was a warehouse storing essential medical supplies — needed to keep civilians alive.

[Sara Salyers @SSalyers2]

Thank you for the question and the opportunity to explain;

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling applies only to internal UK/British law because it is a domestic court.

The UK Parliament, however, considers itself sovereign even over international law. Something of a hangover from the days of empire perhaps but in any case liable to collapse when faced with the reality of international law; https://t.co/ZCOMF38OmL…
The SC follows that principle - mostly - but while it can believe what it likes about the rash of that sovereignty and make any pronouncement on any matter it likes, it has *no* competence to decide matters of international law.

The following, from our response to a recent report by a Scottish parliamentary committee, may help to explain:

Supreme Court ruling of 2022:
“There are insuperable obstacles in the path of the intervener’s argument based on self-determination… the principle of self-determination is simply not in play here.”

5.3.10 If the principle of self-determination is not in play, the Supreme Court has effectively ruled that Scotland is not a dependency or colony. That question…, however, depends on the true constitutional foundation of the United Kingdom, on whether or not Scotland is a partner in a union, as the British state claims, or a dependency. And that determination is not for any domestic court to make.
5.3.11 The UK government declares in its submission to this inquiry that its constitutional foundation is the Treaty of Union, an international agreement subject to
international, not domestic law, and its ratifying Acts. Since the UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to determine a matter of international law, the report cannot, therefore, rely on its finding on a question which is beyond its legal competence to determine.
5.3.12 … the question of Scotland’s legal identity and status within the state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has yet to be adjudicated in the appropriate forum - that of international law.
5.3.13 A related and important matter is that, not only is the question of Scotland’s right to self- determination incapable of being established on the say so of the British state, (that is, in any domestic forum), but there is a further question of culpability under international law.
5.3.12 The finding that 'the principle of self-determination is simply not in play' represents a significant overreach by the United Kingdom supreme Court…
5.3.12.2 This finding also functions, however, as an ultra vires exoneration of the British state, an exoneration implicit in the dismissal of any right to self-determination which also dismisses any possibility that there exists a colonial situation - an ‘internationally wrongful act’ for which the remedy in law is an absolute and inalienable right to self-determination.
5.3.12.3 Because the Supreme Court is an organ of the UK state, the state has effectively acted as judge in its own cause, executing a self- exoneration from what is, potentially, an internationally wrongful act:
Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) Article 3)
“The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under
international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions...”
Thus the state clears itself of the crime of colonisation - through its own judicial
organ, its Supreme Court.
The state *cannot*, however, act as "judge in its own cause" using its own Supreme Court to decide a question of international law.

(This has been checked for accuracy by an internationally recognised lawyer. Hope it helps.)

[Jvnior @Jvnior]

LIVE FOOTAGE: IDF soldiers throw grenades over the West Bank border to kill children and women.

How is this not considered terrorism?

[Earth Hippy 🌎🕊️💚 @hippyygoat]

Gary Linker
“It did not matter to me losing my job”

“What mattered to me was losing my dignity."

It's quite unbelievable that anyone should be worried about calling out a genocide.

[Angry Pict @SymbolStones]

A must watch - Sara Salyers details why Scotland's lawful constitution should be restored, and the continuing unlawful annexation of Scotland ended.

The current roadblock is a matter of international, not domestic law.
https://t.co/Mpp8QmWYeR

[Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg]

This is awful. Beaufort was one of the great Crusader castles and an irreplaceable piece of world heritage.
I was built by Fulk, King of Jerusalem and eventually captured by Saladin. Retaken by the Christians it was a Knights Templar castle until raken by the Ottoman Baibars.

[Bill Cruickshank @BjCruickshank]

In 2014 British Civil Servants based in Scotland actively tried to prevent Scotland become an independent country: https://t.co/J18TnBoyRG Yet they tell us Scotland is not a colony of England.

[Still Yours For Scotland @decolonise_Scot]

The Theory of Colonialism Was Written by the Colonised. Read It & You Are Reading Scotland. Fanon, Memmi, Césaire, the Latin American decolonial school, read against the Scottish case. Engaging with Liberation Scotland's Colonial Markers [Ref: SCM–CM0a]
https://t.co/Nam7ulceOM

[ScotNews @indyscotnews]

From 'UN Decolonisation Process Begins'

"What the treaty says about the two crowns, you know, a single kingdom, which meant a single crown, and a single parliament, you know, joined parliament. It never happened.

"What happened was that England continued and changed its name to Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom of Great Britain. But constitutionally, it was exactly the same as it always had been.

"In fact, no new state came into existence. So the UK has been telling porkie pies to the whole international community about how it was born, how it came into existence. That's all nonsense.

"All that happened was that England continued, changed its name, added Scotland as a colony, and then strutted about the world stage, calling itself Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

"That state doesn't exist. It's a fiction. It's a semantic fraud. There's a wonderful quote from Daniel Defoe's spymaster, who became Queen Anne's first minister, a guy called Robert Harley.

"And he said: 'Other nations, and I mean our allies, call us,' I haven't got it word perfect, 'but call us perfidious. They say that since we have violated our treaty with Scotland and we laugh at the idea of fundamental and inviolable articles of union, then it's small wonder if we treat other nations as we do.'

"And he thought that was funny. You know, that other countries say they're perfidious, because basically threw the treaty in the bin and just annexed Scotland.

"You know, that state has never changed."
@LiberationScot @ScotSalvo @SSalyers2 @thomsonchris @CraigMurrayOrg @Broonpot @PAlanMcMahon @IndyScotParty @LiberateScot @larabirdsnp @JNHanvey

[Sara Salyers @SSalyers2]

In my heart I know someone is getting very worried about what independence will mean, what it will take and - help ma bob - what if those Liberationists actually get the green light for a Scottish right to external self determination?
(How many times has the National posted this today?)
@ScotNational posting again without engagement makes you look a bit frantic. The real question is why?
We don’t have an election looming or a sensitive referendum negotiation going on with the English state. Quite the opposite.
So I have to conclude that something else about bypassing the coloniser represents a threat. (And please don’t give me the lie that for their own good, people mustn’t believe in any other legal route apart from the kidnapper state agreeing to let Scotland go.)

Here again is the reply:

1. Scotland will never be free via Westminster agreement and that has been made crystal clear.
2. The constitutional arrangement between the nations of England and Scotland is a matter of international and not domestic law. That so many figures in the Scottish political establishment do not understand this by now is shocking.
3. Following the correct procedure for a question of international law is not a shortcut.
4. While it is frustrating to have our repeatedly provided, carefully reasoned responses to this blinkered argument completely ignored (as it is repeated ad nauseam in tones of convincing authority), it is both foolish and disrespectful to ignore figures of the calibre of Robert Black KC, Alfred de Zayas https://t.co/M3ZZb98Z8i… and
George Katrougalis https://t.co/J5IUwPPd8u….
5, This is fundamentally a question of international not domestic law. Once settled at international level, it *then* becomes a matter for political campaigning and persuasion of the Scottish people. Then and only then. It should always have been a domestic and political question but the English state has ensured that, while it convinces our gaslit population that Scottish independence is entirely a domestic affair, it had also ensured that its abuse of international law (misrepresenting the real character of the UK) would prevent Scotland liberating itself without its permission. Which means it will hold onto Scotland permanently unless we clear the legal impediment in international law.
6. If our campaign and arguments were ‘nonsense’ - as the parochial ‘experts’ within the British bubble would have you believe - we would have been so advised by at least one of the legal experts we have consulted. These include an advocate who has represented states on the question of external self-determination.
7. Liberation Scotland is making considerable progress towards clearing the roadblock under international law. Until then anyone peddling the myths of ‘persuasion’ as a weapon against the absolutism of English domestic law (which can make or unmake *any law whatever*) is fooling themselves and, far worse, fooling others.
8. Ignoring what the international community has to say about the international issue is not only ignorant it is the kind of blind stupidity which results from finding yourself perched on an ideological rock while the tide comes in. I suspect the inability to do as @rblackqc has done and say publicly ‘I was wrong’ has far more to do with this ‘argument’ than commitment to Scotland’s freedom.

We intend to invite Alfred and other international figures to address our next conference where I’m certain he will be ready to explain all of this as slowly and carefully as you might wish. Perhaps by then you will be willing to listen and we can all, finally get onto the same page?

[iScot Magazine @iScotNews]

You are incorrect. Top-band receipts rose by £193m, the number paying the top rate rose by 17%, and Scotland’s total income-tax take rose by 9%.
The £22m is one analyst’s estimate of what *might* have happened at 45%, based on theoretical assumptions he admits cannot be proven. He says this in his report, which is wilfully ignored and promoted as a £22M loss - when it is nothing of the sort.

[Sovereign 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👑 @SovereignBain]

Long before anyone in Scotland had heard the German tale of Rumpelstiltskin, the Lowland folk told their own version, and hers is a far cleverer story.
Her name was Whuppity Stoorie, and the tale comes from the green country of the Scottish south. It begins with a poor young mother at a tumbledown farm called Kittlerumpit, her husband gone, her only sow suddenly taken ill and dying, and no way in the world to feed her baby. As she wept by the pig sty, a strange little woman in green came walking up the road and offered to cure the sow, but at a price that every Scottish granny knew to fear. In return, the fairy would take the woman's child.
The poor mother had no choice but to agree, though her heart broke, for the old rule was that such a bargain could only be undone one way. If she could discover the fairy's true name before the debt was called in, the creature would lose all her power and the bargain would be void. And so the young woman went searching in despair through the whin bushes on the knowe, until she heard, from behind a little green hill, the fairy woman singing merrily to herself as she spun, certain no one could hear. And in her song she sang her own name.
When the little green woman came striding back to claim the child, the mother played frightened and foolish, pretending to beg. She offered up the sow, then herself, drawing out the game. And then, at the very last moment, she stood tall and spoke the fairy's secret name aloud. Whuppity Stoorie. The creature let out a shriek of rage, for a named fairy is a powerless one, and she was flung backwards down the road and never seen again.
It is a story about a mother's love and a mother's wit, about an ordinary Scottish woman with nothing to her name outsmarting a creature of the Otherworld. That is the shape of so many Scottish folk tales, where cleverness and courage beat power every time.🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👑⚔️🧬💪🔥🩸 #ScottishRoots🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[Bill Cruickshank @BjCruickshank]

Once again @SSalyers2 nails why any Brit organised independence referendum will be a complete con: https://t.co/5v2PluEm5i Scots cannot fall for the same Brit dirty trick as in 2014. Any independence referendum be must free from British Anglo State interference.

[YES Brechin @BrechinYes2]

The Unionists, both Scots and English all of a sudden want to develop North Sea Oil. Those same Unionists in 2014 told us it would be gone by 2024. Why do we hang on to the busted flush that is Westminster. The only time Scotland features for them is when they' re on the take.

[Sovereign 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👑 @SovereignBain]

On April 6, 1320, a letter was sent from Arbroath Abbey to Pope John XXII in Avignon. It was signed with the seals of eight earls and thirty-one barons of Scotland. It is one of the most remarkable documents in European medieval history, and one sentence from it has been quoted in parliamentary speeches, court judgments, and declarations of independence around the world for seven hundred years.

The Declaration of Arbroath was written primarily to persuade the Pope to recognize Robert Bruce as Scotland's legitimate king and to support Scottish independence from England. The political argument it made was sophisticated: Scotland had existed as an independent kingdom since ancient times, had been unjustly attacked by Edward I, and had chosen Bruce not merely by hereditary right but by the will of the people.

The famous sentence that has traveled furthest reads: 'For so long as a hundred of us remain alive, we will never on any conditions be subjected to English rule. For it is not for glory or riches or honours that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up except with life itself.' The document also contains what some legal scholars consider a remarkably early statement of conditional monarchy: even Bruce himself could be deposed if he submitted to English rule.

Do you think the Declaration of Arbroath was primarily a piece of political theology for the Pope, a genuine statement of principle, or something that managed to be both simultaneously?🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👑⚔️🧬🔥🩸👊💪

#DeclarationOfArbroath #WarsOfIndependence #ScottishHistory #RobertTheBruce #HighlandHeritage