VERY important thread for two reasons:
1. Politicians are very good at misleading the public that their policies are forced upon them, rather than choices they embrace
2. These trends have continued under five different Tory Prime Ministers; the leader changes, the failings don’t
We have lost over 700 followers today. Clearly something is going on with Twitter. And at a time when our postal and telecom workers need support like never before.
Please RT this, follow us and help get the message out there.
#StandByYourPost
The problem is not simply that capitalism produces too much, but that it produces the wrong stuff: SUVs, fast fashion and planned obsolescence instead of public transit, affordable housing and universal healthcare. It overuses resources and still fails to meet even basic needs.
It's interesting to ask what's *really* going on with the reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling today. Because it's not as if anybody in Scotland particularly wanted a consultative referendum conducted by Holyrood without Westminster's approval.🧵 👇
I think today was a much bigger deal than people realise. I don't know if it's the beginning of the end of the Union, but I suspect constitutional politics in the UK is about to become even more messy and turbulent.
And if you think that's nonsense, I wonder if you underestimate the emotional attachment people have to their sense of nationhood. What is a nation that doesn't have the right to self-determination? Surely, something significant has been taken away.
The word I keep coming back to is humiliation. I don't think Scotland is a colony as such, but it's equally wrong to ignore the basis of that claim. After today, Scotland can be seen as a nation that is unable to achieve statehood without the permission of another state.
Instead, the UK government is effectively saying: The answer is no now, and will be no for as long as we like for reasons we don't have to specify, because we have the power, and there's nothing you can do about it.
My very quick summary of today’s Supreme Court (SC) decision
1) The SC had the right to decide on this
2) Legally the SC says that a referendum does not need to end the Union and so it is legal.
BUT……
3) Practically a referendum might end the Union and in case it does the SC will not let Scots decide if they want to stay in a supposedly voluntary union because, they claim, being denied that choice does not oppress them.
4) I think you’ll find it does……
AND….
5) And in case of doubt, I suggest this was a colonial court making a colonial decision, undermining their other argument.
In other words, the decision undermined its own validity.
#Scotland
“The verdict’s finally in. Scotland is nothing but a hoax invented by Northerners to scare their children, and can be disregarded without consequence. As it already was.”
Supreme Court says Scotland can't have independence referendum without permission from Westminster.
Lab likely to win big majority. Starmer will deny Scots right to self-determination.
What's that word for when a country exercises dominion over another against will of its people?
@LesleyRiddoch @Time4Scotland 6.30 in Selkirk.
A group of local Borderers in Saor Alba Pipe Band will be there.
6 to 8 pipers and drummers.
🎶🏴✊️🏴🎶
@AngryScotland There’s such as thing as unfair contract terms. You can write a contract with any restriction you wish but the courts are supposed to invalidate any terms that are unfair. Did anyone make that argument during this case?