Given a Bloomburg recent article I am looking for a story on SOL which contains a "fictional) TV interview in which the main character tears a Scottish Independence supporter apart with answers which the proponent cannot answer except "we will decide" or "we haven't decided" etc. The story itself is about a man who inherits a Scottish title as well as having US citizenship and creates pollution free energy
Maybe "My Race is Royal" by Scotland the Brave
https://storiesonline.net/a/ScotlandtheBrave
https://storiesonline.net/s/67393/my-race-is-royal
Thanks Sunseeker but not that one.
The one I am after the main character is, I think, American and much of the action takes place in the USA. The earlier part of the story is about a new method of creating electricity with no pollution He ?inherits the Scottish estate and becomes a Lord and receives UK citizenship
ian181 many thanks - yes, that is it.
Now I have to just find that tiny bit of it being the interview showing just how unprepared Scotland is for self rule! To think I have Magestic as a favourite!
Now I have to just find that tiny bit of it being the interview showing just how unprepared Scotland is for self rule!
Part 12: https://storiesonline.net/s/63138:107228/part-12-magestic.
Now I have to just find that tiny bit of it being the interview showing just how unprepared Scotland is for self rule!
Why do you think Scotland is ill prepared for self rule?
Because they can't afford to go alone.
And that's based on what assumption? Was that written on the side of a big red bus? I'm always interested in improving my education/knowledge, so I look forward to the reason(s) :)
Not meaning to be 'argumentative'? But is a fictional story on an erotic stories website the best place to find evidence for making international decisions?
So, out of curiosity, I read the part in question and oh boy…. I don't know where the writer got their information from, but boy, it's woeful. Granted it was written in 2010, but really, there is no excuse for some of the errors.
Population of Scotland is 3 million? Yes, it was back in 1860. For the last 80 years it's been a fairly steady 5 mill.
The writer doesn't seem to know much about the oil industry either. The first oil rig to find black gold was the Sea Quest in the early 70s. The SQ was built in Ireland for 3.5 million, and pretty much made all of that back within the first year of service. At first, the oil industry was supplied by fishing crews and local farmers. The farmers alternating between their farms and the rigs and the same for the fishermen. Farmers were good employees as not only were they capable of working in bad weather, but they were also mechanically competent and able to adapt to problems with limited materials. In fact many oil industry firms were STARTED by local farmers building equipment on their farms on their weeks off and shipping it out to rigs via fishing boats. (but hey why let the truth spoil a good rant).
The author also claims that the oilfields cost billions to start production. Maybe over the last 50 years it has, but it cost millions to start, and like I said, most of that was made back within a few years. So to claim that it cost 'billions to start' is just pure fantasy.
Another interesting fact, when the independence issue was raised at the last referendum in 2014, the oil and gas fields were running out with only a few years life left in them. A few weeks after the result, several large oil and gas reserves were suddenly 'found' and calculations as to existing stock levels were found to be 'flawed' and there is more there than they thought. Which is darkly amusing because if another referendum is held, the government can't pull that little stunt again. Well, they can try, whether they will be believed again is a another matter and one for the Scots to decide.
Military: Scotland used to have some of the best infantry units going. Don't take my word for it, it's there in history. The UK government has pretty much decimated the Scottish Regiments. It doesn't have a navy. That is correct. The UK government destroyed the shipyards (shit happens) but really, why do you want a navy? If you have a navy, some twat will end up wanting to use it in global expansion. So a couple of dinghy's for coastal patrols is all you really need. Airforce, again, Scotland doesn't really have one, but then like I said previous, why would you really want one? Unless you plan to invade the rest of the world. If push comes to shove, I'm pretty sure Scotland could build some planes and paddle boats if required.
'The UK has no military camps in the EU other than Germany and Cyprus' Which is true if you use Wikipedia as your source of information. Last time I looked, Italy was in the EU along with Norway (ish) Sweden, Norway, Belgium and they all have UK military bases. So you think all those articles about UK troops artic warfare training in Norway or high altitude training in France and Italy, etc, etc popped in a MK3 Ford Escort, jumped on a ferry and bimbled there on a day trip, or do you think they, you know, had a camp there that they trained out of… I'll let you, the reader decide.
Life expectancy: It's low, but what do you expect from a nation that loves to deep fat fry everything, from chocolate to the neighbour's dog.
Education: Yeah sticky one, that's a right mess in the UK at the moment anyway. The UK doesn't need more accountants/stockbrokers and media darlings, it does need builders and plumbers and you don't need to go to university for that.
Water: Scotland has shit loads of it. It likes raining there, and if it's not raining it's snowing. It has so much of the damn stuff, that not only does it pipe most of it down south to England, it throws in some barley and ships it to the rest of the world in bottles. So if Scotland buggers off, England is in a pickle as a good chunk of its water comes from there.
Electricity. Guess what, Scotland has shit loads of that as well, and guess what, most of that goes South as well, so if they leave, well, power cuts for Londonshire...
But if Scotland leaves the UK and re-joins the Euro, then they are just replacing one master for another. Are they? Are you sure that they are not just being contrarian? And that a desire to do the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of England is just a cunning ploy as an excuse to say "We don't want to do that, so we are going to go our own way.." And then when they go their own way, they suddenly decide, that you know what? They don't really want to be part of Hitlers EU. Sorry did I say Hitler? Bad me, I meant to say Merkels EU.
Scotland is a net receiver of English taxes. Yes that is correct, because England is a net receiver of Scotland's wealth (Oil, gas, water, electricity, mining- oh, did I forget to mention that Scotland ships most of its country to England and further afield in the form of granite, sand, ore and other boring mud stuff? And who benefits from that money? Correct! It's England!) So if England was to actually start paying for the goods it receives (water, minerals, gas, oil, electricity) then it wouldn't need to give Scotland money because Scotland would be earning it fair and square.
Really, if you think about it, why would England want to keep a mill stone like Scotland around its neck if there wasn't a really good reason? If Scotland really was that useless, do you not think they would just fuck the porridge wogs off and laugh as they descended into skirt wearing sabre rattling blue faced, carrot topped pygmies, and after a few months when Scotland looks like Libya, move back in, take control and say "Settle down children mum and dad are back in charge."
It certainly seems strange that Scotland is not the smallest country in the world, yet according to England, it is completely incapable of supporting itself like smaller countries do. Countries like, oh, Southern Ireland for that matter, which is not only geographically smaller, but has a smaller population than Scotland and NOWHERE NEAR the same amount of natural resources.
Which makes you wonder, rather than England propping up Scotland, is it actually Scotland propping up England? The biggest income generator in England is the City of London and that wealth is banking and stocks. And look what good the stock market does for the World…
Hahaha :) You have to admit, I'm not wrong ;)
Just the other day, a major Scottish company that had been bought by a foreign firm, moved the work to an English site and closed the Scottish site down. And it's not just the moving of assets. Many Scottish firms are owned by foreign entities and the profits of those firms are not filtered through Scotland, but through the nations where the parent company is registered. The only 'income' Scotland gets from that is the percentage of income tax allowed to it from the UK treasury and locally from employees spending in local shops and paying council tax. So you could argue that the only 'real' income is the council tax.
Take for instance Breedon Aggregates. It's one of the biggest aggregate suppliers in the UK and the majority of their quarries are in Scotland. The HQ is in Leicestershire, England, and it's stocks are listed in London- So all profit is basically filtered through London. Because of that, all the materials shipped abroad has their duty paid in England, even if the materials are produced and shipped from the island of Sky. And it's not just quarries, it's manufacturing firms with HQ's in England who's fabrication yards are in Scotland. And it's not just boring construction firms; Let's take Diageo, owners of Guinness and one of the biggest distillers in the world. Based in London, its stocks are traded in London (11.75 billion English pounds was its revenue last year-That's a lot of deep fat fried Mars bars) and that's where the profits are kept. Not Scotland, where it owns a considerable amount of distilleries.
If (And let's be honest, it's a very big 'if') Scotland became independent, then all those firms would have to split their firms into Scottish departments and filter their profits through Scotland and pay tax on those profits direct to the Scottish treasury. That, is a lot of money. And that is what people who argue that Scotland isn't financially viable don't understand. English firms make a lot of money out of Scotland. They do not want to see that cash cow removed and can you blame them?
A couple of points there:
- If Scotland got their divorce they would still be able to sell surplus electrons and Oxygen diHydride over the border. Your treatise tries to have it both ways there.
- 100 years after independence, the Irish armed forces are largely symbolic - in particular the Air Corps. The Naval Service started up in 1946.
Personally, I don't have a clue how viable a Scottish Free State would be. The chances are, we are going to find out within the next few years. Would this SFS (re)join the EU? That depends - Marine le Pen is anti-EU and has a fair chance of winning the next election, she could inflict major damage on the institution.
The simple fact is that no-ones knows. Lots of people have idea's as to how it will turn out, but they are just ideas. We live, as they say, in interesting times.
The EU is close to dissolving. It took on more responsibility than the original purpose (ease of trade) of the agreement. And unsurprisingly, populations are starting to push back. How much they push back is anyone's guess. No one expected the UK Brexit vote to go the way it went (myself included and I voted for exit) and that was a major shock to those in power. But it was supposed to be a one off and that the UK would quietly re-join in a few years' time with its tail between its legs. Yet reading the financial publications, the money markets are working on the assumption that Frexit, Spexit and Itexit are serious possibilities. The worry is that both Spain and Italy have large debt obligations to the EU and are in serious danger of defaulting and both have said they won't honour the debt if they leave. If (hypothetically) they leave and default, then the financial loss will not only completely sink the EU, but Germany in particular, as it has lent a substantial amount to those countries.
The EU could head off this catastrophe, if it makes some pretty serious changes to its structure, but it won't do so because the bureaucrats involved are not elected and they only care about their pay packet and their attitude is that when the house of cards collapses, they will have retired anyway and it will be someone else's problem.
To go back to itsmehonest's perfectly valid comment of "But is a fictional story on an erotic stories website the best place to find evidence for making international decisions?" No, I don't think it is, but what annoyed me most about the fictional interview of the story, was that the interview was based on, well I don't know what it was based on as it wasn't facts, was that the whole interview was based on flawed data, being made out to be fact. This raised my ire because it's a highly rated story and strongly likely to influence readers because they presume that GW Research had indeed done their research and the 'facts' that they were pushing were indeed facts. As I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, that isn't the case.
My understanding is that both the site and Lazeez are Canadian? But the readership is predominantly American. I read the 12th chapter and left with the impression that the writer had absolutely no idea about what they were writing about and I couldn't finish the rest of the chapter because, well, I just didn't think the story was any good, certainly not worth the high score it had been given. Sour grapes? Possibly. Myself and pretty much the rest of the World watched the American presidential campaign and subsequent election with stunned amazement at what a farce it was, and that's what it was, a farce. An admittedly scary farce, but farce non the less. This wasn't helped by the scenes following the result. The knowledge that this was caused more by the ignorance of the voting populace who were perfectly happy to avoid facts and believe the baseless tweets of one individual just beggared belief. I genuinely believe America doesn't realise how insane their actions looked to the rest of the world. This is why I took such umbrage to the 'interview' in the story. Those same individuals who believed so passionately about that man and his tweets, would probably believe with all their misplaced heart, that the interviewer was quoting correct data and form an opinion because of it.
Anyway, I'd better stop before Lazeez slaps my bum for breaking rules about politics in the forum…
I read the 12th chapter and left with the impression that the writer had absolutely no idea about what they were writing about
There's a much-vaunted story on SOL in which the protagonist drives from Paris to London via the Channel Tunnel and Prince Andrew is an astute business expert.
There's another much-vaunted story on SOL which assumes everyone with a title is a relative of Herr Maj.
And another much-vaunted story in which someone has a couple of degrees from Marlborough College.
Them colonialists don't got no clue ;-)
AJ
There's another much vaunted story on SOL which assumes everyone with a title is a relative of Herr Maj.
Go back far enough and that is true. Granted, at least 43 US Presidents (including Obama) are distant relatives of Her Maj.
Them colonialists don't got no clue ;-)
We most certainly do have a clue, we get it from Hasbro.
To go back to itsmehonest's perfectly valid comment of "But is a fictional story on an erotic stories website the best place to find evidence for making international decisions?" No, I don't think it is, but what annoyed me most about the fictional interview of the story, was that the interview was based on, well I don't know what it was based on as it wasn't facts, was that the whole interview was based on flawed data, being made out to be fact.
Why would you expect a fictional interview in a fictional story to only contain absolute facts?
the whole interview was based on flawed data, being made out to be fact.
Where in the fictional story does it claim that all the data used was thoroughly researched and found to be absolutely factual?
The worry is that both Spain and Italy have large debt obligations to the EU and are in serious danger of defaulting and both have said they won't honour the debt if they leave.
Those idiots speculating about this scenario don't have a clue. Where would they (Spain, Italy) find people to lend them more money after blatantly declaring they don't honour the dept?! They really need more loans to sustain their economy. Looking back over the last 70 years, I doubt Italy will be willing and able to reorganize its economy, so they will permanently need fresh money.
Spain may be another case, but if they leave the EU without honouring the dept? This may change how the norther EU members look at a secession of Catalonia. They wouldn't be legally bound anymore. (BTW, same for Scotland).
HM.
If France leaves the EU then Spain will have to follow.
The simple logistics of transporting goods between the remaining EU and Spain would make that certain.
As far as money, debt etc is under discussion, when was the last time the EU's annual accounts were signed off?
The answer is, never.
For example. In 2015 the amount not signed off by the Court of Auditors was "only" 4.7% of the budget. The problem is that 4.7% of the budget is 6.97 BILLION euros, in just ONE YEAR
Recovering the amount lost to fraud by the EU for the last 19 years would be nice, wouldn't it?
But it will never be recovered.
Not because it is impossible, but for two major reasons;
1. OLAF only investigates 2% of the fraud cases reported to it every year.
2. EU law gives EU officials immunity from prosecution both whilst they work in the EU and then for the rest of their lives for any acts committed in the course of their duties.
If those working for the EU had committed the atrocities of the Nazis, The Nuremberg Trials could never have happened. Isn't that a reassuring thought?
If those working for the EU had committed the atrocities of the Nazis, The Nuremberg Trials could never have happened. Isn't that a reassuring thought?
Garbage. You think the Nuremberg Trials were run by Germany?
You may also want to check out the rights conferred to Federal employees in the US.
Closer to home, think of Ballymurphy and - later - Bloody Sunday where the Paras got away with murder. The difference there is that their immunity was implicit and not actually covered by laws.
Some figures in France are very upset at the thought their campaign of torture and murder in Algeria may finally be acknowledged.
Closer to home, think of Ballymurphy and - later - Bloody Sunday where the Paras got away with murder. The difference there is that their immunity was implicit and not actually covered by laws.
Not so. Even today, spiv lawyers are 'investigating' 50 year old cases involving the British military in Northern Ireland.
On the other hand, the excremental Tony Blair sent illegal 'comfort letters' to IRA terrorists who actively targeted civilians, effectively granting them immunity from prosecution.
AJ
Garbage. You think the Nuremberg Trials were run by Germany?
Obviously there is a wide gap between what I wrote and what you think you read.
I stated that if the EU had committed the atrocities of the Nazis, The Nuremberg Trials could never have happened.
To explain that further for you;
At the Nuremberg Trials a number of Nazis were tried for the war crimes they committed.
If EU officials committed those exact same crimes whilst working for the EU, they couldn't be tried as they have blanket immunity for life.
Now do you understand what I wrote?
ps
The Paras didn't murder anyone. Despite the lies and obfuscation. Killing someone whilst returning fire isn't murder. Period.
At the Nuremberg Trials a number of Nazis were tried for the war crimes they committed.
If EU officials committed those exact same crimes whilst working for the EU, they couldn't be tried as they have blanket immunity for life.
They have blanket immunity for life from the EU.
What you haven't explained is why the International Criminal Court or some other Nuremberg style court would be bound to honor that immunity.
They have blanket immunity for life from the EU.
What you haven't explained is why the International Criminal Court or some other Nuremberg style court would be bound to honor that immunity.
I thought it was obvious.
Th point is that fraud with the EU amounted to 6.97 BILLION euros, in just ONE YEAR.
The organisation set up to combat fraud within the EU itself, OLAF, only investigates 2% of the fraud cases reported to it every year.
OLAF is the only body granted access to the EU accounts in detail and therefore in order to investigate, any outside organisation would be refused access. Therefore no other court, ICC or whoever could try a single case as there would not be enough evidence.
There is plenty of evidence to show that fraud exists, and has done for the last nineteen years, was isn't available is the evidence to show exactly who committed the numerous frauds. In one year alone over 1,200 individual cases were reported to OLAF by EU whistleblowers, yet 98% of those cases were not even investigated.
So the explanation is that simple. The immunity will last because those aware of it and protected by it will ensure nobody gains access to enough evidence for any outside body or court to even attempt to deal with it.
Obviously when the EU comes crashing down the immunity evaporates, but any attempt to gain justice would require the evidence to be accessible. What are the chances that those protected would ensure that evidence survives?
One of the first signs of any corrupt organisation self-destructing is the constant sound of paper shredders, incinerators and hard drive destruction.
If the EU does survive, then immunity is guaranteed. Simply because the people with immunity are those who would have to act to end that immunity.
I thought it was obvious.
No, it wasn't obvious.
For one thing, the bit about a Nuremberg court was in reference to you saying they could get away with the same kind of genocide/war crimes that the Nazis were tried for in Nuremberg, not the financial frauds.
Do you think that the kind of protection from beneficiaries you describe with the financial frauds would apply in the case of the kinds of crimes the Nazis were tried for at Nuremberg?
Personally, even if they tried, I don't think that the evidence of those kinds of crimes would be nearly as easy to get rid of and/or bury as the evidence of financial frauds.
Do you think that the kind of protection from beneficiaries you describe with the financial frauds would apply in the case of the kinds of crimes the Nazis were tried for at Nuremberg?
If it was immunity from fraud, no, of course not.
However, the fact is that it is blanket immunity. So yes it would apply.
Would such genocide/war crimes go unpunished? One would hope not. But the scale is a factor. Collectively getting away with massive fraud year on year, safe in the knowledge you have blanket immunity... How likely is it that fraud would, or indeed has already, led to other crimes? Power and money tend to make some people think they are above the law. Add in immunity...?
I don't think that the evidence of those kinds of crimes would be nearly as easy to get rid of and/or bury as the evidence of financial frauds.
I very much hope you are right. Such crimes were not the focus of my post, but given all the circumstances I think 'hope not' is more realistic than 'certainly not'.
Sad but true.
However, the fact is that it is blanket immunity. So yes it would apply.
The question you have to answer is how does that immunity apply at all if the prosecuting entity is not part of the EU and not operating under EU law.
As I understand it, if they were brought before the International Criminal Court, which operates under the auspices of the UN, the ICC would be under no obligation to recognize legal immunities granted by EU law.
As I understand it, if they were brought before the International Criminal Court, which operates under the auspices of the UN, the ICC would be under no obligation to recognize legal immunities granted by EU law.
True, but it would have to be a matter under a law the ICC has control over.
True, but it would have to be a matter under a law the ICC has control over.
And a matter over which the ICC has a will to prosecute. European public opinion seems to hold a huge influence.
AJ
The question you have to answer is how does that immunity apply at all if the prosecuting entity is not part of the EU and not operating under EU law.
Nope. I've already laid that out.
What you haven't explained is which prosecuting entity not a part of the EU has jurisdiction, not only to try the case, but to force the EU to produce the evidence. That being the paper and electronic data necessary to prove who did what and when.
Without the power to gain access to the evidence, any proposed trial is pointless.
Nope. I've already laid that out.
For the financial crimes, yes.
What you haven't explained is which prosecuting entity not a part of the EU has jurisdiction,
Yes I did.
You raised the claim that the immunity would apply against even the types of crimes for which the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg. In the case of those types of crimes, the International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction.
That being the paper and electronic data necessary to prove who did what and when.
Only really applies to the financial crimes. Against the Nazi type crimes most of it would be eye-witness testimony.
In the case of those types of crimes, the International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction.
The ICC relies on the support of the member states, whilst the countries that are members of the EU are members, the EU itself is not a signatory, so no such support could be requested or compelled. So jurisdiction is also questionable.
At the Nuremberg Trials a number of Nazis were tried for the war crimes they committed.
If EU officials committed those exact same crimes whilst working for the EU, they couldn't be tried as they have blanket immunity for life.
There is no such thing as blanket immunity for life.
The Powers That Be decide. The Nazis lost their power so they could be tried by the victors.
Immunity granted by any entity is only worth anything if this entity can enforce what they granted.
Even if they can enforce it within their borders, the culprit can be tried in absence and sentenced. Then they could be abducted and brought over the border.
There is at least one case in the last 20 years when exactly this happened between Germany and France and the French just ignored the German protests.
HM.
To explain that further for you;
At the Nuremberg Trials a number of Nazis were tried for the war crimes they committed.
My point - which obviously went over your head - was that the government they served (or were part of) was overthrown and they then went on trial. The Nazis could have granted them immunity for the whole thousand years they hoped to be in power, it was irrelevant.
As an aside, not submitting accounts may possibly be a lesser crime than mass murder, but your priorities may vary.
The Paras didn't murder anyone. Despite the lies and obfuscation. Killing someone whilst returning fire isn't murder. Period.
I don't know where you get your lies from, but that is what they are. Boris Johnson has spoken up in the last couple of days, admitting that those murdered at Ballymurphy were innocent.
As to Bloody Sunday, there have been two inquiries into the events that day. The first one followed instructions made by the then PM - Edward Heath - to absolve the Paras of guilt, the second one found that
all of those shot were unarmed, that none were posing a serious threat, that no bombs were thrown and that soldiers "knowingly put forward false accounts" to justify their firing.
The apology in that case came from David Cameron.
Bloody Sunday acted as a recruiting call for the Provos, it led directly to the atrocities perpetrated by the Provos on the mainland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Troubles details some of the events, although it misses some important events.
If those working for the EU had committed the atrocities of the Nazis, The Nuremberg Trials could never have happened.
I'm not sure that's true. The EU might have granted its officials immunity from prosecution, but surely that carries no weight when it comes to war crimes? The International Criminal Court in The Hague prosecutes war crimes and is not beholden to the EU.
Besides, in some EU countries (eg France), having a criminal conviction is a prerequisite for office ;-)
AJ
Personally, I don't have a clue how viable a Scottish Free State would be.
Based on arguments I've read pro and anti, I think an independent Scotland could survive but it would be extremely painful for the people, having to transition from one of the richest countries in Europe to one of the poorest.
Would this SFS (re)join the EU?
That's the avowed intention of the Scottish Nationalists - the UK's departure from the EU brought the nationalists a lot of support. However the EU rules mandate a five year wait and then the economy has to be closely aligned to the rest of the EU. But given the acquisitiveness of the EU, I'm sure some fudging would be forthcoming, as with Greece for example.
AJ
That's the avowed intention of the Scottish Nationalists - the UK's departure from the EU brought the nationalists a lot of support. However the EU rules mandate a five year wait and then the economy has to be closely aligned to the rest of the EU. But given the acquisitiveness of the EU, I'm sure some fudging would be forthcoming, as with Greece for example.
In addition to the 5 year wait, there would be the barrier of getting all Member States to agree, and accepting the Euro, and a hard border with England. SNP is leading their followers down a road paved with emotion, to a miserable goal.
I've since read an opinion piece claiming that the EU would actually try to discourage an independent Scotland because the Spanish wouldn't want the Catalans to get any encouragement. And if secession became a realistic possibility, Italy's industrial North would also be encouraged to part company with its largely agricultural South.
At least the UK condoned the first Scottish IndyRef. No government thugs attacking beating up little old ladies trying to vote.
AJ
- If Scotland got their divorce they would still be able to sell surplus electrons and Oxygen diHydride over the border. Your treatise tries to have it both ways there.
But would they want to?
What is Scotland getting for those transfers now? What would an independent Scotland be able to charge?
