Who can ever forget that final iconic scene in such an inspirational film? Did you know that in the presently on-location remake that William Wallace eschews the atavistic bonds of blood and fellowship? According to a leaked script, Mr. Wallace instead fights and dies for the right of African pansexuals to become viable Scottish consumers. The scene above culminating in a final heart-rending gasp of…ECONOMY! It’s art that enlivens the soul. How many young lads will leave theaters wondering…hoping that they too could summon the courage to perish for the quarterly revenues of a multinational corporation? Or at the very least a clutch of Somali transvestites.
But before that reaches the cineplex, Wallace’s posterity have quite a decision on independence before them. From what I have read, it appears to be one of either remaining on the British Titanic or diving straight into the North Atlantic without further ado. Though before arriving at that analysis, I’ll say that as a general rule we should support devolution of power over concentration in it. The latter having been the enabling means for so much of our disintegration. I think we can point to the formal, due process revocation of the 10th Amendment as a primary catalyst in creating the hopelessly unresponsive Washington citadel that only a power worshiper could ever love. The closer decisions are made to those who will feel the results, the better.
And there are a couple of other reasons to support Scottish independence. One for the halo effect of putting the concept into public consciousness. People should begin to consider the merits of their own sovereignty. They should begin to think about questions of nation and state. Precedents are valuable in forming narratives. And God knows how susceptible human beings are to those. Also, it would likely obliterate Labour in the British residual polity while also resulting in moon-faced Cameron’s summary defenestration. And those are two heady positives. This would slam the entire political center rightward and possibly provide an opportunity for the English to survive. A possibility the left would loathe.
Though what’s the prognosis for a post-independence Scotland? Fairly abysmal by our lights. Linked is a very lengthy white paper touting the benefits of independence. The nationalists want to embrace the EU and join NATO–apparently there being some disagreement on whether to become a vassal of Washington or Brussels. Correct answer: both!
But more importantly, to review the section on immigration–like The Clash, it’s the only stand that matters. Some quotes from Chapter seven: justice, security, and home affairs.
* With decisions on immigration taken in Scotland, we can adopt an approach that works better for Scotland’s economy and society.
* It is difficult to conceive of a Scottish government that would ever adopt the crude “go home” approach(!!) of the current Westminster government.
* Westminster has adopted an aggressive approach to immigration, asylum seekers, and refugees(Pluto).
* Healthy population growth is important for Scotland’s (wait for it) ECONOMY.
* In the future, our economic strategy will do more to attract people to come live in Scotland. (What say you just make it an attractive place for the Scots?)
* Scotland has a clear economic rationale for growing our population.
It goes on with the typical boilerplate litany of growing the magnificent ECONOMY through importation of alien public charges. Charges who, Scots are assured, will become wealth producing dynamos with that first breath of crisp highlands air. And who will further labor until limbs crack to subsidize the dotage of resented Scottish natives and never even think of casting aside this burden at first opportunity. Absolutely not. They are coming to Scotland to serve us. Yes, to serve the Scots.
But that’s not the most gratifying aspect. Whether independent or not, Scotland will also have heart–along with other active body parts. Scotland vows to offer asylum to Ugandans persecuted by country’s new ‘oppressive’ anti-gay laws.
Scotland has vowed to offer asylum to gay Ugandans facing life-imprisonment under the country’s new oppressive set of laws.
Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s Minister for External Affairs, announced the plan in an open letter to UK Foreign Secretary William Hague – urging him to follow suit. It comes just weeks before he is due to meet senior members of the Ugandan government at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this summer.
The anti-homosexuality legislation was enacted earlier this week, strengthening the country’s already strict laws relating to gay people. President Museveni also ordered one of the country’s newspapers to publish a list of the so-called top 200 homosexuals, including some that had not identified themselves as gay. Currently, international treaties say people must prove they have a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution for reasons of race, religion, ethnicity or political opinion if they are to obtain asylum.
Urging Mr Hague to challenge the Commonwealth nation, Mr Yousaf wrote: ‘Scotland will play her part in providing asylum for those seeking refuge from this draconian legislation.’
Today he added: ‘The Scottish Government is deeply concerned the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda has been signed into law. ‘This is a huge step back for equality and I have written to the UK Government asking them to make the strongest possible representations to the government of Uganda.
Alright. So Scotland’s Minister of External Affairs is named Humza Yousaf. He is deeply concerned about the internal affairs of a small destitute African country 4,000 miles away. And is going to thus fling open “his” country’s doors to accommodate those Ugandans feeling put upon. And since Israel has been quite industrious in expelling its African infiltrators, perhaps at least the homosexual cohort can find their way to an independent Scotland.
Is that a rhubarb under that kilt, or is your economy just happy to see us?