Why I probably would not sign the latest Declaration of Independence 10/10/2019
At long last, with more pressure being put on Nicola Sturgeon to finally give an announcement on when the next Scottish Independence Referendum will actually take place ahead of the latest SNP Autumn Conference due to take place in Aberdeen between 13th and 15th October 2019, leading figures of the Scottish entertainment industry and historians have written up a new, albeit unofficial, constitution that will help to set out the principles of an Independent Scotland.
The written constitution goes as follows:
The Declaration of Independence Full Document
It is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs (A Claim of Right for Scotland, 1989)
Guiding principles for a new and better Scotland
• It is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, now and in the future. In all political deliberations, decisions and actions their interests should be paramount.
• Scotland should be an open and democratic society in which no individual is excluded, oppressed or discriminated against on account of their race, colour, faith, origin or place of birth, physical or mental capacity, sex, sexuality, gender or language.
• Scotland should have a written constitution which clearly lays out the rights of its citizens, the country’s system of government and the relationships that exist between government, its instruments and powers and the rights of individual citizens.
• Scotland should take its place as an independent country on the world stage, free to join international organisations and alliances for purposes of trade and commerce, and for the protection and care of the planet’s natural environment, without which the human race cannot survive.
• Scotland should uphold internationally acknowledged values of non-aggression and self-defence, and should refuse to maintain, stock or use, for itself or on behalf of any other power or government, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction.
• There should be clear separation of the powers of the Scottish parliament and government (the executive). The judiciary should be completely independent of government.
• Independence will provide an opportunity to review and, where necessary, change the systems of both national and local government, in order to make them more accountable to the people and more beneficial to their needs.
• Ownership of land, property and natural resources should be subject to open and democratic scrutiny. The ability of communities, both rural and urban, to own the land in and on which they exist should be enhanced and extended. There should be total transparency in the way property in Scotland is bought, sold or possessed.
• Freedom of speech and action, and the freedom to work, create, buy, sell and do business should adhere to principles of environmental and communal sustainability and responsibility. Profit and economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of the wellbeing of the people or their habitat or that of other people or nations.
• We affirm the values of care, kindness, neighbourliness and generosity of spirit in all our dealings. Such values are the foundation stones of a fair, free and open society where all citizens have the opportunities to lead the best, most fulfilling lives they can.
• It is our belief that the best option now open to the Scottish people is for Scotland to become an independent country.
• The alternative is to accept that Scotland’s fate would remain in the hands of others and that the Scottish people would relinquish their right to decide their own destiny.
When looking at the constitution itself, it seems like the perfect written set of values for a new independent country but you probably might have spotted a few sections that might make you question whether the citizens are getting any rights at all or not. Let's delve in to some of these questionable points:
"Scotland should be an open and democratic society in which no individual is excluded, oppressed or discriminated against on account of their race, colour, faith, origin or place of birth, physical or mental capacity, sex, sexuality, gender or language."
The words 'open' and 'democratic' look very appealing along with the non-aggression and anti-discrimination principles until the term 'place of birth' comes up. Now, I am not against anyone who was born outside of Scotland at all, as far as I am concerned they are free to visit this beautiful nation anytime they want to and yes, I am aware of people of various nationalities residing here in Scotland that might potentially qualify for citizenship after staying here so many years so good on youse, but the points of citizenship (in other words, being born in this nation no matter what your colour of skin, disability and gender is) are not made very clear in this written constitution. I, and quite rightly many people, believe and should believe that if you as a person are born in Scotland, excluding backgrounds of every kind (including white), then therefore you are a citizen of this country, end of story. But the term 'place of birth' as far as I can tell is being used to promote the agenda of extreme open borders (part of the 'free movement' that will be provided as long as it is the boundaries of a one world government) that would end the idea of a nation state and also push other culturally-marxist social justice agendas (think of how Jussie Smollett committed his fake hate crime act in Chicago and apply a different name with different or same skin colour, along with other backgrounds, to many other things to try and throw a political axe at anyone you disagree with even in debates such as this one) that would likely result in the death of free speech as a result. Let's take a look at the respected 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution:
"Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
This amendment ends racism because it officially recognizes and respects the individual that is born in the United States (the mentioned country) alone, regardless of any background. If you are born abroad but wish to reside here in Scotland, there are legal rules you have to follow like the rest of us before becoming a Scottish Citizen.
Moving on to Free Speech itself, hence this part of the written up constitution:
"Freedom of speech and action, and the freedom to work, create, buy, sell and do business should adhere to principles of environmental and communal sustainability and responsibility. Profit and economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of the wellbeing of the people or their habitat or that of other people or nations."
Freedom of speech and the actions surrounding what you say are important to you as an individual but as far as this quote is concerned, the 'communal' aspect (in other words, group, as in group-think) is far more important than only your right to say whatever you want (as long as you don't directly encourage violence) without that right being infringed by anyone. So if you say literally anything at all (e.g. challenging the gender wage gap, minimum wage, the LGBT 'Agenda', children being taught transgenderism, gender-neutral prisons & toilets, redistribution of wealth, mass migration, wars abroad, gun control, the European Union, anti-terrorism laws, 9/11 official narrative, sex education in schools, Israel and Palestine, intrusion of privacy, biased courts, 'CO2-Caused Climate Change', certain media outlets, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, etc) that goes against the narrative of the Community (hence the word 'communal' is linked to that and in turn to Communism), you will be subject to sanctions of every kind because of the outrage you generate and the constitution would then be used as an excuse by the mob to punish you. There is a clear difference between a 'communal' community and Communitarianism which is a philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. Its overriding philosophy is based upon the belief that a person's social identity and personality are largely molded by community relationships, with a smaller degree of development being placed on individualism. So even much of the community doesn't agree with what you say, you still are respected as an individual among the community. Then I get drawn to the part where it talks about profit and growth not being done at the bad expense of the people not just here but in other nations. So be prepared at that point for many companies (including Amazon and Nike) to be banned from operating in Scotland if the community and/or government perceives them to be exploiting people for profit and growth. This potentially might include an otherwise genuine good company that does not want to go along with the economically bad minimum wage cycle and ends up offending people.
Then moving on to where it seems the communist part of the constitution really reveals itself:
"Ownership of land, property and natural resources should be subject to open and democratic scrutiny. The ability of communities, both rural and urban, to own the land in and on which they exist should be enhanced and extended. There should be total transparency in the way property in Scotland is bought, sold or possessed."
Notice that the above does not state 'some property'. No, it means ALL property including your house, land, farm, boat, aircraft, caravan, etc has to redistributed to everyone in Scotland to the point where perhaps there might not be any homes left to live in at all. Potentially, this would mean land in the countryside having to be cleared under the disguise of 'we have to save our natural resources' (all part of UN Agendas 21 and 2030). So not exactly a good method of giving property back to the people.
So overall, even if the constitution talks about an independent Scotland being able to function on it's own with the citizens in charge, it's clear that people might not become as free as they think they will with this particular constitution.
Onward with a great new one!
Saor Alba!