UK politics - continuing into 2021

Its me putting words into the mouths of the opinion havers in the recent links. The establishment talking to itself.

I'm not making a factual claim, I'm making an interpretation of the motives at work here. Its up to the reader to decide if I'm talking bollocks or not. Obvs I think I'm bang on.

Edit: I'm also saying that I don't think they're interested in the issue, I think they're only interested in how the issue can be used (re: campaigning). They are not even writing to engage with me, they're writing for an English audience, (hence the emotive word choices) so I commented on this. I chose to describe it as frustrated and twisted desire for the lols.

 

Let us take a moment to notice how for the past several years Unionist campaigning has followed the line of ‘it's bad to leave’ rather than ‘it's good to stay’.

 

Considerating the motives for reporting on the background of the failed prosecution of Alexander Salmond
or the Telegraph being othewise critical of public bodies; does not diminish the fact that an apparent campaign
led by the second 'first minister' of Scotland to imprison the first 'first minister' is inherently newsworthy.

 

Likewise, there is a plethora of newsworthy topics at any one time, so the decision of what to cover vs. what not to cover is also worthy of analysis and criticism.

 

Yes; by all means let this thread include a discussion of what is covered and what is not covered by the media.

But that is a topic in itself and should be approached as that.

Whereas it seem to have come up most recently as a shoot the messenger
or whataboutism, distraction from a real issue with the law and SNP leadership.

 

Setting Scotland aside for a moment, to revert to another topic:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/26/uk-top-court-says-shemima-begum-cannot-return-to-britain

I am bound to say I was surprised to read this. However it is not necessarily the end of the story.

 

I am also surprised by this, and wonder where this president will lead, considering:

• She was a minor (15) when the offence was committed
• She has been made stateless (Bangladesh says "no question of [Begum] being a Bangladeshi citizen as she never visited the country")
• There is no accusation she engaged in any violent acts
• The biggest argument is effectively "thought crime": UK government argued that those who aligned with ISIL posed a serious risk to national security

Is there any other belief that can get you in so much trouble?

 

I disagree, considering the entire mess with SNP leadership is being capitalised on by the Conversatives and Unionists in general alike. Plenty of whataboutism to go around, in this case.

 

It's Article 15 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

UK argument as I understand it is that she is still entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship.
Bangladesh points out that she has never even been to the country.

 

I suppose the judge was just making use of the anti-terror laws?
Therein lies your problem. The sovereign british parliament legislated this into existence.

 

The problem in Scotland is that there is no opposition to call them to account.

On citizenship, it is illegal to strip someone of their only citizenship. Bangladeshi law asserts her automatic citizenship and she burnt her UK passport. There is some debate and some nuance. And some accusations so criminal wrongdoing.

 

Well there is the viewpoint that by burning her UK passport she
renounced her British citizenship in favour of that of Islamic State.

 

I don't think that is a legal argument.
Maybe the intention here is to dissuade more UK citizens from joining Isis. As usual, what happens to a single person doesn't matter.

 

An action she took after her majority.

And the argument that since she had an automatic Bangladeshi passport her renouncement of her UK passport made her nationality revert from IS to Bangladeshi with the collapse of the calaphate. The reality is she is a evil witch no-one wants to be there problem. If the Kurd’s will keep ker locked up for £17 a week, well, she brought it on herself.

 

It is a perfectly valid legal argument.

The counter to that would be to argue that she was a child at the time and therefore lacked
the necessary legal status to renounce her British nationality by joining ISIS.

To maintain her exclusion, the UK government will likely need to prove in court
that her actions since turning eighteen (the UK age for adulthood) demonstrated
an unequivocal confirmatory follow through to her childhood denunciation.

I expect the UK government will fail on the details of doing this and that her
lawyers will, acting in her absence, win the legal case for restoring her
status as a British national, and thereby facilitate her return to the UK.

 

In which case the question is can the UK government prove that she freely chose to burn her UK passport once eighteen.

Her lawyers may argue she burnt it under duress from her husband/ISIS.

 

Actually was she 18 or just over 16?

 

I suppose I will have to wait until the UK Supreme Court publish their ruling.

I am bound to say that this business of British nationals joining foreign
armies that go to war with us does tend to bring out my inner fascist.

Fly them back for free, when they step off the plane, the SAS can shoot them.